African Union peacekeeping is growing as UN missions decline: research finds a mixed record of success

- Source:

When violent conflict erupts in Africa, attention often turns to the United Nations, major powers, or external donors. Yet over the past two decades, the African Union (AU) has become one of the continent's most important peace and security actors.

From Burundi and Sudan to Somalia, Mali and the Central African Republic, the AU and regional African organisations have deployed peace operations, mediated conflicts, monitored elections and supported political transitions.

These interventions reflect a broader ambition that Africans should play a leading role in addressing Africa's peace and security challenges.

Despite the growing importance of these interventions, surprisingly little effort has been made to assess what's been learned from the expanding research scholarship on them.

We are researchers interested in AU peace and security interventions. In a recent scoping review of 186 peer-reviewed articles published between 2000 and 2026, we examined four major themes in the literature:

• AU approaches to peace and security intervention

• legitimacy of AU interventions, particularly among local populations

• effectiveness of AU intervention in achieving long term peace and security

• ownership of AU intervention both at the institutional level and among local populations.

We conclude from the review that debates about AU interventions are often framed too narrowly. Some accounts celebrate African agency and present AU interventions as a clear alternative to external intervention. Others emphasise dependence, limited capacity and operational failures.

The evidence suggests the reality is more complex. AU peace and security interventions are neither clear success stories nor simple cases of dependence on external support. Instead, they show how African actors are increasingly shaping responses to conflict while working with international partners.

The findings reveal both the promise and the limitations of AU peace and security interventions.

From non-intervention to non-indifference

The AU emerged in 2002 from the former Organisation of African Unity (OAU), an institution often criticised for reluctance to interfere in atrocities and armed conflicts.

The new AU argued that sovereignty came with responsibility. Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act gives it the right to intervene in member states in cases of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity.

The result has been far more intervention than before. Over the past two decades, the AU and regional bodies have deployed at least 28 missions to help manage conflicts, support peace processes and improve security.

Legitimacy

The papers we analysed showed that many people regard AU interventions as legitimate because they are “African solutions to African problems”. It reflects a belief that Africans are responsible for managing the continent's security challenges.

This legitimacy is not merely symbolic. Research suggests that African mediators and peace operations often benefit from being closer to the situation than external actors are.

In some contexts, Research shows that shared experiences can make local actors more willing to engage with African-led initiatives.

Effectiveness

The reviewed evidence shows that AU interventions have become more important because they provide practical responses to the continent's security challenges.

Our research shows that, at a time when UN peace operations are declining and international attention is shifting elsewhere, African organisations are often the first responders to emerging crises.

AU missions have gone where external actors were reluctant to intervene because conflicts were still active. Examples include Somalia and Sudan.

In many cases, the literature suggests, conditions on the ground would likely have been worse without AU involvement. In Comoros in 2008 and Burundi in 2003, for example, AU intervention helped contain instability and support political stabilisation at critical moments.

Ownership

One of the most striking findings we made is that the AU has developed a different approach to intervention from the United Nations.

AU interventions are often defined less by peacekeeping principles – consent, impartiality and the limited use of force – and more by their practical function: creating conditions in which peace can emerge.

The African Union Mission in Somalia became the clearest example of this approach. Rather than monitoring an existing peace agreement, it conducted operations against insurgents while supporting state-building efforts.

The challenge of dependency

The literature also identified challenges.

The most persistent concern is external financial dependence. Although interventions are frequently presented as African-led, many rely heavily on funding from partners such as the European Union and the United Nations. Critics argue that financial dependence limits the AU's ability to decide on its peace and security priorities.

Some scholars have asked whether interventions can truly be considered “African solutions” when they depend on external resources.

At the same time, more recent research offers a more nuanced picture. Rather than seeing African actors as passive recipients of external support, it shows how they often negotiate, adapt and use external resources to advance their own priorities.

Agency and dependence, in other words, can coexist.

Legitimacy depends on more than good intentions

Another major finding concerns legitimacy.

The AU is often expected to solve difficult security crises. Yet a number of factors get in its way. Our review identified a few:

• lack of the resources required to meet peace and security expectations

• weak coordination with sub-regional organisations

• inconsistent implementation of norms, particularly those relating to military coups and unconstitutional changes of government

• uneven political support for intervention.

Scholars are also asking not just whether interventions are authorised by governments or international institutions, but whether the people most affected by them see them as legitimate.

The findings of this research suggest that local populations often evaluate interventions based on tangible outcomes: security, stability and everyday experiences, rather than legal mandates or diplomatic rhetoric.

Beyond the debate between success and failure

As insecurity persists across parts of Africa and UN peace operations continue to decline, a hybrid model is likely to become even more important. The challenge for the AU is not simply to intervene more. It is to strengthen local ownership, reduce financial vulnerabilities, improve coordination and produce effective and legitimate outcomes.

Beatrice Anowah Brew, an independent researcher and peacebuilding practitioner, is a co-author of this article.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

By Richard Fosu, Lecturer in International Relations, Monash University And

Ayotunde Giwa, PhD Candidate, Political Science, Northern Arizona University And

Christopher Amrobo Enemuwe, PhD student, Idaho State University