Rapport de la Conference Dynamique de prise de Decisions en Afrique

The report investigates how positions are formulated within the African Union (AU) and Regional Economic Communities (RECs), highlighting the tension between intergovernmentalism and supranationalism. It uses the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations as a case study to show how national interests and regional rivalries—such as those between Ethiopia and Sudan—undermine a unified African voice. The document also critiques the EU's approach to Africa, particularly the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), arguing that the EU often ignores the complexity of African regional dynamics. Finally, it assesses peace and security architectures in Southern Africa (SADC) and the Horn of Africa (IGAD), noting that external financial incentives often drive missions that lack a solid local mandate.

• The African Union (AU) is structured as an intergovernmental organization designed to protect state sovereignty, lacking a supranational decision-making authority comparable to the European Union. Its Commission primarily serves as a secretariat, and policy instruments reflect the national interests of the states they represent.
• Developing a sustainable common African position is hindered by the fact that such positions are not legally binding, meaning individual states can change their stance over time, which impacts the overall collective position.
• The 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations revealed that national and regional conflicts can derail continental unity. Specifically, the disagreement between Ethiopia and Sudan was influenced by disputes over the Nile Basin, the independence of South Sudan, and personal conflicts between leaders.
• The European Union's Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) are viewed as controversial because the EU negotiated with regions separately, potentially employing a 'divide and rule' strategy and ignoring the internal structures and multi-membership of African states.
• Regional Economic Communities (RECs) suffer from 'bureaucratic capture,' where secretariats pursue their own agendas rather than remaining neutral, and they are overly dependent on external funding for strategic issues like security.
• Peacekeeping missions in Somalia, led by the AU and IGAD, are criticized for having weak mandates and being driven by political and financial promises from external actors like the United States, rather than a realistic understanding of the local crisis.
• The report suggests the creation of an informal 'African G' (such as a G5 or G7)—a flexible group of influential states—to more effectively build consensus and drive a common African agenda outside the rigid constraints of existing institutions.

APA

Hoste, J.-C., & Anderson, A. (2011). Rapport de la Conference Dynamique de prise de Decisions en Afrique. Institute for Security Studies. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/DynamicsDecisionAfricaF.pdf

Chicago

Hoste, Jean-Christophe, and Andrew Anderson. Rapport de la Conference Dynamique de prise de Decisions en Afrique. Institute for Security Studies, 2011. https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/DynamicsDecisionAfricaF.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Hoste |first1=Jean-Christophe |last2=Anderson |first2=Andrew |title=Rapport de la Conference Dynamique de prise de Decisions en Afrique |publisher=Institute for Security Studies |date=2011 |url=https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/DynamicsDecisionAfricaF.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{hoste2011rapport, author = {Hoste, Jean-Christophe and Anderson, Andrew}, title = {{Rapport de la Conference Dynamique de prise de Decisions en Afrique}}, institution = {Institute for Security Studies}, year = {2011}, url = {https://issafrica.s3.amazonaws.com/site/uploads/DynamicsDecisionAfricaF.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }