COTE D’IVOIRE: RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, ELECTORAL VIOLENCE AND THE 2010 CRYSIS

Abstract

The Responsibility to Protect (RtoP) is a highly contested doctrine when authorized or not. Yet, the need to safeguard civilian populations from mass atrocity remains urgent with Cote d’Ivoire’s post-election violence being instructive. Numerous studies have interrogated the nature of the conflict and subsequent interventions in Cote d’Ivoire, yet only a few seem to focus on the intervention process, outcome and implications for future application of the RtoP. This highlights need for deeper interrogation of the issues emerging from United Nations Security Council’s execution of Resolution 1975 in Cote d’Ivoire and the wider implications for the doctrine. While the Ivorian crisis meets the just cause criteria for RtoP authorizing, its execution in the Cote d’Ivoire exposed some challenges for the emerging doctrine. Challenges encompassing conceptual ambiguity, institutional issues and operational lapses leading to mass violation of rights of the civilian population by intervention forces, and the delegitimizing question of regime change. Future application of the RtoP must be context-specific accounting for the peculiarities of the environment where it is authorized; ensure effective monitoring and evaluation of the process and the actors involved; review of the thresholds for armed interventions; must engage local populations in the peace process and; must be backed by political will of both international and regional actors