Procedural justice and global order: Explaining African reaction to the application of global protection norms

Abstract

Persistent tensions between the international norm of state sovereignty and emerging human rights norms, including the Responsibility to Protect and the protection of civilians during international peacekeeping, raise the question of when and under what circumstances local and regional actors are more likely to respect global norms. These tensions are particularly stark in Africa. On the one hand, African states and regional organizations were among the first proponents of liberal protection norms in the non-Western world. On the other hand, many African leaders view state sovereignty as indispensable. Building on established empirical justice research in neighboring fields, this article makes an important contribution to the literature by demonstrating that African states are more likely to accept interventionist human rights norms when standards of procedural justice have been observed. The article demonstrates the relevance of procedural justice by examining the puzzle of divergent African reactions to two similar instances of regime change in Libya and the Ivory Coast that were enforced by extra-continental actors in the name of global protection norms.