Since its establishment, the African Union (AU) has assumed an important role in matters of peace and security on the continent. This doctoral dissertation is dedicated to its conflict and crisis interventions and seeks to identify as well as subsequently explain the broader patterns that have emerged. The dissertation posits that neither the AU's regime-serving roots, which emphasize the primacy of incumbents' parochial interests, nor the AU's problem-solving commitment, which emphasizes the pursuit of its declared organizational mission, can convincingly explain these patterns on their own. Instead, we should understand the AU as being driven by two different logics of cooperation at the same time: a problem-solving and a regime-serving logic. Across its three constitutive articles, the dissertation makes empirical as well as theoretical contributions to the existing literature. Empirically, it offers a broad and systematic analysis of AU interventions over time, across different intervention types, and without bias towards high-profile cases. The novel dataset, on which the dissertation builds, constitutes the hitherto most comprehensive effort to capture the AU's responses to crises and conflicts. Theoretically, the dissertation develops a set of testable theory-driven expectations based on the notion of two different logics of cooperation. While identifiable in the literature on the AU and linking to broader existing debates on international cooperation, the dissertation breaks ground by clearly outlining the implications of each logic and bringing them together under a single theoretical framework. Jointly, the articles provided strong evidence that the AU is indeed driven by both a problem-solving and a regime-serving logic of cooperation, and that this serves as the foundation for explaining the AU's broader intervention patterns. This contributes not only to a better understanding of AU interventions but also has a chance to enrich other important debates, including the debates on African regionalism, comparative regionalism, and multilateral interventions.
As human rights evolved to become part of a dominant moral discourse in world politics, regional organisations (ROs) often portray themselves in the language of human rights. Facing growing contestation and politicisation, they have also gradually begun to legitimate their authority drawing on human rights. Yet not all ROs do so to the same extent, in the same manner, or consistently over time. This begs the question: why and how do ROs use human rights for self-legitimation? To answers this research question, I combine a macro analysis using qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) on 23 ROs from 1980 to 2019 with a micro analysis via process-tracing in two cases - Arab League (LoAS) and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM). Ultimately, ROs use human rights in their legitimation because they strive for congruence. When norms, values, and moral principles purported and embodied by the RO are congruent with those of its core constituency and all relevant audiences, The researcher observes human rights legitimation. She argues that the degree of congruence combines with different degrees of delegitimation stemming from the distinct constellation of agents and audiences of legitimation. Shee circumscribes this via four types of human rights legitimisers. Testing existing theories on legitimacy, legitimation, and human rights, the QCA suggests that "Self-containing Legitimisers" are ROs with a status quo of congruence between the RO and its core constituency. "Signalling Legitimisers" irregularly use human rights legitimation as a signal to respond to additional audiences. Thanks to the case studies, the author further refines existing theory. CARICOM constitutes a case of a "Reviving Legitimisers" where delegitimation towards their core constituency occurs to which it reacts by reviving what it embodies which entails including human rights in its legitimation. With LoAS, the author observes a "Brokering Legitimisers" in which case delegitimation is on the verge of a legitimacy crisis, but its Secretary General manages to broker human rights to two diverging audiences thanks to localisation. Thus, this book provides an explanation of how a distinct norm is used in self-legitimation, nuances our understanding of agents and audiences of legitimation, and introduces the concept of localisation to the study of legitimation.