Book Chapter
Reference
The African Economic Community
MBENGUE, Makane Moïse
MBENGUE, Makane Moïse. The African Economic Community. In: Ouguergouz, F. & Yusuf, A.
The African Union: Legal and Institutional Framework. A Manual on the Pan-African Organization. Leiden : Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012. p. 187-202
Available at:
http://archive-ouverte.unige.ch/unige:56185
Disclaimer: layout of this document may differ from the published version.
1 / 1
Makane Moïse Mbenge and Ousseni Illy
1. Introduction
Africa was the first continent to create, in 1991, an economic comrnunity (hereinafter AEC) bringing all its States together.
According to A. Mahiou,
"Although it was the last to emerge on the international scene, it is through a remarkable paradox that the young States of a 'new' continent defied a challenge that the older nations of other continents did not take up."1
The AEC was bom out of the pan-Africanist ideal, first shared by the national liberation movements during the colonial era, then by the young independent African States. However, the tenor of this ideal varies from one State to another or from one era to another. For some, pan-Africanism connotes the need for immediate political unity of Africa, while for others it simply denotes solidarity among sovereign States, while for yet others, it is a long-term and phased project for uniting African States.2
Mahiou A., « La Communauté économique africaine », Annuaire Africain de Droit International l (1993) p. 798. In this regard, the African venture differs, for example from the European experience. Europe adopted an approach which relied on a nucleus, extending gradually to include new States. It started in 1957 with Europe of the six countries, and has grown today into Europe of the 27.
Such a project does not exist in Asia and America either, apart from the Free Trade Area of the Americas idea floated by the United States since 1990, which seems to be stalling since 2003.
2 Ibid., p. 799.
A.A. Yusuf & F. Ouguergouz (eds.), The African Union: Legat and Jnstitutional Framework. A Manual on the Pan-1L?:!_caC Organization, 187-202.
The most fervent proponent of immediate "pan-Africanist federation" was the first Ghanaian Head of State, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, who at the time of the creation of the Organisation of African· Unity (OAU) in 1963, made a case for a United States of Africa. Based on the realisation of the economic, political and diplomatie weakness of the newly-independent States, he felt the urgent need to achieve political unity, as this was a necessary precondition to advancement on the continent. He therefore rejected the stage by stage and sector by sector approach, by immediately proposing a federal form of organisation, with a common African government, parliament, defence, diplomacy, citizenship, bank and currency. 3
This maximalist venture, supported by very few African States at the Addis Ababa Conference which saw the birth of the OAU, was considered not only too ambitious but also dangerous by others who preferred limiting themselves to a conventional intergovemmental organisation for cooperation. The latter group thus had no difficulty in defeating it and creating an OAU for cooperation rather than an OAU for integration as envisioned by Kwame Nkrumah.4
However, thirty years on, the tables seem to have turned somewhat in favour of the proponents of federalism. Faced with a continent whose economic situation is not improving since its political liberation, and in a global political context marked by dwindling public aid to development and the failure of a more just and balanced
"New International Economie Order," African States decided in Abuja, Nigeria to create the Africa Economie Community on 3 June 1991. This was admittedly an over-ambitious project intended to merge ail economic dimensions of the continent into an Economie Union, in the hope of finally ensuring an improvement in Africa's situation in the world.5
3 Nkrumah K., Africa Must Unite, Panaf, 1963.
4 Mahiou A., «La Communauté économique africaine», op. cil., p. 799.
Articles 4 and 6 of the Treaty establishing the AEC; also Bedjaoui M.,
«Le projet de création d'une communauté économique africaine: problèmes institutionnels et juridiques», Revue Algérienne des relations internationales, 3ème trimestre, 1986, pp. 35 et ss.
The AEC was bom out of a long process which began with the Monrovia Symposium of 1979. This Symposium which was held in Liberia in F ebruary 1979 was the outcome of several meetings of African leaders on the issue of the economic independence of Africa.
During those various meetings, there was the painful realisation that if Africa wanted to lift itself out of underdevelopment, it could only count on itself. One of the meetings was the Eleventh Extraordinary Session of the OAU Council of Ministers, held in Kinshasa, in the Democratic Republic of Congo (ex Zaïre) in December 1976.
This session resulted in the adoption of the "Kinshasa Declaration"
which proclaimed the permanent sovereignty of African States over African natural resources and called for the establishment of an African Common Market, an African Energy Commission and an African Economie Community. In the same vein, the Fourth Conference of Ministers of the Economie Commission for Africa, held in Kinshasa in February 1977, adopted The Revised Master Plan for a New International Economie Order in Africa.6 This fourth Conference further elaborated on the concept of individual and collective autonomy of Africa. Finally, the OAU Summit Meeting held in Libreville Gabon in July 1977 approved the recommendations in the
"Kinshasa Declaration" and The Revised Master Plan.
In anticipation of disengaging from the old order and taking control of the development of Africa, African leaders, at the request of the Secretary General of the OAU, met in Monrovia in February 1979 in a symposium whose purpose was to outline the foundation for the growth and development of Africa by the year 2000.
The conclusions of the
M~o\ria
Symposium were reviewed by the Fifth Economie Commission for Africa Conference of Ministers, in Rabat, from 20-28 March 1979, which also adopted a document on"The Economie Development Strategy for Africa."7 This document was then submitted for adoption to the Summit Meeting of OAU Heads of State and Govemment which convened an extraordinary session to discuss African economic issues, in April 1980.
6 Ikome F., From the Lagos Plan of Action to the New Partnership for Africa 's Development. The Political Economy of African Regional Initiatives, Institute for Global Dialogue, Midrand, South Africa, 2007, p. 72.
7 Ibid., p. 73.
This summit meeting took place on 28 and 29 April 1980 in Lagos, Nigeria. In their final declaration, the Heads of State adopted the Lagos plan of action for the economic development of Africa and the Final Act of Lagos (Annex I to the Plan of Action) with a view to implementing "The Economie Development Strategy for Africa"
outlined in Monrovia and reviewed in Rabat a year earlier. 8
In the Final Act of Lagos the African Heads of State and Government reaffirmed their "commitment to set up, by the year 2000, on the basis of a treaty to be concluded, an African Economie Community, so as to ensure the economic, social and cultural integration of our continent."9
The Conference of Heads of State and Government resolved to initiate the process leading to the creation of that Community. It urged the Secretary General of the OAU to implement the decision in collaboration with the United Nations Economie Commission for Africa. The Secretary General held consultations in this regard, and the preparatory works culminated in the signing by 51 out of the 52 OAU States of the Treaty establishing the AEC on 3 June 1991.
This Treaty entered into force on 12 May 1994. It was reaffirmed and endorsed by the African Union (AU), which succeeded the OAU on 26 May 2001.10
lt is this Treaty whose genesis has just been retraced which will be the subject of this Chapter. Emphasis will be placed on the objectives of the Treaty as well as the strategies it deploys in order to attain continental African economic integration. Regarding the bodies, there is no more autonomous institutional framework for the AEC since the creation of the African Union11 as shown in Part II of this Manual which addresses the structure and organs of the AU.
8 The Plan of Action and the Final Act are available on the website of the Economie Commission for Africa.
9 Section II.A of the Lagos Final Act.
10 Prearnble of the Constitutive Act of the AU.
11 Article 33 of the Constitutive Act of the AU.
2. Objectives of the AEC
In concluding the Abuja Treaty, African States set themselves an ambitious objective from the onset: the creation of an integrated community which emphasises, but does not limit itself to economic issues. Two types of objectives can be inferred from the AEC Treaty: the general or long-term objectives and the specific or immediate objectives.
2.1. General or Long-Term Objectives
These are: (a) the traditional issue of economic development in Africa; and (b) the other equally long-standing one of a better integration in international trade.
2.1.1. African Economie Development
Regional integration as a strategy for African economic development is not new. In order to fill the void on economic cooperation created by the OAU Charter, 12 African States had to establish the AEC in the hope that this new institution would assist them to achieve integration and overcome their economic underdevelopment. In its Preamble, the Treaty establishing the AEC notes the "various factors which hinder the development of the Continent and seriously jeopardise the future of its peoples" and recalls the responsibility of African Heads of State to "develop and utilise the human and natural resources of the Continent for the general well-being of our peoples in all fields of human endeavour."13
The AEC was specifically conceived as a framework that would enable Africa:
"(a) To promote economic, social and cultural development and the
integration of African economies in order to increase economic self-reJiance and promote an endogenous and self-sustained development;
12 The OAU was essentially a political organisation and development issues were not really accorded a prominent position. Its Constitutive Charter remains evasive on this matter (Article II).
13 Preamble ofTreaty establishing the AEC, paragraphs 4 and 3.
(b) To establish, on a continental scale, a framework for the development, mobilisation and utilisation of the human and material resources of Africa in order to achieve a self-reliant development;
( c) To promo te co-operation in ail fields of human endeavour in order to rai se the standard of living of African peoples, and maintain and enhance economic stability, foster close and peaceful relations among Member States and contribute to the progress, development and the economic integration of the Continent; and
(d) To coordinate and harmonize policies among existing and future economic communities in order to foster the graduai establishment of the Community."14
2.1.2. A Better Integration of Africain Global Trade
Since independence, African States have experimented with several strategies in an attempt to move their peoples out of economic stagnation and underdevelopment and to actively participate in global trade. The first strategies were the autarchic type, marked by national development plans and protectionist measures that translated into high trade ( customs) barriers. The first attempts of economic integration were based on this strategy of import substitution.
They were also meant to challenge the post Second W orld W ar neo-liberal global economic order through the quest for a new, more balanced and just economic order. The result yielded by this policy by the end of the 1980's was however disappointing; the total revenue of Africa remained insignificant (lower than that of Spain for example).
The average GDP per country was equal to that of a city of 60,000 inhabitants in an industrialised country, and the entire continent accounted for Jess than 3% of world trade.15
Given this situation, new strategies had to be developed.
African States realised that international trade is one of the instruments of development and instead of excluding themselves,
14 Article 4.1 of the AEC Treaty.
15 Tenier J., Intégrations régionales et mondialisation, op. cit., p. 86. These figures bave not really changed today. Sorne, like world trade, where Africa's share has fallen from 4 to 2% between 1970 and 2000. Hugon P. (dir.), Les économies en développement à l'heure de la régionalisation, Paris, Karthala, 2003, p. 16.
they needed to deploy strategies that would ensure them a prominent position. This new orientation emerged and crystallised in the new economic integration accords of the early 1990's.
There, African countries freely opted for liberal policies, and the regional liberalisation of trade was henceforth seen as a means of meeting global competition and a vehicle for more active participation in international trade.
The AEC is more or less within this scheme. Article 42.1 ( c) of its Treaty is on "North-South Trade" and provides that Member States pledge to undertake measures intended to "Promote better terms of trade for African commodities and improve market access for Community products" and further pledge to participate, "as a group"
in international trade negotiations under the ambit of GATT (WTO) and UNCTAD, or any other forum dealing with these issues.
The option of competing in world markets is therefore clear and the AEC is designed as an instrument to enhance African competitiveness and not only to protect Africa. For the architects of the AEC, such an approach requires the precondition of a stronger integration of African economies. Hence the proposai for the creation of a single African market.
2.2. Specijic Objectives or "lmmediate Goals": The Creation of a Pan-African Economie and Monetary Union (PEMU)
The immediate goals of the AEC Treaty do not necessarily translate into the instant creation of PEMU - far from that, and this is evidenced in the projected schedule - but they rather signify that this Union is a priority objective and a necessary condition to the realisation of the objectives mentioned earlier i.e. economic development and a better integration into world trade.
Article 6 (f) (iii) of the AEC Treaty provides that the process of continental integration should culminate in the establishment of an African Central Bank, an African Monetary Fund as well as a single African Currency. These institutions depend on an economic and monetary union whose creation is expressly referred to in Article 6. 16
16 Article 6 (t) (ii) of the AEC Treaty.
Economie union is a form of economic integration which extends beyond the limits of a customs union or a common market. It is a kind of merger of the economies of the states concemed. Beyond economic and monetary union we are entering the realm of federated states.
By opting for this course, African states have thus set the standard of continental integration very high. Can they honour this commitment? That is the big question. In any event, the midterm achievements raise some doubts.
3. The AEC Integration Strategy: Continental Integration in Successive Stages
The AEC will be established progressively over a transitional period, not exceeding forty years, from the entry into force of the Abuja Treaty.17 In this regard, six stages have been carefully defined, with specific deadlines and a number of specific actions for each one of them. Here, one cannot miss the extensive voluntarism of the signatories of the document.
3.1. Stage One: Strengthening Existing Regional Economie Communities (RE Cs) and the Establishment of New RE Cs
The AEC was established in a particular context characterized by the prior existence of various regional economic communities on the African continent. The question then was whether to build on the foundations of these communities or whether to simply set them aside and create the new pan African institution that was the AEC.
At the constituent meeting of the OAU, the same issue arase between the federalists and the anti-federalists. For the former, regional organisations were a reproduction of the colonial and post-colonial divisions of the continent, in accordance with the interests of the former colonialists. According to !hem, not only should African countries abstain from creating new ones, but they should also dissolve the existing ones, which were impediments to
17 Article 6.5 of the AEC Treaty. Normally, the Community should be created within 34 years (Art. 6.1 of the Treaty). Given that the Abuja Treaty entered into force in 1994, the AEC integration process should end in 2034 at the latest.
African unity. For anti-federalists, however, regional organizations constituted the launching pad of the process of cooperation, followed by integration of the continent and as such, their replication and consolidation ought to be promoted, while emphasising the economic or technical dimensions and with due regard to the specific solidarity
f h . 18
o eac ent1ty.
We know that the outcome played in favour of the latter group.
Thus, the architects of the AEC did not have to reopen this debate.
Right from the outset, they opted for continental integration, using the RECs as pillars. However on account of their multiplicity at the time, it was necessary to select. Ideally, this would have meant one economic community per region of the continent, artificially divided into five regions for the purpose: North Africa, East Africa, West Africa, Central and Southern Africa. 19 At the time of the creation of the AEC, two of these regions did not have (or no longer had) RECs. These were East Africa, where the East African Community (EAC) had had been dissolved in 1977 and Southern Africa, where the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) was not suitable, bringing together only the five States situated in the southernmost end of Africa, to the exclusion of the other States of Southern Africa.
The communities were then identified in the other regions, pending the creation of regional communities in these two regions of the continent. Thus, in North Africa the Arab Maghreb Union was selected, while the Economie Community of Central African States (ECCAS) was chosen for Central Africa and the Economie Community of West African States (ECOWAS) for West Africa.
Later on, the Southern African Development Community (SADC), then the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) were added to these organisations. More recently, COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa), the EAC (re-established in 1999), and the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD) were recognised as RECs of the AEC. Today, eight RECs make up the AEC, or at least are considered its pillars in its
18 Mahiou A.,« La Communauté économique africaine», op. cit., p. 799.
19 Resolution CM/RES.464 (XXVI) of the OAU Council of Ministers of l March 1976.
quest for pan-African economic integration towards which they should work to reinforce the process.
This stage of the continental African integration should not have lasted more than five years from the entry into force of the Abuja Treaty.20 In principle therefore, it is now closed and there should be no further recognition of RECs by the AEC. One may however ponder over the place of smaller ("sub-regional") RECs which exist in all parts of the continent, such as the West African Economie and Monetary Union (UEMOA), the Monetary and Economie Community of Central Africa (CEMAC), or the Southern African Customs Union (SACU).
The AEC does not directly take them into account, but it does not overlook them either. It urges them to merge with the regional communities that it bas already selected. But as we shall see, this task is not an easy one.
3.2. Second Stage: Freezing Trade Barrier Within Bach REC
This stage, which is supposed to run at most for eight years from the end of the first stage,21 is crucial for the integration process. By proscribing the introduction of new trade restrictions from the entry into force of the AEC Treaty, it leads the way to the next stage, i.e. the establishment of free trade areas (FTA). Article 6.2 (b) of the Treaty on the establishment of the AEC, provides that during this period, each REC must take measures to stabilize tariff barriers and non-tariff barriers, customs duties and interna} taxes existing within it, as of the date of entry into force of the Abuja Treaty. At the same time, studies should be carried out with the object of drawing up a schedule for their phased elimination. Projections indicate that this phase should have been concluded in 2007. But this does not appear to be the case.
20 Article 6.2(a) of the AEC Treaty. The Treaty entered into force in 1994. Thus, this stage's programme should have ended in 1999.
21 Article 6.2(b)(i) of the AEC Treaty
3.3. Third Stage: Transformation of ail RECs into FTAs then into Customs Unions
During this phase which should cover a period of at most ten years, beginning from the end of the second stage (2017), each REC should remove all barriers within its area, by establishing a FTA.22 Further, during this same phase the Treaty requires each community to establish of full customs unions, by adopting a common extemal tariff vis-à-vis third States.23
This phase is one of the most important ones, but also one of the most difficult to achieve. How is the AEC to ensure that ail the communities attain this level at the same time when each one is known to have its own schedule for liberalisation, depending on the political and economic realities of their constituent States? Herein lies one of the weaknesses of the AEC; setting deadlines for RECs without being in control of their programmes. It is therefore not surprising that the deadlines are often not effectively met.
3.4. Fourth Stage: Coordination and Harmonisation of the Regional Customs Unions and Creation of the African Customs Union
This is the shortest phase, lasting two years, 24 and understandably so. If indeed all the regional communities have evolved into customs unions, the continental customs union stage is then easily attainable. However, the architects of the Abuja Treaty may have been too optimistic. The coordination and harmonization of the various common extemal tariffs (CET) of the various RECs and the establishment of a single African CET are not such easy tasks as they may seem. Coordination entails ensuring that the activities of the communities concemed are channelled into continental integration, while harmonisation requires a more prescriptive action, involving the attainment of well-defined objectives and the restriction of the freedom of action of each partner. From the technical legal standpoint, coordination and harmonisation can sometimes
22 Article 6.2(c) of the AEC Treaty.
23 Ibid.
24 Article 6.2(d) of the AEC Treaty. It should become effective in 2019.
involve the same procedures, the distinction being the outcome. Chronologically, however, coordination precedes harmonisation.
only in generally The AEC Member States intend to accomplish the coordination and harmonisation of the CET in a maximum period of two years.
Although this indicates a resolve to move ahead more quickly with African integration, it may in practice turn out to be unrealistic.
3.5. Fifth Stage: Establishment of A Common Market
The African Common Market was to be established m the four years following the creation of the African Customs Union (2023).25 In this regard, four major activities would be carried out during this phase:
1) The adoption of a common policy in several areas such as agriculture, transport and communications, industry, energy and scientific research;
2) The harmonisation of monetary, financial and fiscal po\icies;
3) The implementation of free movement of persons as well as the rights of residence and establishment; and
4) The creation of the common resources of the Community.26
When completed, these activities should open the way to the sixth and final stage of the AEC, with the creation of the Pan African Economie and Monetary Union.
3. 6. Sixth Stage: Establishment of the Pan-African Economie and Monetary Union.
This is the final stage of the continental African integration process. Article 6.2 (f) of the Abuja Treaty provides that during the five years following the establishment of the African Common Market, the African economic integration would be completed with the establishment of the African Economie and
25 Article 6.2( e) of the Abuja Treaty.
26 Ibid.
Monetary Union (2028). This Union will be supported by the creation of an African Monetary Fund as well as an African Central Bank with
. 1 27
a smg e currency.
4. Conclusion
lt is difficult today to make an overall evaluation of the AEC for the simple fact that the process is still ongoing. However, twenty years after its creation, it does not seem to be achieving its mission of channelling integration efforts in the continent towards the much- expected African common market. The first phase of the process is already fraught with problems, since instead of the five regional communities initially proposed, it has to deal with eight RECs, besides the six other smaller integration schemes that it is obliged to take into account. Consequently, the harmonisation process has also become complicated. Regarding the other phases of the process, particularly the second (i.e. freezing of barrier levels within the RECs planned to end in 2007), there is no clear indication that it has been achieved. lt is therefore difficult today to know exactly where we are in the AEC schedule. Lately, the issue of the creation of the Central Bank and the African Monetary Fund has been raised, but if it were to corne into being at this stage, it would be completely outside the AEC process, since as per the AEC Treaty these two institutions were listed for the end of the process, after the establishment of the common market, which for now is illusory.
Further, the AEC is suffering from several flaws, including the legal confusion surrounding its relationship with the AU and with the RECs. The position of the AEC in the institutional AU set-up remains ambiguous. The AEC was set-up by the OAU, and its treaty considered it as an integral part of that organisation. Legally however, these were two separate and distinct organisations, obviously with common organs, such as the Assembly of Heads of State, the Council of Ministers, the Secretariat, but also separate organs, like the Court of Justice, the Specialised Technical Committees, etc.
27 Article 6.2(f)(iii) of the Abuja Treaty.
The concrete relationships of the two organisations had never been clarified.
The AU, which succeeded the OAU, did not significantly improve the situation. The Constitutive Act of the AU which was adopted on 11 July 2000 in Lomé, Togo, provides that it shall "take precedence over and supersede any inconsistent or contrary provision" of the Abuja Treaty.
Apart from the legal ambiguity and lack of clarity regarding the relationship between the two entities, this situation is awkward for the AEC, since in practice, it is steered by the AU (specifically the AU Commission) which is more preoccupied with political issues.
Ali the Union's resources (already meagre) are channelled into those efforts, thus placing the AEC on the back humer.
It is therefore not surprising that the AEC currently lacks visibility and is virtually relegated to the bottom of the continental priority list.
Besides the circle of African integration specialists and a few well- informed politicians, very few people, within and without Africa, are aware of the very existence of this pan-African economic integration project. At the current stage of the history of Africa, dominated by ail sorts of political and military conflicts, the AEC ought to be an independent body within the African Union, or even outside it with its own secretariat, within which the continent's economic and trade issues are discussed.
Regarding AEC's relationship with the RECs, Article 10 of the Abuja Treaty provides that al! decisions taken by the Assembly of Heads of State and Govemment of the AEC are mandatory for Member States and the Community's organs, excluding the Court of Justice, as well as for the RECs.28 This provision could be considered a step forward in the implementation of the decision of African leaders to promote a real African integration. Placing the RECs under the AEC should have favoured integration at the continental level over sub-regional groupings. However, the conclusion of the Protocol on relationships between the AEC and the RECs in 1998, seems to have obscured this hierarchy defined in the Abuja Treaty. Adopted on 28 February 1998, pursuant to Article 88 of the AEC Treaty, this
28 Article 10.2 of the AEC Treaty.
Protocol was signed among six regional communities (COMESA, CEN-SAD, ECCSA, ECOWAS, IGAD, SADC) and the AEC with the objective, inter alia, of strengthening the existing RECs, enhancing the coordination and harmonisation of policies, measures and programmes of RECs in light of the AEC treaty, promoting a closer cooperation among the RECs and providing an institutional framework to manage relationships between the RECs and the AEC.29
In order to attain this objective, the Protocol provides for a coordination framework, with well-defined coordination bodies, i.e.
the Coordinating Committee and the Committee of Secretariat Officials which meets at least once a year (for the Coordinating Committee) and at least twice a year (for the Committee of Secretariat Officials).30
This Protocol never operated as it should. The overly cautions and exhortative nature of its wording is evidence of some distrust, particularly on the part of the RECs which do not appear to appreciate an "interference" by the AEC in their activities. Sorne excerpts from Article 4 reveal the spirit of the Protocol: "The Parties undertake, ...
ta coordinate their policies, measures, programmes and activities ... ";
"To this end, they agree to ensure that the policies, measures, programmes and activities which they adopt are not overlapping or do not impede the achievement of the objectives of the community."
Everything is presented as if the AEC is an extraneous creation being imposed on the regional communities. Seen against this background, one can understand why the AEC is encountering problems coordinating their activities.
The Protocol does not stipulate the exact relationships between the AEC and the varions RECs either. Are they members of the AEC?
In other words, are the RECs organs or institutions of the AEC?
Or conversely are they totally independent and equal organisations?
In failing to answer these questions clearly, the Protocol contributed to the ineffectiveness of the AEC. Since the RECs are not statutory bodies of the AEC, they do not owe any obligation towards it.
29 Article 3 of the Protocol.
30 Articles 6, 8, and 1 O of the Protocol. Articles 7 and 8 for the composition of these two organs.
Bence, the AEC 's inability to coordinate and harmonise their activities. On 24 June 2004, the Coordinating Committee adopted a new protocol on the relationships between the AU and the RECs which will enter into force once the AU, (acting as the AEC's Secretariat), and chiefs of Secretariat of at least three regional communities would have signed it. This protocol, intended to replace the former protocol on relationships between the AEC and RECs, has two major innovations: firstly, the AU will be vested with the authority to sanction the RECs or member countries who do not comply with its directives, and secondly, it contemplates a mechanism for the resolution of disputes. Hopefully, this Protocol will help to bring a little more order to the efforts of harmonising the activities of the RECs.31
31 UNECA/AU, Assessing Regional lntegration in Africa Il: Rationalizing Regionol Economie Communities, Addis A baba, Ethiopia, 2006, p. 11 O.
