<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.3 20210610//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1-3.dtd">
<article article-type="research-article" dtd-version="1.3" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xml:lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">bricslawjournal</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title xml:lang="en">BRICS Law Journal</journal-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title>Юридический журнал БРИКС</trans-title></trans-title-group></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2409-9058</issn><issn pub-type="epub">2412-2343</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Publishing House V.Ема</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.21684/2412-2343-2018-5-2-49-71</article-id><article-id custom-type="elpub" pub-id-type="custom">bricslawjournal-152</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group><subj-group subj-group-type="section-heading" xml:lang="en"><subject>ARTICLE</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>MILITARY INTERVENTION IN THE GAMBIA: LESSONS FROM THE IVORY COAST, LIBERIA AND SIERRA LEONE</article-title><trans-title-group xml:lang="ru"><trans-title></trans-title></trans-title-group></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name-alternatives><name name-style="western" xml:lang="en"><surname>Svicevic</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name></name-alternatives><bio xml:lang="en"><p>Marko Svicevic  - LL.M. Student </p><p>cnr Lynnwood Road and Roper St., Hatfield, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa</p></bio><email xlink:type="simple">marko201255@gmail.com</email><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff-1"/></contrib></contrib-group><aff xml:lang="en" id="aff-1"><institution>University of Pretoria</institution><country>South Africa</country></aff><pub-date pub-type="collection"><year>2018</year></pub-date><pub-date pub-type="epub"><day>04</day><month>07</month><year>2018</year></pub-date><volume>5</volume><issue>2</issue><fpage>49</fpage><lpage>71</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>Copyright &amp;#x00A9; Svicevic M., 2018</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2018</copyright-year><copyright-holder xml:lang="ru">Svicevic M.</copyright-holder><copyright-holder xml:lang="en">Svicevic M.</copyright-holder><license xml:lang="ru" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>Данная работа распространяется под лицензией Creative Commons Attribution 4.0.</license-p></license><license xml:lang="en" license-type="creative-commons-attribution" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/" xlink:type="simple"><license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.</license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://www.bricslawjournal.com/jour/article/view/152">https://www.bricslawjournal.com/jour/article/view/152</self-uri><abstract><p>This article analyses the recent Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) military intervention in the Gambia, primarily focusing on possible legal bases for the enforcement action. It examines the political situation following the release of the election results and details the international response to the post-election situation in the Gambia. Among the legal bases assessed include United Nations Security Council authorisation of regional enforcement action under Chapter VIII of the U.N. Charter through Resolution 2337 (2017), intervention by invitation and consent through prior treaty. In so doing, the article also illuminates the plausibility that the ECOWAS military intervention may be considered as unilateral enforcement action, a point further stressed through an analysis of prior ECOWAS interventions, most notable, the interventions into Sierra Leone and Liberia. Moreover, the intervention in the Ivory Coast following the 2010-2011 post­election crisis is also examined in showcasing the situational similarities between those in the Ivory Coast and those in the Gambia. In so doing, the article inter alia, explores the international legal framework pertaining to the prohibition of the threat and use of force; analysing its nature as well as exceptions to it. Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, read together with Article 53, therefore form the backbone of the contribution.</p></abstract><kwd-group xml:lang="en"><kwd>military intervention</kwd><kwd>United Nations Security Council</kwd><kwd>regional organisations</kwd><kwd>regional enforcement action</kwd><kwd>African Union</kwd><kwd>ECOWAS</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><back><ref-list><title>References</title><ref id="cit1"><label>1</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">De Wet E. Regional Organizations and Arrangements: Authorization, Ratification, or Independent Action in The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law 314 (M. Weller (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">De Wet E. Regional Organizations and Arrangements: Authorization, Ratification, or Independent Action in The Oxford Handbook of the Use of Force in International Law 314 (M. Weller (ed.), Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit2"><label>2</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">De Wet E. The Evolving Role of ECOWAS and the SADC in Peace Operations: A Challenge to the Primacy of the United Nations Security Council in Matters of Peace and Security?, 27(2) Leiden Journal of International Law 353 (2014).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">De Wet E. The Evolving Role of ECOWAS and the SADC in Peace Operations: A Challenge to the Primacy of the United Nations Security Council in Matters of Peace and Security?, 27(2) Leiden Journal of International Law 353 (2014).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit3"><label>3</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Paliwal s. The Primacy of Regional Organizations in International Peacekeeping: The African Example, 51(1) virginia Journal of international Law 185 (2010).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Paliwal s. The Primacy of Regional Organizations in International Peacekeeping: The African Example, 51(1) virginia Journal of international Law 185 (2010).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit4"><label>4</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Perfect D. The Gambian 2016 Presidential Election and Its Aftermath, 106(3) The Commonwealth Journal of international Affairs 323 (2017).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Perfect D. The Gambian 2016 Presidential Election and Its Aftermath, 106(3) The Commonwealth Journal of international Affairs 323 (2017).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit5"><label>5</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Rupiya M. A Review of the African Union's Experience in Facilitating Peaceful Power Transfers: Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Libya and Sudan: Are There Prospects for Reform?, 12(2) African Journal on Conflict Resolution 161 (2012).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Rupiya M. A Review of the African Union's Experience in Facilitating Peaceful Power Transfers: Zimbabwe, Ivory Coast, Libya and Sudan: Are There Prospects for Reform?, 12(2) African Journal on Conflict Resolution 161 (2012).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref><ref id="cit6"><label>6</label><citation-alternatives><mixed-citation xml:lang="ru">Ruys T. The Meaning of "Force" and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are "Minimal" Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter2(4)?, 108(2) American Journal of International Law 159 (2014).</mixed-citation><mixed-citation xml:lang="en">Ruys T. The Meaning of "Force" and the Boundaries of the Jus Ad Bellum: Are "Minimal" Uses of Force Excluded from UN Charter2(4)?, 108(2) American Journal of International Law 159 (2014).</mixed-citation></citation-alternatives></ref></ref-list><fn-group><fn fn-type="conflict"><p>The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest present.</p></fn></fn-group></back></article>
