ABSTRACT
There is much misunderstanding today about the decision of African countries not to endorse the military intervention in Libya undertaken by France, Great Britain, and the United States in conjunction with a few Arab States. This act of non-cooperation is the result of a tension that is much deeper and, contrary to punditry, goes to the core of the future of global governance and international morality today. This tension arises from two clashing positions: (1) the tendency of a fraction of states frequently self-designated as the West to usurp the mantle of international community, and (2) the longstanding objection from ‘Africa’ that the will of the international community may be appropriated by a small fractions of its constituents, however powerful. The underlying opposition extends today to all domains of international law, from the inception of law (in this case UN resolutions), to its interpretation and implementation, to the appreciation of its execution, or judgment.
