Following the authorisation for the deployment of an African Union peacekeeping mission, known as ‘African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi (MAPROBU)’, to halt ongoing humanitarian catastrophe, Burundian lawmakers scoffed at the decision and subsequently voted against this mission.

MAPROBU would be composed of an initial strength of up to 5,000 military personnel and police, whose mandate, among others,  is ‘to prevent any deterioration of the security situation, monitor its evolution and report developments on the ground and contribute, within its capacity and in its areas of deployment, to the protection of civilian populations under imminent threat’.

Given the rejection of such a mission by Burundian lawmakers, the main question is; can AU press ahead with the deployment without the consent of Burundi?

Such deployment must conform with the three basic principles of the United Nations Peacekeeping inter aliaconsent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence and defence of the mandate.

At this point, what matters is the consent of the parties. The consent of the main parties is the cornerstone of the United Nations peacekeeping operation with the necessary freedom of action, both political and physical, to carry out its mandated tasks.

In the absence of such consent, a peacekeeping mission risks becoming a party to the conflict; and being drawn into enforcement action, away from its intrinsic role of keeping the peace.

In any event, securing the consent of Burundi is fundamental. If AU goes ahead to send the force it would turn out to be party in the conflict and the situation would be exacerbated.

Another question is: if Burundi adamantly opposes the deployment of MAPROBU, can AU, or the rest of international community, stand idly by while people are being killed?

If violence continued, that means the state is unable or unwilling to discharge its primary responsibility to protect its own people from mass atrocities. In that case, the responsibility would shift to the international community, including the AU, to avert or halt mass atrocities occurring within the boundaries of a sovereign state.

Of course, this invokes the principle of ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (R2P).

This principle was developed to allow humanitarian intervention when human lives are seriously threatened or targeted. Additionally, the principle intended to break the traditional norm of non-interference in internal matters of a sovereign state.

Yet, although R2P has been endorsed at the UN level, its operationalisation is seemingly ineffective simply because the U.N. Security Council was vested with right authority under the U.N. Charter to authorise such military intervention.

The Responsibility to Protect principle ostensibly introduced a paradigm shift but in reality no change because UN Security Council maintained the monopoly to authorise an enforcement action.

Indeed, if Burundi doesn’t change its stance averse to the deployment of AU mission, UN Security Council, acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, can adopt a binding resolution backing the deployment of the AU mission.

In fact, the UN Security Council has an obligation to take measures designed to maintain or restore international peace and security through regional arrangement such as the AU.

Indeed, given the current crisis, the UN Security Council can endorse AU initiative without needing the consent of Burundi.

As seen elsewhere, the consent of Burundi is a prerequisite even if it is about deployment of UN peacekeeping operation but if the state in question is categorically unwilling to give the consent, yet people continue to die or suffer, UNSC can bypass the principle of consent and authorize peacekeeping operation.

For example, during the war in Benghazi, Libya in 2011, UNSC adopted resolution 1973 which authorised NATO to ‘take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack’, a move which of course the late President Muammar Gaddafi never welcomed.

In November, UN Security Council, in its resolution 2248 (2015), strongly condemned the surge in killings, torture and human rights violations in Burundi and threatened to impose sanctions against those contributing to the violence, but the resolution was non-legally binding.

Another possible way of making Burundi accept the proposed AU mission is by threatening to impose sanctions and such measures can be taken by the UN Security Council or the AU.  I think this approach can easily change Bujumbura’s current stand.

Furthermore, the recent experience of the AU, for instance, in Central African Republic, Mali and Somalia, has demonstrated an increasing capability, reliability and assertiveness of African forces.

As has been reported in the media, a rebel group named the Republican Forces of Burundi (FOREBU) has been formed with the aim of overthrowing the government of Burundi. This calls for the international community, especially the AU, to do more by pouring oil on the troubled waters to preempt an outright civil war.

If no urgent action is taken, the spillover effects of a possible war in Burundi will certainly be felt in the entire region, with dire consequences.

The writer is an international law expert and lecturer.