OBSERVARE

Universidade Autónoma de Lisboa

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between

Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025

205

EMERGING POWERS’ STRATEGY FOR POWER PROJECTION: NIGERIA’S

PEACEKEEPING THROUGH REGIONAL & INTERNATIONAL

ORGANIZATIONS

YUNUS ÖZTÜRK

y.ozturk@erdogan.edu.tr

Lecturer at the Department of International Relations, Recep Tayyip Erdogan University, Faculty

of Economics and Administrative Sciences (Turkey). ORCID: 0000-0002-6274-5230

Abstract

This study investigates Nigeria’s strategic utilisation of peacekeeping missions as an

instrument for regional influence in the post-Cold War African context. The restructuring of

global security arrangements following the Cold War created avenues for emerging powers to

redefine their regional roles and assert their influence, with Nigeria emerging as a leading

contributor to peacekeeping missions in several war-torn African countries. This study

examines Nigeria’s commitment to peacekeeping with a focus on its engagement at the

regional and global levels, to maximise its strategic interest while minimising resistance to its

hegemonic aspirations by Francophone West African states. Through a comparative case

analysis of Nigerian involvement in ECOWAS peace operations in Liberia (1989-1997) and

Sierra Leone (1997-2002), alongside its participation in the UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur,

Sudan (2007-2020), and employing an eclectic theoretical approach, this study demonstrates

(i) Nigeria’s strategic rationale for prioritizing regional peacekeeping mechanisms over global

ones, (ii) the impact of Nigeria’s approach on its regional leadership position, and (iii) the

challenges Nigeria faced in maintaining such a security framework. By indicating how Nigeria

leverage peacekeeping missions to enhance international prestige and legitimise hegemonic

aspirations while navigating resource constraints and neighbouring states’ suspicions, the

study aims to contribute to scholarly debate on the intersection between emerging powers,

peacekeeping, and regionalism.

Keywords

ECOWAS, Hegemony, Nigeria, Peacekeeping, Regionalism.

Resumo

Este artigo analisa a utilização estratégica das missões de manutenção da paz pela Nigéria

como instrumento de influência regional no contexto africano pós-Guerra Fria. A

reestruturação dos acordos de segurança global após a Guerra Fria criou caminhos para que

potências emergentes redefinissem os seus papéis regionais e afirmassem a sua influência,

com a Nigéria a emergir como um dos principais contribuintes para missões de manutenção

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

206

da paz em vários países africanos devastados pela guerra. Este estudo examina o

compromisso da Nigéria com a manutenção da paz, com foco no seu envolvimento a nível

regional e global, para maximizar o seu interesse estratégico e minimizar a resistência às suas

aspirações hegemónicas por parte dos Estados francófonos da África Ocidental. Através de

uma análise comparativa do envolvimento nigeriano nas operações de paz da CEDEAO na

Libéria (1989-1997) e na Serra Leoa (1997-2002), juntamente com a sua participação na

Operação Híbrida da ONU-UA em Darfur, Sudão (2007-2020), e empregando uma abordagem

teórica eclética, este estudo demonstra (i) a lógica estratégica da Nigéria para dar prioridade

aos mecanismos regionais de manutenção da paz em detrimento dos globais, (ii) o impacto

da abordagem da Nigéria na sua posição de liderança regional e (iii) os desafios que a Nigéria

enfrentou para manter tal quadro de segurança. Ao indicar como a Nigéria aproveita as

missões de manutenção da paz para aumentar o prestígio internacional e legitimar as

aspirações hegemónicas, ao mesmo tempo que lida com as restrições de recursos e as

suspeitas dos Estados vizinhos, o estudo visa contribuir para o debate académico sobre a

interseção entre potências emergentes, manutenção da paz e regionalismo.

Palavras-chave

CEDEAO, Hegemonia, Nigéria, Manutenção da Paz, Regionalismo.

How to cite this article

Öztürk, Yunus (2025). Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping

Through Regional & International Organizations. Janus.net, e-journal of international relations.

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations, VOL. 16, Nº.

2, TD1, December 2025, pp. 205-229. https://doi.org/10.26619/1647-7251.DT0525.11

Article submitted on 13th May 2025 and accepted for publication on 15th September

2025.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

207

EMERGING POWERS’ STRATEGY FOR POWER PROJECTION:

NIGERIA’S PEACEKEEPING THROUGH REGIONAL &

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

YUNUS ÖZTÜRK

Introduction

In the post-Cold War era, the increasing role of regional organisations, such as the African

Union, the Organisation of American States (OAS), and the Association of Southeast

Asian Nations (ASEAN), in conflict management and international peacekeeping has been

supported by Western powers, including the United States, the United Kingdom, and

France. These Western powers have promoted regional organisations as the primary

responsible actors for managing security challenges in their respective regions, under the

motto of “African solutions for African problems” in the African continent. In this context,

Nigeria has emerged as a leading contributor to peacekeeping missions since the early

1990s, deploying funds and troops to several operations across the African continent

under the auspices of the United Nations (UN), the African Union (AU), and the Economic

Community of West African States (ECOWAS) (Williams, 2008). Nigeria deployed over

200,000 soldiers to peacekeeping missions throughout the world from its independence

in 1960 to the late 2000s, accounting for almost 40% of all UN peacekeeping missions in

Africa, the Middle East, Asia, and Europe (Adebajo, 2008, p. 14). To resolve the crises in

the Mano River Basin, which lasted over a decade in the 1990s, for instance, Nigeria

sacrificed over 1,500 of its soldiers and invested more than $12 billion in peacekeeping

missions, despite its own dire economic conditions at that time (Adebajo, 2008, p. 20;

Bah, 2005, p. 78). Specifically, Nigeria provided about 90% of funding and 80% of

personnel for these peacekeeping missions – contributing 12,000 soldiers out of 16,000

to Liberia and another 12,000 of 13,000 to Sierra Leone (Obi, 2009, pp. 121–122, 125).

This substantial commitment to regional security through the ECOWAS Monitoring Group

(ECOMOG) clearly reflects Nigeria’s ambitions in West Africa: its utilization of

peacekeeping missions as an instrument of regional leadership despite its small

Francophone neighbours’ fears following the withdrawal of the Cold War overlay and the

reduction of French military presence in the post-1990 period (Bah, 2005, pp. 79–80).

The end of the Cold War initiated a restructuring of global security arrangements in the

developing world, compelling regional powers to take responsibility for addressing their

common problems, which created avenues for emerging powers to redefine their goals

and assert their leadership in the regional security structure of Africa, Latin America, the

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

208

Middle East, and Asia (Söderbaum & Tavares, 2009). Although the UN remains a key

player in maintaining peace and security throughout the world, its overstretch due to

resource limitations and high demand across multiple conflict zones, along with the lack

of political will by Western powers, has led to regional organisations expanding their

security mandates. This generated what Brosig (2013, p. 171) describes as “emerging

security regime complex[es],” characterised by overlapping institutional frameworks and

responsibilities conducted by both African and non-African actors simultaneously on the

continent. What Nigeria has been pursuing within this context is, as Adebajo (2008, p.

14) calls, “hegemony on a shoestring,” an ambitious strategy of regional leadership

despite significant constraints.

The Nigerian case exemplifies a dual engagement strategy employed by emerging powers

whereby they endeavour to enhance their regional influence through regional

organisations while maintaining their engagement with global institutions like the UN.

Since the 1990s, Nigeria has been at the forefront of constructing a regional security

mechanism in Africa through ECOWAS and AU engagements while maintaining its

consistent participation in UN peacekeeping missions throughout the continent. This dual

engagement strategy inevitably raises important questions with regard to Nigeria’s

foreign policy goals. If global institutions like the UN are considered somehow adequate

for maintaining peace and security in the world, why do emerging powers like Nigeria

prioritise regional organisations for specific initiatives such as peacekeeping? More

broadly, do regional organisations generally function as complementary frameworks to

global institutions, or do they merely indicate a shift toward regionalism in international

politics?

Nigeria’s engagements with regional and global institutions in peacekeeping deserve

particular attention for several reasons. First, the “messianic references” by Nigerian

political and military elites to power projection capabilities in the region indicate a

widespread belief that Nigeria has a “manifest destiny” for regional leadership as West

Africa’s largest economy and most populous nation (Bach, 2007). Second, Nigerian active

participation in West African peacekeeping missions offers valuable insights into how

emerging powers can utilise regional organisations to legitimise their leadership role or

reach hegemonic aspirations in their respective domains (Obi, 2009). Last, Nigerian

involvement in both regional (Liberia and Sierra Leone) and hybrid (Sudan) peacekeeping

operations provides an opportunity to examine the strategic interplay between regional

and global security engagements in an emerging power’s foreign policy.

Since the 1990s, the increasing number of peacekeeping operations by regional

organisations such as the AU, ECOWAS, and the Southern African Development

Community (SADC) has, unsurprisingly, received scholarly attention, including works by

Adebajo, Bellamy, and Williams. Analysing the peacekeeping trend toward non-UN peace

operations, for instance, Bellamy & Williams (2005) show that regional organisations

possess significant advantages in legitimacy, local support, and cultural understanding

due to their proximity to conflict zones. Peace operations conducted by individual states

or coalitions of the willing, on the other hand, often face accusations of neocolonialism

or pursuit of parochial interests, rather than upholding the UN’s principles and purposes.

Despite these theoretical arguments favouring regional initiatives in peacekeeping,

Williams (2008) persuasively argues that the “African solutions for African problems”

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

209

mantra has significant limitations regarding capacity, resources, and competitive

interests of regional actors. Within this scholarly debate, the evolution of West African

security architecture since the 1970s provides a critical context for understanding

regional powers’ peacekeeping strategies. Through Nigeria’s transformational leadership

in ECOWAS/ECOMOG peacekeeping missions, West Africa has gradually evolved from a

mere “security complex” characterised mainly by security dynamics and, thus, mutual

suspicion among regional actors, into a “security community” with shared norms, values,

and practices (Bah, 2005; Jaye, 2008). Nevertheless, the West African security

complex/community and Nigerian leadership position, in particular, have continuously

faced significant constraints. As Bach (2007) notes, Nigerian regional ambitions reflect a

position of “dominance without power,” indicating grandiose roles and goals but limited

capacity and resources. Furthermore, these constraints extend beyond limited resources

and capacity to negative perceptions of Nigerian hegemonic ambitions by Francophone

neighbouring states in the region (Adebajo & Landsberg, 2003).

In this context, this paper posits that Nigerian dual engagement with regional

organisations (e.g., ECOWAS, AU) and global institutions (e.g., UN) in peacekeeping

demonstrates a calculated approach to maximise its strategic interests in West Africa

while minimising potential risks and costs associated with hegemonic aspirations.

Drawing on Prys's (2010) typology of regional powers and particularly Pedersen's (2002)

conceptualization of “cooperative hegemony,” which explains how pivotal states mitigate

resistance from counter-hegemonic blocs of smaller states through regional

multilateralism, this paper contends that Nigerian peacekeeping strategy creates multiple

avenues for projecting regional and international influence through participation in both

regional and global organizations while mitigating the associated risks and costs. This

approach enables Nigeria to demonstrate its commitment to regional stability, thereby

enhancing its international prestige as a peace broker, while minimising expenditures of

blood and treasure.

Through a comparative analysis of Nigerian peacekeeping missions in ECOWAS peace

operations in Liberia (1989-1997) and Sierra Leone (1997-2002) as well as its

participation in the UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur, Sudan (2007-2020), this study

examines (i) the factors behind Nigeria’s rationale for prioritizing regional peacekeeping

mechanisms over global initiatives, (ii) the impact of such prioritization on Nigerian

regional leadership in West Africa, and (iii) the challenges Nigeria faces in maintaining

the regional framework and implications of such challenges for its regional influence. The

analysis primarily draws on primary sources, including official documents from ECOWAS,

the AU, and the UN, supplemented by secondary literature, such as historical analyses

and theoretical frameworks on peacekeeping and emerging powers’ power projections.

With these objectives and methods, this research aims to contribute to the scholarly

debate on the intersection between emerging powers, peacekeeping, and regionalism.

While advancing theoretical understanding of how emerging powers utilise peacekeeping

missions as a strategic tool for their regional influence and legitimacy, the study also

provides empirical insights into the complex interplay of regional and global security

initiatives in Africa. Furthermore, it assesses the sustainability challenges confronting

many African peacekeeping missions.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

210

The paper proceeds as follows. Reviewing relevant literature on regional powers,

peacekeeping, and African security architecture, the first section establishes the

theoretical framework for understanding peacekeeping as a strategic tool for regional

power projection. After briefly outlining the methodology in section two, the third section

examines the historical evolution of Nigerian peacekeeping strategy in Africa in relation

to Nigerian foreign policy. The following section analyses the three case studies in depth,

namely Nigerian peacekeeping operations in (i) Liberia and (ii) Sierra Leone under

ECOWAS and (iii) its participation in the UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur. Synthesising

the findings from these case studies, the final section concludes with the significance of

the findings for understanding emerging powers’ strategic approaches to regional

organisations and regional security frameworks in a complex international order.

Theoretical Underpinnings

Any study on regional powers’ peacekeeping strategy requires a theoretical framework

that thoroughly addresses regional power dynamics and institutional arrangements. No

consensus, however, exists in the relevant literature on how to identify and differentiate

regional powers from middle and great powers. Nolte (2010, p. 893), in this regard,

offers a comprehensive definition of regional powers based on an extensive literature

review, conceptualising regional powers as possessing not only superior economic

resources and military capabilities but also the will to assume regional responsibilities

and leadership recognition by other actors. This definition highlights three crucial aspects

of regional powerhood, namely (i) superior material resources and capabilities relative to

other regional actors, (ii) leadership will and commitment to regional responsibilities, and

(iii) acceptance of that leadership by regional and international actors. This

multidimensional framework explains why Nigeria, despite its constraints, has

consistently pursued regional power status as West Africa’s gendarme through

peacekeeping initiatives (Adebajo, 2000). Nigeria possesses relatively superior resources

as well as capabilities and demonstrates the will to act as a responsible regional leader.

However, its leadership ambitions have been repeatedly challenged by smaller

neighbouring states concerned about Nigerian hegemonic aspirations, contributing to an

enduring, albeit diminishing, French military presence in the region after the Cold War.

Accordingly, Adebajo & Landsberg (2003, pp. 171–172) characterise Nigeria’s regional

role as an “aspiring or potential hegemon” or a “pivotal state,” rather than a consolidated

regional hegemon. Contemporary analysis confirms that Nigeria’s hegemonic role within

ECOWAS faces significant constraints, as the withdrawal of Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso

from ECOWAS in 2024 due to military coups demonstrates the limitations of traditional

hegemonic models, particularly when domestic challenges undermine regional leadership

in West Africa (Gbenga & Oluwatobi, 2025). This also aligns with the International Crisis

Group’s report (2024), arguing that Nigeria’s influence has waned over the past 15 years,

along with its contributions to continental peace and security, due to weak leadership,

political and economic crises, and acute security issues at home.

Building on Nolte’s (2010) conceptualisation, Prys (2010) develops a typology of regional

powers, distinguishing regional hegemonic, dominating, and detached powers, which is

a central framework to this study. The hegemonic model features a regional power

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

211

perceived as exceptional, exercising leadership multilaterally through normative and

institutional mechanisms while providing public goods, such as security, for all. The

dominator model, however, relies on coercion, with the dominant power pursuing

parochial interests through unilateral actions rather than being recognised as an

exceptional leader. Unlike hegemons, dominators compel others to contribute to regional

arrangements rather than providing public goods unilaterally. Detached powers, in turn,

possess the necessary material resources and military capabilities but lack leadership

will, prioritising domestic or global concerns over regional engagement. Consequently,

their interactions with regional actors remain limited, exerting minimal influence on

regional affairs. Moreover, despite their resource abundance and capabilities, they are

not recognised as regional leaders (Prys, 2010, pp. 487–496).

While Nigeria’s position in West Africa aligns most closely with the hegemonic model in

Prys’s (2010) typology, Pedersen's (2002) conceptualisation of “cooperative hegemony”

provides a more nuanced and accurate depiction. Cooperative hegemons essentially

establish stable, predictable, and somehow legitimate governance by encouraging

participation in regional initiatives through indirect influence, multilateral arrangements,

and mechanisms preventing free riding (Pedersen, 2002, pp. 683–688). Under this

framework, Nigeria exercises regional leadership through multilateral institutional

frameworks and mechanisms like ECOWAS/ECOMOG, designed specifically to minimise

potential resistance from smaller Francophone states in West Africa. That is to say,

Nigeria strategically utilises regional peacekeeping missions under ECOWAS as power

projection tools in West Africa. As Beswick (2010) clearly demonstrates in her analysis

of Rwanda’s contribution to peacekeeping missions in Darfur, peacekeeping allows even

small states to gain operational experience for their military forces while simultaneously

reaffirming commitment to international norms, strengthening regional influence, and

enhancing international prestige. For Nigeria, often referred to as the “Giant of Africa”

(Adebajo, 2008, p. 12), regional peacekeeping missions translate its demographic and

economic advantages into regional leadership while mitigating fears of hegemonic

ambitions among smaller Francophone states through participation in regional

organisations.

As often stated, the end of the Cold War created multiple avenues for emerging powers

to exercise influence through evolving regional security architectures. Although this

development has produced “security regime complexes” where multiple actors,

institutions, norms and mandates play overlapping roles, resulting in inefficiency and

resource wastage (Brosig, 2013), regional powers have increasingly leveraged

peacekeeping initiatives to project influence in these complex environments. The post-

Cold War trend toward regionalisation of peacekeeping offers several advantages for

regional actors, including enhanced legitimacy, cultural awareness, and local knowledge

due to their proximity to conflict zones. Moreover, regional peacekeeping initiatives

reportedly allow for more flexible interpretation of mission mandates than the UN

missions’ doctrinal approach. Through examining how peace enforcement mechanisms

are understood differently by the UN and AU, De Coning (2017) demonstrates that

regional mechanisms provide greater flexibility for conducting effective operations

compared to the UN’s strict doctrinal approach. This adaptability enables more effective

and responsive interventions to regional conflicts on behalf of the international

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

212

community (Bellamy & Williams, 2005, pp. 159–167). Within the African security regime

complex, where shared regional understanding facilitates more assertive peacekeeping

missions than those led by the UN, Nigeria strategically utilises regional organisations to

maximise its influence while sharing peacekeeping burdens that would be impossible

under strict UN peacekeeping principles, namely consent, impartiality, and the limited

use of force. This approach explains Nigeria’s prioritisation of regional organisations like

ECOWAS for peace interventions in West Africa while simultaneously engaging with AU

and UN peacekeeping operations throughout (and beyond) the continent as a strategic

portfolio.

The evolution of African security architecture, in particular, reflects broader normative

shifts with regard to African conflict management, where two emerging powers, Nigeria

and South Africa, have leveraged peacekeeping to assert leadership in their respective

regions without necessarily contradicting sovereignty norms (Adebajo & Landsberg,

2003). While the Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), particularly Articles

II and III, emphasized the Westphalian notion of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and

“non-interference” since the 1963 founding conference in Addis Ababa (OAU, 1963), the

Pan-Africanist vision of Nkrumah championed by Nigerian leader Obasanjo and South

African leader Mbeki during the late 1990s facilitated a gradual normative shift from a

state-centric regime survival approach to a more human security-oriented one.

1

The

imperative for such a shift from “non-interference” to “non-indifference” became evident

through multiple humanitarian catastrophes on the continent, particularly the Rwandan,

Liberian, and Somali civil wars.

The end of the Cold War and the subsequent call for “African solutions for African

[security] problems” by both African and Western leaders, along with the OAU’s failed

peace initiatives in the continent (e.g., Chad), renewed aspirations for an “African

Renaissance” and continental unity, culminating in the establishment of the African Union

(AU) in 2002. More importantly, compared to the OAU Charter, the AU Constitutive Act

imposes strict limitations on the principles of state sovereignty and non-interference,

particularly Articles III and IV (OAU, 2000), making it the first international treaty

recognizing the right to use military interventions by an international organization in its

members’ domestic politics (Franke, 2009, pp. 102–106; Kindiki, 2007, pp. 44–48). As

Franke succinctly puts it:

Under the AU, member states enjoy the privileges of sovereignty, such as non-

interference in their internal affairs, only as long as they fulfil their responsibility to

protect their citizens. If, however, states fail, for whatever reasons, to honour this

responsibility, the AU reserves for itself the right to intervene pursuant to a decision

of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and

crimes against humanity” (2009, p. 106).

1

The Libyan leader Ghaddafi also proposed creating the “United States of Africa” in Sirte in 1999, advocating

for a continental organization focusing on collective security and conflict management. This proposal was

welcomed by both Mbeki and Obasanjo as it could potentially advance their reform agenda for the OAU. For

more information why these three leaders spearheaded the transformation of the OAU into the AU and how

they accommodated their diverging reform proposals, see Tieku (2004, pp. 253–265).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

213

The reappraisal of security cooperation in Africa during the 1990s ultimately led to the

establishment of the African Union in Durban in 2002, which institutionalised the principle

of “non-indifference” and consequently created a considerably more proactive peace and

security framework. This new framework has created a plethora of multi-layered security

arrangements with several regional organisations (e.g., ECOWAS, SADC, IGAD, ECCAS,

and AMU; Franke, 2009, pp. 63–76) along with the newly branded continental

organisation, the African Union. Such a cooperative structure, however, does not

necessarily undermine the authority and responsibility of regional organisations. Instead,

the AU has benefitted from their experience and comparative advantages for peace

operations. In this emerging decentralised security arrangement, the AU has served as

a “clearinghouse and framework for all initiatives, thus filling the conceptual and

institutional gap between the global level (the United Nations) and the regional level”

(Franke, 2009, p. 107). The regional organisations, in turn, have become responsible

actors in establishing continental security by eliminating potential competition among

various actors at multiple levels. Although such a security framework is criticised for

creating additional bureaucracy and thus preventing timely responses to grave

circumstances, the injection of all actors’ stakes into the process makes it less likely to

fail (Franke, 2009, pp. 106–107).

The new African security mechanism, which gives African states agency in security

arrangements under the “African solutions for African problems” discourse, on the other

hand, faces substantial challenges before achieving success, particularly resource

limitations and capacity issues. These constraints provide context for Nigeria’s dilemma,

as it oscillates between hegemonic aspirations and leadership constraints due to

insufficient resources and limited recognition from small Francophone states in West

Africa. Nigerian dual engagement with regional and global institutions for peacekeeping

emerges from this dilemma, what Adebajo (2008) terms “hegemony on a shoestring,”

indicating an ambitious peacekeeping strategy for regional leadership despite significant

constraints.

2

The Mano River Basin crises of Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Côte d'Ivoire, in

particular, illustrate these challenges. In these cases, Nigeria-led ECOWAS missions

played a more significant role than the UN during the initial phases of peace processes.

In each intervention, the UN Security Council was reluctant to take a leading role initially;

instead, it opted to support ECOWAS missions politically and financially to maintain

regional stability. Yet when it became evident that ECOWAS was unable to exercise its

mandate properly due to resource constraints, the UN subsequently took over the

missions and played a decisive role in the outcome. Moreover, former colonisers, Britain

and France, provided financial and military support to peace operations in Sierra Leone

and Côte d'Ivoire, respectively, before the UN takeover. The common problems in these

interventions were ECOWAS’s lack of resources and capacity to run the operations, and

the lack of unity between ECOWAS and the UN for effective operations (Adebajo, 2011,

Chapter 5; Iwilade & Agbo, 2012). Clearly, Nigeria strategically utilised peacekeeping

initiatives as a tool of influence in the Mano River Basin crises while sharing the burdens

with other countries through both regional and global institutions, thereby gaining

2

For more information on what this term encapsulates, see Adebajo & Landsberg (2003, Chapter 9).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

214

international prestige and recognition while minimising expenditure of blood and

treasure.

Methodology

Despite extensive literature on the regional security framework in Africa (e.g., Adebajo

(2011); Baregu & Landsberg (2003); Bellamy & Williams (2005); Brosig (2013); Franke

(2009)), significant gaps remain in understanding Nigeria’s dual engagement strategy

with regional and global institutions in peacekeeping. Barnett & Finnemore (2004), for

instance, provide a theoretical framework for analysing how international organisations

exercise power; however, they devote insufficient attention to how regional powers

strategically navigate multiple institutional frameworks to enhance their international

influence, as observed in West Africa. Put differently, the existing literature offers limited

analysis of how emerging powers like Nigeria balance hegemonic aspirations in West

Africa with resource and leadership constraints through institutional mechanisms, such

as ECOWAS, AU, and UN. Although Adebajo (2002a) provides a detailed account of

specific peacekeeping operations in West Africa, there remains a need for a systematic

analysis of how Nigeria’s peacekeeping engagements form a coherent strategy for

international recognition, influence, and prestige. The continued relevance of examining

Nigeria’s dual engagement strategy is also underscored by recent regional crises that

have fundamentally challenged ECOWAS’s effectiveness and Nigeria’s hegemonic

capacity (International Crisis Group, 2024; Gbenga & Oluwatobi, 2025), making this

study particularly timely for understanding the limits of regional hegemonic power. This

study, therefore, endeavours to address this gap by investigating Nigeria’s engagement

with regional and global institutions (ECOWAS, AU, and UN) in peacekeeping,

conceptualising these engagements as a calculated approach to both opportunities and

constraints in the evolving regional and global security landscape rather than discrete

commitments for regional peace and stability.

To this end, this study employs a comparative case study approach to examine the

Nigerian dual engagement strategy for regional power projection through peacekeeping

operations. Drawing from methodological approaches of Tardy & Wyss (2014) and Van

der Lijn & Avezov (2015), which analyze African peacekeeping frameworks and

operations (a.k.a. Africa as “the peacekeeping laboratory”) by focusing on institutional

arrangements, operational implementation, and stakeholder responses, the study

examines three carefully-selected cases representing different dimensions of Nigerian

peacekeeping strategy: ECOWAS interventions in (i) Liberia (1989-1997) and (ii) Sierra

Leone (1997-2002) and (iii) the UN-AU Hybrid Operation (UNAMID) in Darfur, Sudan

(2007-2020). These cases were selected based on the following three criteria: (i)

temporal variation to capture Nigeria's evolving peacekeeping strategy, (ii) institutional

diversity to examine Nigeria's engagements across different frameworks, and (iii)

strategic significance for Nigeria's hegemonic aspirations. To examine these cases, the

relevant data is derived from multiple sources to ensure a comprehensive analysis,

including primary sources from ECOWAS, AU, and UN documentation, complemented by

secondary sources from scholarly literature on Nigeria’s foreign policy, regional security

dynamics, and peacekeeping operations.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

215

Although such a methodological approach allows for systematic comparison across

different peacekeeping contexts while accounting for the complex interplay between

hegemonic aspirations and resource constraints, the study acknowledges its certain

limitations. First, access to relevant data on the Nigerian decision-making process is

constrained by limited transparency in security policies. Second, rather than covering all

Nigerian peacekeeping missions, the study instead examines only three representative

cases. Last but not least, due to the nature of small-N case analysis, certain causal claims

regarding the external validity of these three cases should be presented with caveats.

Nevertheless, by examining Nigerian peacekeeping strategy across different institutional

frameworks and time periods, this study endeavours to identify patterns in Nigerian

peacekeeping while accounting for contextual variations. Consequently, the study reveals

how Nigeria navigates the complex interplay between hegemonic aspirations, resource

constraints, and institutional arrangements in its pursuit of a strategic dual engagement

through peacekeeping.

Historical Context

Nigeria's peacekeeping strategy, which began shortly after independence in 1960 through

participation in the UN Operation in the Congo (ONUC), has undergone significant

evolution that must be understood within the broader contextual shifts in Nigeria’s foreign

policy priorities as well as regional leadership aspirations. Such a historical trajectory, no

doubt, reveals how Nigerian engagement has gradually transitioned from a primarily UN-

focused approach to a more pronounced emphasis on regional frameworks such as the

ECOWAS and AU. This evolution, moreover, represents not merely a tactical adjustment

but a strategic reorientation of Nigeria’s approach to regional security frameworks and

arrangements.

As previously noted, Nigeria perceives itself as having a “manifest destiny” in West Africa

due to its demographic and economic advantages, while simultaneously functioning as a

dominant actor without power, reflecting its challenge of projecting regional influence

despite limited resources and capacity constraints (Bach, 2007). Unlike South Africa,

another significant hegemonic power emphasising economic integration and institutional

development under its regional leadership, Nigeria has primarily utilised security

mechanisms, particularly peacekeeping missions, as a cost-effective means of

demonstrating its leadership in West Africa (Adebajo & Landsberg, 2003, Chapter 9). The

peace operation in Liberia during the 1990s, in particular, shaped Nigeria’s subsequent

approaches to peacekeeping operations in Sierra Leone, Guinea-Bissau, and Côte d'Ivoire

(Obi, 2009, pp. 122–130). These early interventions and experiences have also informed

Nigeria’s navigation of regional and global peacekeeping frameworks and arrangements.

The creation and evolution of regional organisations, such as ECOWAS and the AU, have

been significantly shaped by the clash and accommodation of regional powers’ interests.

In this context, regional powers like Nigeria have sought to influence the institutional

design of regional organisations in order to facilitate their leadership aspirations in their

respective regions (Tieku, 2004, pp. 250–251).

Although Nigeria’s first peacekeeping contributions began shortly after its independence

in 1960 with the ONUC, it maintained a consistent, if limited, presence in UN-led peace

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

216

operations during the 1960s and 1970s, deploying troops to missions beyond Africa,

including the Iran-Iraq border and Lebanon. These early engagements established

Nigeria as a significant contributor to international peacekeeping efforts, aligning with its

post-civil war foreign policy orientation (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 28–30). Moreover, these

initial contributions largely reflected Nigeria’s commitment to multilateralism, particularly

the UN system, rather than explicit regional leadership aspirations in West Africa. The

1980s, however, marked a transition in Nigeria’s strategy towards regional security

arrangements. As Bach (2007, p. 303) notes, its growing economic power through oil

revenues and demographic weight generated “messianic references” for Nigerian

leadership in West Africa. This self-perception was largely considered natural by the

Nigerian political elite, given their country’s relatively superior economic and

demographic advantage compared to small Francophone West African states like Burkina

Faso and Côte d'Ivoire (Ivory Coast). The same period, however, witnessed the

limitations of Nigerian regional leadership due to domestic political, economic, and social

problems (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 34; Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 117–118), characterizing Nigeria

as “dominance without power” and highlighting the gap between Nigeria’s hegemonic

aspirations and effective capabilities for such a role (Bach, 2007, p. 302). These

underlying tensions would eventually shape Nigeria’s approach to regional security

frameworks and arrangements since the 1990s.

Although Nigerian military regimes under Generals Babangida (1985-1993) and Abacha

(1993-1998) were particularly active in developing and supporting the emerging regional

security mechanisms in the first three decades following Nigerian independence, the

transition to civilian rule under former-General Obasanjo in 1999 paved the way for a

more institutionalised approach to Nigeria’s peacekeeping strategy. As Olonisakin (2000,

Chapter 4) highlights, while the two former leaders eagerly utilized ECOWAS/ECOMOG

as a tool for legitimizing their military regimes internationally, showing that Nigeria

deserves a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, and projecting Nigeria’s power

regionally, Obasanjo emphasized multilateral frameworks and regional partnership

among Anglophone, Francophobe, and Lusophone countries in West Africa. As mentioned

previously, such transition in Nigeria’s peacekeeping strategy coincided with the

transformation of the OAU into the AU and its new peace and security architecture, in

which Nigeria under Obasanjo, along with South Africa’s Mbeki and Libyan leader

Ghaddafi, played a significant role (Franke, 2009).

A turning point in Nigeria’s peacekeeping evolution was the outbreak of Liberian civil war

(1989), when growing regional instability in West Africa and limited international

response eventually led Nigeria to spearhead the establishment of the ECOWAS

Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) in 1990 (Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 91–99). In this first major

African-led peacekeeping operation on the continent, Nigeria provided approximately

80% of ECOMOG’s troops and contributed almost 90% of its funding (Adebajo, 2002b,

p. 48; cf. Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 109–110). This substantial commitment of blood and

treasure for West African regional stability enabled Nigeria to largely shape ECOMOG’s

policies in the region. In other words, the Liberian intervention by ECOMOG represented

a watershed moment in West Africa, establishing Nigeria’s hegemonic role in regional

security arrangements and thus creating an institutional framework through which

Nigerian leadership was exercised.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

217

The evolution of ECOWAS’s security mechanisms during the 1990s, in particular, reflected

Nigeria’s strategic vision for West African security framework. As Adebajo & Landsberg

(2003, pp. 189–191) and Jaye (2008) demonstrate, the development of ECOWAS from

a purely regional economic organization to one with significant security functions under

ECOMOG largely occurred under Nigerian leadership and thus mostly reflected its regional

security priorities and aspirations. For instance, the 1991 Declaration of Political

Principles condemning any seizure of political power by armed force (ECOWAS, 1991),

the 1993 revision of the ECOWAS treaty formalizing its fundamental principles and

security mandate (ECOWAS, 1993), the 1999 Protocol Relating to the Mechanism for

Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping, and Security (ECOWAS,

1999), and the 2001 Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance emphasizing zero

tolerance for political power obtained or maintained by unconstitutional means (ECOWAS,

2001), along with the establishment of the Standby Force and the Early Warning System,

further institutionalized Nigerian approach to regional security governance and

engendered a security culture in West Africa, consisting of new norms, procedures, and

capabilities (Jaye, 2008; Aning, 2007). With these new frameworks and arrangements

on regional security governance, Nigeria gained legitimate international platforms for

exercising leadership while distributing peacekeeping burdens among regional actors,

primarily small Francophone states wary of Nigeria’s hegemonic aspirations in West

Africa, as well as former colonial powers, namely France and Britain.

Nigeria’s approach to peacekeeping has been particularly pronounced in West Africa,

where it has led contributions to several ECOWAS missions, including Liberia (1989-

1997), Sierra Leone (1997-2002), Guinea-Bissau (1998-1999), and Côte d'Ivoire (2002-

2004). In these operations, Nigeria followed an institutionalized approach to internal

conflicts, demonstrating a consistent pattern of utilizing regional arrangements to

address security issues in its immediate neighborhood (Obi, 2009). This regional focus

extended beyond mere geographical proximity. Nigeria has also engaged with broader

continental security mechanisms, particularly through the AU, with its participation in the

UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur (UNAMID) representing engagement beyond its

immediate neighborhood. Such a scope, undoubtedly, reflects strategic calculations

regarding Nigeria’s sphere of influence and hegemonic aspirations in the region and the

continent. Nevertheless, Nigeria’s contributions to peacekeeping operations beyond West

Africa remained limited and selective, as its continental aspirations often stretched its

limited resources and capabilities, creating tensions between hegemonic aspirations and

practical constraints, domestic backlash against hegemonic overextension, and

competition with South Africa, which is another potential hegemon in the continent

(Adebajo & Landsberg, 2003; Bach, 2007). All these constraints and tensions compelled

Nigeria to adopt a more selective stance in peacekeeping engagement within and beyond

West Africa.

Case Studies

As outlined in the methodology section, Nigeria’s strategy for power projection through

peacekeeping can be better understood through examining its engagements across

various institutional frameworks and arrangements. This section, therefore, analyzes

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

218

three representative cases illustrating Nigeria’s approach to peace operations: the

ECOWAS interventions in (i) Liberia, (ii) Sierra Leone and (iii) Nigeria’s participation in

the UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur, Sudan. It is important to highlight that these

cases span different time periods, institutional contexts, and regional settings; thus,

offering a comprehensive view of Nigeria’s strategically calculated and selective

peacekeeping approaches.

ECOWAS Intervention in Liberia (1989-1997)

Following Charles Taylor’s National Patriotic Front of Liberia (NPLF) attacks against

Samuel Doe’s regime in the late 1980s,

3

the conflict rapidly escalated into a full-scale

civil war with unfolding humanitarian disaster and a steady stream of refugees to

neighboring countries. As the international community, including Liberia’s Cold War

patron the US and the UN, remained unwilling to intervene, the ECOWAS Monitoring

Group (ECOMOG) intervention in the Liberian civil war (1989-1997) became imperative,

with Nigeria stepping in as a regional hegemon to fill the security vacuum in West Africa.

Although some argue that General Babangida’s friendship with Samuel Doe initially

motivated the Liberian intervention, the primary concern was that Charles Taylor’s

successful overthrow of the Liberian government would embolden other rebel groups in

the region to challenge central governments (Obi, 2009, p. 122). Nigerian then-President

Babangida viewed the unfolding crisis as both a humanitarian emergency as well as a

threat to regional stability through its spillover effects in West Africa, thus requiring

Nigeria as a regional actor to intervene to mitigate refugee flows and potential regional

contagion. Nigeria, however, did not undertake such an operation solely for altruistic

reasons. The ECOMOG intervention under ECOWAS also served Nigeria’s parochial

national interests, including its aspirations for regional hegemony, the protection of

Nigerian expatriates in West Africa, and the diversion of domestic socio-economic

problems (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 48–49; Adibe, 1997, pp. 473–474).

Table 1. Nigerian Participation in Regional & Continental Peace Operations, Selected Cases

Country

Mission

Type

Mandate

Nigerian

Role

Troop

Contri-

bution

Command

Role

Financial

/

Logistical

Contribu-

tion

Liberia

ECOMOG

Dominant

Yes

(~80%)

Brigade

Commander

Yes

(~90%)

3

The NPLF’s nucleus compromised approximately 12,500 rebels, primarily Gio soldiers and Nimba farmers who

had been marginalized under Samuel Doe’s brutal exclusionary regime (Olonisakin, 2000, Chapter 3).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

219

Peace

Enforce-

ment

End civil war

& restore

order

Sierra

Leone

ECOMOG

Peace

Enforce-

ment

Reverse

coup &

restore

government

Dominant

Yes

(~90%)

Brigade

Commander

Yes

(~90%)

Sudan

(Darfur)

UNAMID

Robust

Peacekee

-ping

(Hybrid)

Protection of

civilians,

facilitation of

humanitarian

aid &

support

peace

process

Limited

Yes

(~10%)

Force

Commander

Not

specified

Source: Compiled by the author.

Within a short period of time, Taylor controlled most of Liberia, including the capital

Monrovia, which ultimately transformed the Nigerian-led ECOMOG cease-fire monitoring

mission into a peace enforcement force to control local developments (Adebajo, 2002a,

p. 52; Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 102–107). Rather than acting unilaterally, Nigeria worked

through ECOWAS in order to establish ECOMOG as a multinational force, securing support

from other West African states including Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone, and The Gambia.

Through this multilateral approach, Nigeria gained not only legitimacy for the intervention

but also shared the cost and blood with other participating states. Nevertheless, Nigeria’s

deployment of ECOMOG without a strong legal basis compromised its legitimacy, thus

enabling Taylor and the NPLF to challenge the intervention (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 52; Adibe,

1997, pp. 475–476; Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 110–115). Generals Babangida and later

Abacha addressed these challenges by emphasizing humanitarian imperatives and

regional (in)stability,

4

thus establishing a precedent for regional intervention in

subsequent ECOWAS operations (Arthur, 2010). Despite ECOMOG’s initial success in

taking control of the capital and forcing rebel factions to sign 14 peace agreements over

the years, these accords proved short-lived primarily due to increased fractionalization

among Liberian rebel groups (Adebajo, 2002a, Chapter 3). With eight rebel factions

divided along ethnic and personal lines during the conflict,

5

ECOWAS, nevertheless,

4

Paradoxically, the leaders of ECOMOG-contributing states, including Nigeria’s Babangida and Abacha, had

seized power through undemocratic means despite their role in ECOMOG’s mission to counter Charles Taylor,

a Liberian warlord who had initiated an insurgency against Samuel Doe’s brutal regime. This contradiction

attracted significant criticism regarding the mission’s authenticity when led by former military rulers (Arthur,

2010, p. 10).

5

Despite the presence of eight rebel factions fighting during the civil war, none possessed a coherent ideology

aimed at fundamental transformation of the Doe regime. Instead, most warlords, including Charles Taylor,

focused on private wealth accumulation in a protracted civil war through exploiting Liberia’s natural resources,

such as diamonds, gold, timber, rubber, and iron ore (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 46–47; Reno, 1998, Chapter 3).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

220

successfully brought Charles Taylor and other potent armed factions to the negotiation

table in 1995 to reach a peace agreement under UN supervision, the Abuja Accord. In

the ensuing elections in 1997, the National Patriotic Party secured a majority of seats

while Taylor became president, winning 75% of the vote (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 63–66;

Obi, 2009, pp. 124–127).

In 1998, ECOMOG withdrew from Liberia, leaving the UN mission in its place with limited

resources and personnel.

6

Most Liberians expected that Charles Taylor would embrace

peaceful mechanisms rather than pursuing politics through force. Despite optimistic

expectations about Liberia’s future, Taylor ruled the country with a heavy hand in a way

that he distributed economic resources and positions of authority to his loyalists through

a winner-take-all approach. The NPLF forces, for instance, were largely converted into

regular forces of Liberia, enabling Taylor to rule autocratically (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 67–

73). Consequently, Liberia experienced the recurrence of civil war within one year of the

1997 post-conflict elections. During this conflict, both Côte D’Ivoire and Guinea provided

financial and military support to Liberian rebel forces fighting against the Taylor regime,

namely the Movement for Democracy in Liberia (MODEL) and the Liberian United for

Reconciliation and Democracy (LURD) respectively. By 2003, these two rebel groups had

gained control over most of Liberia, placing Taylor in a precarious position. Furthermore,

the Sierra Leone Special War Crimes Court indicted Taylor for war crimes in Sierra Leone’s

civil war (1997-2002), where Taylor had maintained support for the Revolutionary United

Front (RUF), along with some rebel groups in Guinea. That same year, a new ECOWAS

mission (ECOMIL) was deployed to Monrovia, but this time with the international support.

Within a week, Charles Taylor resigned and went into exile, accepting asylum in Nigeria

as part of an ECOWAS-brokered Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) (Obi, 2009, p.

124).

Nigeria’s material contributions to ECOMOG, and later ECOMIL, in Liberia demonstrated

both its commitment to regional hegemony and its inherent constraints. Notably, Nigeria

provided approximately 80% of ECOMOG’s troops and funded almost 90% of this first

major African-led peacekeeping operation on the continent (Adebajo, 2002b, p. 48; cf.

Olonisakin, 2000, pp. 109–110). Such commitment reflected Nigeria’s material

capabilities relative to other regional actors and its willingness to bear the cost and blood

of being a regional hegemon. Nigeria’s willingness, capabilities, and contributions,

however, generated backlash within ECOMOG as other contributing West African

countries expressed resentment toward Nigerian dominance in decision-making

processes and command structures (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 56; Adibe, 1997, p. 483). As

noted above, while ECOMOG was initially designed as a cease-fire monitoring mission, it

quickly became an enforcement force against Taylor’s powerful rebel force, NPLF. This

mission creep resulted primarily from ECOMOG’s limited preparation for complex

peacekeeping environments and the fluid nature of the conflict. Described by Gberie

6

The UN’s involvement in the Liberian civil war goes back to 1993 when the Security Council established the

UN Observer Mission in Liberia (UNOMIL) to support ECOMOG in implementing the Cotonou Peace Agreement.

The UN could only implement the revised Cotonou peace agreement in 1997 following years of failed

implementation attempts due to ongoing conflict among Liberian factions. The UNOMIL mission was over with

the establishment of a democratically elected government following the 1997 elections. In the post-election

period, the UN established the UN Peace-building Support Office in Liberia (UNOL) in lieu of UNOMIL to facilitate

post-conflict recovery efforts (Adibe, 1997, pp. 477–481).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

221

(2003) as “an heroic failure,” the ECOMOG mission also encountered multiple challenges,

including inadequate planning, limited logistical support, coordination problems among

contributing states, questions over its impartiality due to personal ties among

participating states and Nigerian dominance in decision-making processes, particularly

from Francophone states (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 57; Adibe, 1997, pp. 482–485; Arthur,

2010, pp. 14–16; Olonisakin, 2000, Chapter 4). These challenges revealed the

discrepancy between Nigeria’s hegemonic aspirations in the region and its practical

constraints in conducting peacekeeping operations in complex environments.

Despite significant challenges, the Liberian intervention yielded several strategic benefits

for Nigeria. First and foremost, by leading the ECOMOG mission, Nigeria established itself

as the primary security provider in West Africa when or where international actors were

reluctant or unable to take the lead and bear the associated cost and blood. Furthermore,

the first major African-led peacekeeping operation on the continent created a practical

framework and procedures, thus a precedent, for subsequent regional peacekeeping

missions (Arthur, 2010). Considering all the challenges and benefits, the ECOMOG

mission yielded mixed results for Nigeria, oscillating between hegemonic aspirations and

resource constraints. This tension, furthermore, has remained a consistent feature of

Nigeria’s peacekeeping strategy since the late 1980s.

ECOWAS Intervention in Sierra Leone (1997-2002)

The ECOWAS intervention in Sierra Leone exemplified the evolution of Nigeria’s regional

peacekeeping strategy based on lessons from the Liberian civil war. Similar to Liberia,

conflicts in Sierra Leone erupted in 1991 when Foday Sankoh’s Revolutionary United

Front (RUF) forces, backed by Libya, Burkina Faso, and Charles Taylor’s NPFL yet

commanding minimal local support, attacked Momoh’s regime and seized the diamond-

rich southeast region. The reasons Taylor supported the RUF forces were to punish

Freetown for its contributions to the ECOMOG mission in Liberia, to fragment the fragile

ECOMOG coalition, to destabilize the whole region, and thus, to facilitate diamond exports

from Sierra Leone to Liberia (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 54, 82–83). In 1992, Momoh’s regime

was toppled by Valentine Strasser, an ex-ECOMOG army officer, who established the

National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC), ultimately leading to ECOMOG’s mandate

expansion to Sierra Leone. Four years later, Julius Bio’s palace coup brought Ahmed

Tejan Kabbah, a former senior UN official, to power through the post-coup elections.

7

Through Côte d'Ivoire’s mediation, despite allegations of RUF favoritism, the Abidjan

Accord was signed in 1996, aiming to bring peace, stability, and economic development

to Sierra Leone.

8

The following year, however, Johnny Paul Koroma, a putschist in

previous failed coups, led a military coup, establishing the Armed Forces Ruling Council

7

Prior to the 1996 palace coup, Brigadier-General Bio notified Nigerian President Abacha of his planned coup.

Angered by Sierra Leone’s censure against Nigeria at the 1995 Commonwealth Summit, Abacha assured Bio

that Nigerian forces stationed in Sierra Leone would not intervene. Following the successful coup, Bio formed

close ties with Abacha. The same Nigerian forces, however, later played a significant role in thwarting several

coup attempts against the democratically-elected Kabbah government (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 85).

8

Being perceived as the only moral guarantor of the Abidjan Accord alongside the UN, the OAU, and the

Commonwealth, Côte d'Ivoire’s mediation effort reflected the historical subregional rivalry with Nigeria in West

Africa, dating back to the late 1960s when Côte d'Ivoire provided military support to the secessionist Biafra

during the Nigerian civil war (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 86).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

222

(AFRC), which subsequently invited the RUF to form a coalition. Kabbah, rejecting his

government’s overthrow through military means, called for help from the international

community (Arthur, 2010, pp. 8–9). Nigerian President Abacha, viewing Kabbah’s appeal

as an opportunity to mitigate his military regime’s international isolation, initiated a

regional plan to restore stability in Sierra Leone.

Through this Nigerian-led initiative, ECOWAS deployed ECOMOG II to Sierra Leone,

where forces, alongside a small UN Observer Mission (UNOSIL), confronted the AFRC and

RUF to reinstate Kabbah within a year (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 83–88; Obi, 2009, pp. 124–

125).

9

Reflecting its dominance, Nigeria contributed approximately 90% of ECOMOG

troops in Sierra Leone (~12,000 soldiers) and consequently controlled most operational

decisions, with Nigerian military leaders often resembled their role to the US position in

NATO (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 91). Such a dominance demonstrated Nigeria’s superior

capabilities and resources relative to other regional actors, which simultaneously

generated regional resentment while providing multilateral legitimacy for Nigerian

hegemonic aspirations. As Adebajo succinctly puts it:

“[…] while Nigeria faced criticisms in its subregion for its military actions in Sierra

Leone, many of its critics refused to contribute the troops that could have diversified

the force and diluted Nigeria’s preponderant strength. […] It was sometimes easier

for ECOWAS states and the wider international community to criticize from the

sidelines and let Nigeria bear the financial and military burden, while doing nothing

to lighten this weight” (2002a, pp. 89–90).

Unlike the Liberian case, multiple factors undermined an effective ECOWAS response in

Sierra Leone, including the internal divisions within ECOWAS regarding crisis response

strategies, limited capacity and resources of ECOMOG compared to the UN military

observers, interference from neighboring states, deteriorating relations between Nigerian

forces and Sierra Leonean citizens, and Nigerian domination of decision-making

processes at the expense of other contributing states. These challenges made it clear

that the Nigerian-led ECOWAS initiative would fail to defeat the AFRC and RUF forces

quickly (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 90–92; Arthur, 2010, pp. 14–16; Obi, 2009, p. 125).

Furthermore, following Olusegun Obasanjo’s election as Nigerian President in 1999,

Nigeria began to reassess the costs and benefits of ECOMOG interventions amid domestic

economic and social problems. During his address to the 54th UN General Assembly in

1999, for instance, Obasanjo stated that “[f]or too long, the burden of preserving

international peace and security in West Africa has been left almost entirely to a few

states […] Nigeria’s continual burden in Sierra Leone is unacceptably draining Nigeria

financially. For our economy to take off, this bleeding has to stop” (p. 6).

Despite ECOWAS initiatives to appease the AFRC-RUF coalition to reinstate stability in

Sierra Leone following the gradual withdrawal of Nigerian forces from ECOMOG, the

rebels continued to attack Freetown and took UNAMSIL peacekeepers hostage to gain

more concessions. In response to increasing attacks, the international community,

9

Despite violating the UN security Council’s arms embargo, three private security firms, namely Sandline

International, Executive Outcomes, and International Alert, with connections to external actors (e.g., the UK,

South Africa) and diamond-mining firms (e.g., Branch Energy) also supplied weapons to ECOMOG’s ally, the

kamajor militias, to reinstate the Kabbah regime (Adebajo, 2002a, Chapter 4).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

223

particularly the former colonizer United Kingdom, deployed additional forces throughout

the country to contain the instability and oversee the 2002 elections, which Kabbah won

decisively (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 93–95). In 2003, the ECOMOG mission was gradually

replaced by the United Nations Peacekeeping Mission to Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) as

Obasanjo announced that Nigeria would reduce its contributions to ECOMOG missions in

West Africa due to economic and social problems at home (Adebajo, 2002a, pp. 97–100;

Arthur, 2010, pp. 13–14; Obi, 2009, pp. 125–126). As an illustration, Nigerian forces

were significantly reduced, with 8,500 soldiers withdrawn from Sierra Leone while the

remaining 3,500 soldiers were rehatted as UNAMSIL peacekeepers (Obi, 2009, pp. 121–

122). Nevertheless, Nigeria assisted in training 8,500 Sierra Leonean military officers at

the Nigerian Defense Academy, complementing significant British training of the army

and police, to promote long-term security-sector reform (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 102).

In brief, by an attempt to restore democracy in Sierra Leone though ECOMOG, Nigeria

aimed to reach two primary goals. First, despite his own military seizure of power,

General Abacha sought to overcome international isolation and sanctions against his

military regime by restoring democracy in Sierra Leone as well as demonstrating Nigeria’s

indispensable peacekeeping role in West Africa, where the international community

remained hesitant to intervene, invoking the mantra of “African solutions for African

problems.” Second, and more importantly, by assuming such a burdensome role in this

volatile region, Nigeria aimed to assert its hegemonic aspirations, a position it had

pursued since the establishment of ECOWAS in 1975 to counter French influence and

formidable francophone states like Côte d'Ivoire (Adebajo, 2002a, p. 92). In essence, the

Sierra Leone intervention served as a showcase of Nigeria’s benevolent and cooperative

hegemonic role in addressing West Africa’s security issues, which could potentially

alleviate regional suspicions of Nigeria’s ultimate goals while simultaneously struggling

with economic and social challenges at home.

UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur (2007-2020)

In comparison to ECOWAS interventions in Liberia and Sierra Leone, Nigeria’s

participation in the UN-AU Hybrid Operation in Darfur, Sudan between 2007 and 2020

demonstrates its engagement with continental peacekeeping while navigating the

complex relationship between regional and global security mechanisms. The Darfur

conflict erupted in 2003 when two rebel groups, namely the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA)

and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), launched an insurgency against Omar al-

Bashir’s government, criticizing the systematic political and economic marginalization of

African farmers and nomadic Arab tribes (e.g., Fur, Masalit and Zaghawa) through Arab

militia forces like the Janjaweed along with the Popular Defense Force (PDF) and the

Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) (Adebajo, 2011, p. 203; De Waal, 2007, pp. 1039–1040;

El-Tom, 2011). The international community responded to the ongoing humanitarian

crisis, including mass killings, village burnings, systematic rape, forced displacement,

and famine, in an evolving fashion, beginning with the establishment of an African Union

monitoring mission (AMIS) in 2004 on the basis of the Ndjamena Humanitarian Ceasefire

Agreement that later evolved into a hybrid UN-AU mission (UNAMID) in 2007, concurrent

with the 2009 arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for al-

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

224

Bashir on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (Flint & de Waal,

2008, Chapter 7; Kindiki, 2007, pp. 3–5; UNSC, 2005). Despite these international efforts

toward peace and stability in Sudan, little progress occurred until 2020 when the Darfur

Peace Agreement was reached,

10

largely because of an inconsistent international

response and dysfunctional Sudanese government (De Waal, 2007, pp. 1041–1043).

Once the shortcomings of the Ndjamena Agreement became clear, the African Union

peacekeeping mission (AMIS) proved inadequate to restore stability in Darfur due to its

constraints, and as Khartoum continued violating the UN Security Council’s resolution

(S/RES/1556 (2004); UNSC, 2004),

11

the international community, particularly

Americans,

12

began advocating for a UN mission with a robust mandate and sufficient

resources, which subsequently led to the deployment of UNAMID in 2007 without a

comprehensive peace strategy in the areas of ceasefire, civilian protection, and

disarmament (De Waal, 2007, pp. 1047–1049; Flint & de Waal, 2008, Chapter 7). From

2004 to 2006, seven rounds of peace talks were held in either Addis Ababa or Abuja,

with Nigerian President Obasanjo chairing most of the AU meetings. Through these peace

talks, the Darfur Peace Agreement began taking shape following the 2004 Ndjamena

Ceasefire Agreement (Adebajo, 2011, p. 205). When both China and Russia, two of the

five veto-wielding permanent members of the UN Security Council, agreed to deploy a

hybrid force with an “African Character” (S/RES/1769 (2007); UNSC, 2007), meaning

that core troops would come from the continent, al-Bashir reluctantly gave consent to

the UN peacekeeping mission despite his earlier characterization of UNAMID as an

imperial mission (Adebajo, 2011, pp. 207–211; Gelot, 2012, p. 9).

The UN-AU Hybrid Mission was mandated to oversee the implementation of the 2006

Abuja Peace Agreement and to protect civilians with a $1.8 billion-a-year budget. As the

peace force required an African character, there were serious suspicions in the

international community about African states’ capacity to undertake such a mission.

Nevertheless, seven African countries alongside external actors such as Bangladesh,

China, Thailand and Nepal, contributed forces to Darfur. Nigeria, along with Rwanda, for

instance, deployed four battalions despite most deployed African forces lacking necessary

equipment and logistical support, which hampered their ability to conduct effective

military patrols and evacuation operations. Furthermore, most UNAMID patrols in the

region were suspended due to kidnapping or shots fired against UN personnel (Adebajo,

2011, pp. 211–212, 215; Omorogbe, 2011, pp. 48–54).

10

The Darfur Peace Agreement represents three sequential peace agreements signed between various parties

to the conflict, including the Sudanese government and rebel groups such as the SLA, the JEM, and the

Liberation and Justice Movement (LJM). These agreements were concluded in different locations over a

fourteen-year period: Abuja (2006), Doha (2011), and Juba (2020).

11

One year later, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1593 (2005), referring the situation in Darfur to

the ICC despite Sudan not being a party to the Rome Statute. Subsequently, the ICC issued an arrest warrant

for Omar al-Bashir in 2009 on charges of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide (De Waal, 2007,

pp. 1041–1043; Flint & de Waal, 2008, Chapter 7).

12

Given the inaction of the Clinton administration regarding the Rwanda genocide in 1994, the US House of

Representatives and Secretary of State Colin Powell hastily designated events in Darfur as “genocide” amid

upcoming elections, contrary to UN findings and NGO assessments. In characterizing Khartoum’s response to

the insurgency as genocide, a grassroots movement called “Save Darfur!” played a significant role in mobilizing

international attention to the humanitarian emergency (Adebajo, 2011, p. 203; Flint & de Waal, 2008, Chapter

7).

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

225

Despite these shortcomings and challenges, Nigeria continued to provide troops

(~3,000), logistical support, and leadership as force commander to the UN-AU Hybrid

Mission until its withdrawal in 2020. Compared to its interventions in Liberia and Sierra

Leone, Nigeria’s willingness to shoulder such a burden, albeit relatively small, in Darfur

reflects its continental leadership aspirations and institutional positioning, despite the

existence of alternative troop contributions and the geographic distance from its

traditional sphere of influence. Through the UN-AU partnership in Darfur, Nigeria sought

to achieve multiple strategic objectives, namely demonstrating its commitment to

continental security mechanisms, maintaining its influence within the evolving AU, and

sharing the associated costs and blood with other actors through the UN. Such a

balancing act demonstrates Nigeria’s peacekeeping strategy whereby it simultaneously

engages with regional (e.g., ECOWAS/ECOMOG, AU) and global institutions like the UN

to advance strategic benefits for hegemonic aspirations while managing resource

constraints and mitigating leadership suspicions through multilateralism. Furthermore,

such a hybrid mission aligns with the “African solutions for African problems” principle,

whereby UNAMID strengthens African security mechanisms by providing opportunities to

access UN logistical, technical, and financial support for African states. In sum, Nigerian

contribution to the UN-AU Hybrid Mission underscores its African leadership while

showing the importance of international partnerships for effectiveness and, more

importantly, legitimacy (Gelot, 2012, Introduction; Kindiki, 2007, Chapter 4).

Conclusion

Examining Nigeria’s dual engagement strategy for regional power projection through

peacekeeping missions in the ECOWAS, AU, and UN frameworks, this study contributes

to the scholarly debate on regionalism, emerging powers, and peacekeeping by offering

a more integrated analysis of how regional powers utilize multiple institutional

frameworks to maximize influence while minimizing associated costs. Analyzing Nigeria's

dual peacekeeping strategy across peace operations in Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Darfur,

Sudan, this research sheds light on strategic calculations that guide Nigeria’s approach

to regional security governance in Africa’s increasingly complex institutional landscape,

revealing tensions between hegemonic aspirations and leadership constraints in West

Africa and beyond.

Nigeria’s peacekeeping strategy represents a calculated approach to maximizing its

influence across West Africa and the broader continent while managing resource

limitations and leadership constraints, particularly in its Francophone-dominated

immediate region. Through ECOWAS, Nigeria seeks to establish itself as West Africa’s

security guarantor while creating necessary institutional mechanisms to legitimize its

regional hegemony. Through its engagement with the AU-UN Hybrid Mission in Darfur,

Nigeria aims to project its continental influence while sharing costs and blood of

peacekeeping with other contributing states. With such a dual engagement strategy in

peacekeeping through regional and global institutional mechanisms, Nigeria is able to

exercise leadership while mitigating resistance from neighboring states to its hegemonic

aspirations. Recent events, nevertheless, demonstrate that Nigeria’s hegemonic

aspirations face unprecedented challenges, particularly when domestic security crises

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

226

limit its capacity to project power regionally, as evidenced by its inability to prevent the

withdrawal of three founding ECOWAS members in 2024 despite deploying economic

sanctions and diplomatic pressure.

The case studies provide significant information with regard to Nigeria’s evolutionary

peacekeeping strategy. The Liberian intervention primarily exemplifies Nigeria’s role as

a regional gendarme while highlighting its significant resource limitations and operational

challenges. The Sierra Leone intervention, on the other hand, demonstrates how Nigeria

refined its peacekeeping approach by developing more robust partnerships with

international actors without compromising its regional leadership. Finally, the Darfur

intervention illustrates Nigeria’s selective engagement with continental mechanisms

whereby it balances regional leadership aspirations with practical constraints of

geographic distance and resource limitations. In sum, these three cases demonstrate

both the potential and constraints of regional security mechanisms that shape Nigeria’s

peacekeeping strategy, necessitating a selective engagement in its commitments and

institutional arrangements to share burdens with international partners. Last but not

least, this study’s theoretical implications extend beyond Nigeria, representing a

significant adaptation strategy to limitations and constraints faced by emerging powers

in the Global South.

References

Adebajo, A. (2000). Nigeria: Africa’s New Gendarme? Security Dialogue, 31(2), 185–

199.

Adebajo, A. (2002a). Building Peace in West Africa: Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Guinea-

Bissau. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Adebajo, A. (2002b). Liberia’s Civil War: Nigeria, ECOMOG, and Regional Security in West

Africa. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Adebajo, A. (2008). Hegemony on a Shoestring: Nigeria’s Post-Cold War Foreign Policy.

In A. Adebajo & A. R. Mustapha (Eds.), Gulliver’s Troubles: Nigeria’s Foreign Policy After

the Cold War (pp. 1–37). University of KwaZulu-Natal Press.

Adebajo, A. (2011). UN Peacekeeping in Africa: From the Suez Crisis to the Sudan

Conflicts. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Adebajo, A., & Landsberg, C. (2003). South Africa and Nigeria as Regional Hegemons. In

M. Baregu & C. Landsberg (Eds.), From Cape to Congo: Southern Africa’s Evolving

Security Challenges (pp. 171–203). Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Adibe, C. E. (1997). The Liberian Conflict and the ECOWAS-UN Partnership. Third World

Quarterly, 18(3), 471–488.

Aning, E. K. (2007). Investing in Peace and Security in Africa: The Case of ECOWAS.

Security & Development, 4(3), 533–542.

Arthur, P. (2010). ECOWAS and Regional Peacekeeping Integration in West Africa:

Lessons for the Future. Africa Today, 57(2), 2–24.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

227

Bach, D. C. (2007). Nigeria’s ‘Manifest Destiny’ in West Africa: Dominance Without

Power. Afrika Spectrum, 42(2), 301–321.

Bah, A. M. S. (2005). West Africa: From a Security Complex to a Security Community.

African Security Review, 14(2), 77–83.

Baregu, M., & Landsberg, C. (Eds.). (2003). From Cape to Congo: Southern Africa’s

Evolving Security Challenges. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Barnett, M., & Finnemore, M. (2004). Rules for the World: International Organizations in

Global Politics. Cornell University Press.

Bellamy, A. J., & Williams, P. D. (2005). Who’s Keeping the Peace?: Regionalization and

Contemporary Peace Operations. International Security, 29(4), 157–195.

Beswick, D. (2010). Peacekeeping, Regime Security and ‘African Solutions to African

Problems’: Exploring Motivations for Rwanda’s Involvement in Darfur. Third World

Quarterly, 31(5), 739–754.

Brosig, M. (2013). Introduction: The African Security Regime Complex—Exploring

Converging Actors and Policies. African Security, 6(3–4), 171–190.

Buzan, B., & Wæver, O. (2003). Regions and Powers: The Structure of International

Security. Cambridge University Press.

De Coning, C. (2017). Peace Enforcement in Africa: Doctrinal Distinctions between the

African Union and United Nations. Contemporary Security Policy, 38(1), 145–160.

De Waal, A. (2007). Darfur and the Failure of the Responsibility to Protect. International

Affairs, 83(6), 1039–1054.

Deutsch, K. W. (1970). Political Community at the International Level: Problems of

Definition and Measurement. Archon Books.

ECOWAS. (1991, July 6). Declaration of Political Principles of the Economic Community

of West African States.

https://www.eods.eu/template/default/compendium/Part%206/028_Declaration_politic

al_principles_ECOWAS.pdf

ECOWAS. (1993, July 24). Revised Treaty of the Economic Community of West African

States (ECOWAS).

https://www.refworld.org/legal/agreements/ecowas/1993/en/63993?prevDestination=s

earch&prevPath=/search?keywords=ECOWAS%2C+declaration+of+political+principles

&order=desc&page=3&sort=score&result=result-63993-en

ECOWAS. (1999, December 10). Economic Community of West African States Protocol

relating to the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management, Resolution,

Peacekeeping and Security. https://amaniafrica-et.org/wp-

content/uploads/2021/04/Protocol-Relating-to-the-Mechanism-for-Conflict-Prevention-

Management-Resolution-Peace-Keeping-and-Security-1999.pdf

ECOWAS. (2001, December 21). Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance

Supplementary to the Protocol relating to the Mechanism For Conflict Prevention,

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

228

Management, Resolution, Peacekeeping and Security.

https://www.eisa.org/pdf/ecowas2001protocol.pdf

El-Tom, A. O. (2011). Darfur, JEM and the Khalil Ibrahim Story, with a Complete Copy of

The Black Book: Imbalance of Power and Wealth in Sudan (1st Edition). Red Sea Press.

Flint, J., & de Waal, A. (2008). Darfur: A New History of a Long War (Revised and

Updated). Zed Books.

Franke, B. (2009). Security Cooperation in Africa: A Reappraisal. First Forum Press.

Gbenga, O., & Oluwatobi, A. (2025). ECOWAS and the Challenges of Regional

Integration: An Assessment of Nigeria's Hegemonic Role. International Journal of Political

Science & International Relations, 16(4), 1-12.

Gberie, L. (2003). ECOMOG: The Story of an Heroic Failure. African Affairs, 102(406),

147–154.

Gelot, L. (2012). Legitimacy, Peace Operations and Global-Regional Security: The African

Union-United Nations Partnership in Darfur. Routledge.

International Crisis Group. (2024, December 11). Restoring Nigeria's Leadership for

Regional Peace and Security (Africa Briefing No. 203).

https://www.crisisgroup.org/africa/west-africa/nigeria/203-restoring-nigerias-

leadership-regional-peace-and-security

Iwilade, A., & Agbo, J. U. (2012). ECOWAS and the Regulation of Regional Peace and

Security in West Africa. Democracy and Security, 8(4), 358–373.

Jaye, T. (2008). The Security Culture of the ECOWAS: Origins, Development and the

Challenge of Child Trafficking. Journal of Contemporary African Studies, 26(2), 151–168.

Kindiki, K. (2007). Intervention to Protect Civilians in Darfur: Legal Dilemmas and Policy

Imperatives (131; ISS Monograph Series). Institute for Security Studies (ISS).

Nolte, D. (2010). How to Compare Regional Powers: Analytical Concepts and Research

Topics. Review of International Studies, 36(4), 881–901.

OAU. (1963, May 25). Charter of the Organization of African Unity.

https://www.refworld.org/legal/constinstr/oau/1963/en/20810

OAU. (2000, July 1). Constitutive Act of the African Union. Organization of African Unity

(OAU).

https://www.refworld.org/legal/constinstr/oau/2000/en/63758?prevDestination=search

&prevPath=/search?keywords=African+Union+Constitutive+Act&sort=score&order=des

c&result=result-63758-en

Obasanjo, O. (1999, September 23). Nigeria, Africa, and the World in the Next

Millennium. The 54th Session of the UN General Assembly.

Obi, C. I. (2009). Economic Community of West African States on the Ground: Comparing

Peacekeeping in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea Bissau, and Côte D’Ivoire. African Security,

2(2–3), 119–135.

JANUS.NET, e-journal of International Relations

e-ISSN: 1647-7251

VOL. 16, Nº. 2, TD1

Thematic Dossier - Emerging Powers In-between Global and Regional Organizations

December 2025, pp. 205-229

Emerging Powers’ Strategy for Power Projection: Nigeria’s Peacekeeping Through Regional &

International Organizations

Yunus Öztürk

229

Olonisakin, F. (2000). Reinventing Peacekeeping in Africa: Conceptual and Legal Issues

in ECOMOG Operations. Kluwer Law International.

Omorogbe, E. Y. (2011). Can the African Union Deliver Peace and Security? Journal of

Conflict & Security Law, 16(1), 35–62.

Pedersen, T. (2002). Cooperative Hegemony: Power, Ideas and Institutions in Regional

Integration. Review of International Studies, 28(4), 677–696.

Prys, M. (2010). Hegemony, Domination, Detachment: Differences in Regional

Powerhood. International Studies Review, 12(4), 479–504.

Reno, W. (1998). Warlord Politics and African States. Lynne Rienner Publishers.

Söderbaum, F., & Tavares, R. (2009). Problematizing Regional Organizations in African

Security. African Security, 2(2–3), 69–81.

Tardy, T., & Wyss, M. (2014). Introduction: Africa-The Peacekeeping Laboratory. In T.

Tardy & M. Wyss (Eds.), Pecaekeeping in Africa: The Evolving Security Architecture.

Routledge.

Tieku, T. K. (2004). Explaining the Clash and Accommodation of Interests of Major Actors

in the Creation of the African Union. African Affairs, 103(411), 249–267.

UNSC. (2004). Resolution 1556: Imposed an arms embargo with immediate effect on all

non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the

states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West darfur, Sudan (30 July 2004). S/RES/1556

(2004). https://docs.un.org/en/S/RES/1556%20(2004)

UNSC. (2005). Resolution 1593: On referring the situation in Darfur since 1 July 2002 to

the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (31 March 2005). S/RES/1593 (2005).

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CAC%20SRES%201769.pdf

UNSC. (2007). Resolution 1769: Created an African Union/UN hybrid peacekeeping

mission in Darfur (UNAMID) (31 July 2007). S/RES/1769 (2007).

https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-

CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/CAC%20SRES%201769.pdf

Van der Lijn, J., & Avezov, X. (2015). The Future Peace Operations Landscape: Voices

from Stakeholders around the Globe [Final Report of the New Geopolitics of Peace

Operations Initiative]. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI).

Williams, P. D. (2008). Keeping the Peace in Africa: Why “African” Solutions Are Not

Enough. Ethics & International Affairs, 22(3), 309–329.