On 3 August 2024 a group of 17 military officers calling themselves the "Military Council for Justice and Democracy" successfully executed a coup d'etat in Mauritania, overthrowing President Maaouiya Ould Sid Ahmed Taya, promising legislative and presidential elections within two years. [1] The coup and the ensuing transition of power present several issues pertinent to public international law. Such issues include recognition of the new Mauritanian rulers by other States, the treatment of treaty and contract obligations by Mauritania, and Mauritania's membership in international organizations. 
I. Applicable International Law: Government Recognition; Obligations of Successive Governments
Under customary international law, government recognition is an acknowledgment by other States that the government is in effective control of the state. Typically, recognition is not dependent upon a particular government's legitimacy or constitutionality, but only acknowledges effective control. Traditionally, recognition of a government will occur when the government 1) obtains effective control without foreign assistance, 2) has the consent, or acquiescence, of the citizenry, and 3) exhibits a willingness to uphold the State's obligations under international law. Typically, government recognition is not an express act, but it is often implied through a continuation of diplomatic relations.
The obligations of a new government under international law include treaty and contract obligations. A new government succeeds to any previously agreed to treaties or contracts with other States (cf. the treaty and contract obligations in the case of state, not government, succession). Contract obligations of a new government are a particular concern when the new government is responsible for state-run industries and companies. Typically, any contracts will remain in force, unless nullified by the new government. Treaty obligations include any treaties previously entered into, and in force, at the time of the new government's ascension. The new government, of course, can follow any applicable provisions to withdraw from a previously entered into treaty. Additionally, a new government will not generally affect a State's membership in international organizations. Membership in the African Union, however, as discussed below, presents a unique instance where membership can be affected by a government that comes to power by unconstitutional means.
II. International Law in Practice: Coup in Mauritania
Legitimate or not, the events in Mauritania indicate the ruling military council are the recognized government under customary international law. The military council, by all accounts 1) obtained, and possess, effective control of Mauritania without foreign assistance, 2) has the consent, or acquiescence, of the people of Mauritania, and 3) exhibits a willingness to uphold the State's obligations under international law. The new ruling council publicly indicated it would uphold all treaties and contracts of the prior government, meeting the third criteria under customary international law for government recognition. A communique from the Military Council on the day of the coup declared their intent "to respect all the treaties and International Conventions ratified by Mauritania."[2] Additionally, recent reports indicate "Mauritania`s ruling Military Council for Justice and Democracy will respect all agreements, which the regime of deposed President Maaoya Sid`Amed Ould Taya signed with oil companies operating in the country, according to the new Oil and Energy Minister Sidi Ali Ould Sidi Mohamed....Major oil exploitation activities are planned for Mauritania in March 2006." [3]
Although traditional analysis indicates the military council is the recognized government in Mauritania, immediately after the military officers took charge both third party States and international organizations condemned the actions. The Secretary-General of the United Nations and the acting President of the African Union publicly condemned the ouster of President Taya.[4] States were equally vocal in their condemnation. For example, "the United States joins the African Union in condemning the attempted overthrow of the government of Mauritania. We oppose any attempts by rogue elements to change governments through extra-constitutional or violent means. We call on all members of the military and security forces to avoid violence and the loss of innocent life." [5] Subsequent to these condemnations, however, third party States have continued to meet and work with the new Mauritanian ruling council.[6] Beyond the public condemnations, these diplomatic dialogues reinforce the notion that the military council is in effective control of Mauritania, the primary criteria in determining whether the military council is the recognized government of Mauritania.
In contrast, however, a number regional treaties and conventions that Mauritania is a party to specifically renounce any government acquiring power via unconstitutional means. These Agreement include:
- African Charter on Human and People's Rights,
- OAU (Organization for African Unity) decisions on Unconstitutional Changes of Government,
- OAU Declaration on Unconstitutional Changes of Government (the "Lome Declaration"), and the
- Constitutive Act of the African Union
Article 13 of the African Charter on Human and People's Rights indicates "every citizen shall have the right to participate freely in the government of his country, either directly or through freely chosen representatives in accordance with the provisions of the law." [7]. Article 26 of the Mauritanian constitution, adopted in 1991, states "the President of the Republic is elected for six years by direct, universal suffrage."[8] Additionally, past OAU decisions on Unconstitutional Changes of Government rejects any unconstitutional change as an "unacceptable and anachronistic act, which is in contradiction of [the OAU's] commitment to promote democratic principles and conditions."[9]. The Lome Declaration, adopted in July 2000 by the OAU, specifically provides a framework for an OAU response to unconstitutional changes of government.[10] The Lome Declaration declares emphatically
"that coups are sad and unacceptable developments in our Continent, coming at a time when our people have committed themselves to respect
of the rule of law based on peoples will expressed through the ballot and not the
bullet."[11] Part of the framework of the Lome Declaration calls for immediate
and public condemnation while urging "for the speedy return to constitutional
order."[12]
The Lome Declaration also provides for "limited and targeted sanctions against
the regime that stubbornly refuses to restore constitutional order," including
suspension from OAU Policy Organs.[13]
The African Union (AU), however, as the successor body to the OAU goes beyond the framework provided by the Lome Declaration.[14] As a member of the AU, Mauritania is also a party to the Constitutive Act of the AU. Article 30 of the Constitutive Act entitled "Suspension" states that "Governments which shall come to power through unconstitutional means shall not be allowed to participate in the activities of the Union."[15] Unlike the Lome Declaration, which contemplates a range of sanctions after deliberation, article 30 of Constitutive Act provides for automatic suspension. Accordingly, the day after the coup in Mauritania, the AU suspended Mauritania from AU activities. In the Statement announcing the suspension, the AU not only cited Article 30 of the Constitutive Act but also the OAU decisions, the Lome Declaration, and relevant principles of the Constitutive Act of the African Union. [16] The Statement also declared that the suspension shall remain in effect "until the restoration of constitutional order in the country."[17] Subsequent to Mauritania's suspension from the AU, a group of AU officials held meetings with leaders of the military council. AU officials noted, however, that "our engaging the military regime in dialogue on how to restore democracy soonest in that country does not amount to a negation of the AU's principle of zero tolerance for any government that comes to power through the barrel of the gun. There are conditions which make the immediate reversal of situations like this (coup) very impractical," [18] In comparison to treatment by the AU, however, Mauritania's membership in the UN is unaffected. The UN Charter only contemplates suspension for a member "against which preventive or enforcement action has been taken by the Security Council."[19].
III. Significance of Coup in Mauritania
The events in Mauritanians reinforce customary international law, providing the government in effective control of a State will be the "recognized" government, regardless of its constitutional legitimacy. By accepting all treaty obligations of Mauritania, the military council met another criteria in establishing government recognition. The coup also demonstrates the operability of the Constitutive Act of AU, suspending Mauritania from membership. The suspension provides evidence of the governance role the AU has taken since its relatively recent entry into force on 26 May 2001. Besides the AU's actions, however, the events in Mauritania also demonstrate the limited enforcement capability of treaties, like the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which do not provide enforcement mechanisms. Although such treaties do create norms and expectations where subsequent agreements, like the Constitutive Act of the AU, can provide enforcement measures.
[1] Military Council for Justice and Democracy, "Official Statement ," 3 August 2005, Nouakchott, Mauritania (translated from French) <http://www.ami.mr/fr/Archives2005/aout/3/13.htm>.
[2] Military Council for Justice and Democracy, "Official Statement ," 3 August 2005, Nouakchott, Mauritania (translated from French) <http://www.ami.mr/fr/Archives2005/aout/3/12.htm>.
[3] Angola Press, "Mauritania Junta Reassures Oil Companies," August 15, 2005.
[4] UN Secretary-General, Office of the Spokesman, "Statement attributable to the Spokesman for the Secretary-General on Mauritania," August 4, 2024 <http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1610>. African Union, "THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE COMMISSION OF THE AFRICAN UNION (AU) EXPRESSES HIS CONCERN OVER THE EVENTS IN MAURITANIA," 3 August 2005.
[5] U.S. Department of State, "Coup Attempt in Mauritania," August 3, 2005.
[6] BBC News, "Envoys snub ex-Mauritania leader,"August 10, 2005.
[7] African [Banjul] Charter of Human and People's Rights, June 27, 1981, OAU Doc. CAB/LEG/67/3 rev. 5, 21 I.L.M. 58 (1982), entered into force Oct. 21, 1986, art. 13(1).
[8] MAURITANIA CONST. (1991), art. 26.
[9] OAU, Decision AHG/Dec.141 (XXXV) (1999).
[10] OAU, AHG/Decl.5 (XXXVI), DECLARATION ON THE FRAMEWORK FOR AN OAU RESPONSE TO UNCONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES OF GOVERNMENT, July 10-12, 2000, Lome, Togo.
[11] Id.
[12] Id.
[13] Id.
[14] Constitutive Act of African Union, July 11, 2000, art. 33(1).
[15] Id. at art. 30.
[16] African Union, Peace and Security Council, PSC/PR/Stat.(XXXVI)-(ii), "Statement," Aug. 4, 2005.
[17] Id.
[18] THIS DAY (LAGOS), "AU Clarifies Position on Mauritania," Aug. 12, 2005 (quoting Nigeria's Foreign Affairs Minister, Ambassador Oluyemi Adeniji who led an African Union delegation to Mauritania).
[19] U.N. CHARTER art. 5.
