Uchehara, Kieran E.2024-10-062024-10-06200801307-97781309-5137[WOS-DOI-BELIRLENECEK-536]https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14411/8804The purpose of this paper is to analyze the effectiveness of the AU's conflict management in Kenya. Even though it has attempted to mediate, its impact on the crisis was not profound, as it has paid less attention to the questions of crisis management and dialog. The paper argues that the AU appears reluctant to intervene in the crisis. It recommends that the AU would be a more effective conflict manager if it were institutionalized, if it had members with homogenous preferences, and if it had more democratic members. Institutionalized and homogenous organizations are better suited for effective conflict management, while democratic organizations support lasting settlements in favor of the issue's status quo. It concludes that the AU's reluctance to intervene in Kenya is partly due to mistrust between its member states as most of the African leaders came to power through the rigging of elections.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessConflict Management and DialogMediateInterveneHomogenous OrganizationsDemocratic OrganizationsArticle121934WOS:000421930800002