This practice has had serious ramifications for the protection of IDPs in particular, where the "primary duty and responsibility for providing humanitarian assistance to IDPs lies with national authorities."(71) However, the complex nature of internal conflict has meant that domestic authorities have not always been the ideal patrons of IDPs.(72) Perhaps the greatest shortcoming of the OAU, with exception to intensified preventive diplomacy, has been its incapacity to deal with the effects of conflict--i.e., manage conflict--as evidenced by its 19811 mission in Chad.(73) Nevertheless, the institution of the OAU MCPMR appears to be the first step toward developing such a capacity.
Provision 9 of the Declaration establishing the MCPMR states that "[c]onflicts have forced millions of our people into a drifting life as refugees and internally displaced persons, deprived of their means of livelihood, human dignity and hope."(74) Consequently, forcibly displaced persons were clearly a key consideration in the establishment of the MCPMR.
Although there is no concurrence among scholars and practitioners as to the exact meanings of the terms peace-making, peace-building, and peace-keeping, the above passage suggests that the OAU established the MCPMR to engage in conflict prevention and resolution rather than management.