In 2016 three African states namely South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia submitted written notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) to the ...Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Although the African Union welcomed and fully supported the three withdrawal notifications and considered them as ‘pioneer implementers’ of its ‘Withdrawal Strategy’, The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal. Some other states – Kenya, Namibia and Uganda – have made threats to submit withdrawal notifications. This article examines four issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. First, why did the three states submit withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute? Second, what is the impact of the three states’ withdrawal notifications? Third, is the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (or the yet-to-be-established African Court of Justice and Human and Peoples’ Rights) a suitable African regional ‘alternative’ to the ICC? Finally, what steps might be taken to avoid, or at least minimise, further withdrawals in the future and to avoid impunity of perpetrators of international crimes in states that have withdrawn from the Rome Statute?
All key matters on human rights in Africa since the adoption of the African Charter in 1981 are impressively considered in the chapters of the present book. There are twenty one chapters on key human ...rights issues and themes in Africa, written by highly qualified human rights authors actively involved in the current teaching and practice of human rights, containing valuable insights and critical refl ections. The authors consider what has been achieved since 1981, and remains to be achieved and the prospects for the future of the African human rights system. The range of opinions and perspectives, combined with the authors' critical analysis and expertise, make this book a unique and significant contribution to the African regional human rights system.
In 2016 three African states, namely South Africa, Burundi and The Gambia submitted written notifications of withdrawal from the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Rome Statute) to the ...Secretary-General of the United Nations pursuant to Article 127 of the Rome Statute. Although the African Union (au) welcomed and fully supported the three States' withdrawal notifications and considered them as 'pioneer implementers' of the au's 'Withdrawal Strategy', The Gambia and South Africa withdrew their notifications of withdrawal before they became effective. This article examines three issues arising out of the said withdrawal notifications. It begins by examining the reasons as to why the three states submitted withdrawal notifications from the Rome Statute. It then considers the impact of the three states' withdrawal notifications. It concludes by identifying steps that might be taken to ensure constructive engagement between African States and the icc.
Half a century ago, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted two great covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on ...Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which brought force of law to the rights declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both covenants have been widely ratified by the vast majority of African States. However, a largely neglected area of study has been assessing the influence of the ICESCR in various parts of the world including Africa. This article assesses the influence of the ICESCR in Africa. It seeks to show how the ICESCR, as interpreted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has, through the 50 years since its adoption, had influence on the regional and domestic protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) in Africa. The article begins by considering the influence of the Covenant on the regional protection of human rights in Africa. This is followed by an analysis of the influence of the Covenant on the protection of ESC rights in domestic legal systems in Africa focusing primarily on the constitutional protection of ESC rights. It then considers the limited influence of the Covenant on national courts’ jurisprudence in African States applying dualist and monist approaches to international treaties. It ends by making recommendations to maximize the influence of the ICESCR in the future.
On 9 January 2012 the African Union (AU) stated that it 'shall oppose any ill-considered, self-serving decisions of the ICC International Criminal Court as well as any pretensions or double standards ...that become evident from the investigations, prosecutions and decisions by the ICC relating to situations in Africa'. These relate to the United Nations UN Security Council referrals (in Darfur/Sudan and Libya) and the Prosecutor's investigations proprio motu (in Kenya). This article considers the rise of the AU opposition to the ICC investigations and prosecutions in Africa directed against current African State leaders focusing on three issues. First, whether customary international law creates an exception to Head of State immunity when international courts, such as the ICC, seek a Head of State's arrest for the commission of international crimes. Second, whether the International Court of Justice can decide on immunity of State officials sought by the ICC. Third, whether the AU should empower the African Court of Justice and Human Rights with the jurisdiction to prosecute individuals for international crimes committed in Africa.
In 1948 the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) declared a wide range of human rights including economic, social and cultural rights as a 'common standard of achievement' for all peoples and ...all nations. At an international level, these rights were reinforced by a legally binding international treaty, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in 1966, and more recently by the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR as adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008, and opened for signature on 24 September 2009. Despite these positive developments, six decades after the UDHR, there are still questions regarding the status of economic, social and cultural rights as human rights in international law. In particular, four key questions regarding these rights, are addressed in this article: (1) what are the real human rights obligations of states parties to the ICESCR? (2) Are such obligations territorially limited or is there scope for extra-territorial obligations? (3) Are states permitted to derogate from (some) economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights during emergencies despite the fact that the ICESCR does not contain a derogation clause either permitting or prohibiting derogations? (4) Was it really necessary to adopt in 2008 an Optional Protocol to the ICESCR to provide for the competence of the committee monitoring the obligations of states parties under the ICESCR, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to receive and consider communications alleging violations of any of the rights protected by the ICESCR? And should states parties to the ICESCR sign and ratify this Optional Protocol without delay?
PDF
