ArticlePDF Available

The African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights: Mapping resistance against a young court

DOI:10.1017/S1744552318000083
Authors:
Tom Gerald Daly
Tom Gerald Daly
Tom Gerald Daly
  • This person is not on ResearchGate, or hasn't claimed this research yet.
Micha Wiebusch at SOAS, University of London
Micha Wiebusch
Download full-text PDFDownload full-text PDF
Read full-text
Download citation

Abstract

At first glance, it appears that the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights – the first pan-continental court of the African Union (AU) for human rights protection – epitomises the advances made by international courts in Africa in the past decade. Since its first judgment in 2009, the Court has taken a robust approach to its mandate and its docket is growing apace. However, a closer look at the overall context in which the Court operates reveals that it is susceptible to many of the patterns of resistance that have hampered other international courts in the region, which cut across the development of its authority and impact. This paper analyses the forms and patterns of resistance against the African Court and the actors involved, emphasising the additional difficulties entailed in mapping resistance to a young court compared to long-established courts, such as the European and Inter-American human rights courts.
Daly and Wiebusch, The ACtHPR - Mapping resistance, (201
8).pdf
Content uploaded by Micha Wiebusch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Micha Wiebusch on Mar 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Daly and Wiebusch, The ACtHPR - Mapping resistance, (201
8).pdf
Content uploaded by Micha Wiebusch
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Micha Wiebusch on Mar 20, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... This is because these regional and international human rights instruments have no power of intimidating the government to do or not to do NGOs' resiliency to shrinking civic space anything. They still look like advises only and not binding to the government (Daly and Wiebusch, 2018;Possi, 2017;. ...
Advocacy non-governmental organizations (NGOs) resiliency to shrinking civic space in Tanzania
Article
  • Nov 2023
Purpose The world is experiencing democratic backsliding such that the situation is down back to 1986. This has resulted in the global shrinking of civic space for civil society organizations (CSOs). NGOs engaging in advocacy activities are seen to be among the CSOs affected. Using four NGOs cases from Tanzania, the study contributes to the civic space debate by uncovering how advocacy NGOs become resilient. Design/methodology/approach The study is anchored in interpretivism and a cross-sectional case study design, following a qualitative approach path. Data were collected through interviews and a documentary review. Findings Results show that several strategies such as complying, building community back-up, collaboration, strategic litigation, using digital media and changing the scope are applied. However, strategies face obstacles including scope limitations, expected democratic roles, high cost, changes in the scope and being outsmarted by the government, and hence their effectiveness is questionable. Research limitations/implications This study focused on advocacy NGOs. More studies can be conducted for other advocacy-related CSOs on how they become resilient. Practical implications While NGOs are allowed to exist in the country, their freedom continue to be curtailed. Even the effectiveness of resiliency becomes temporary and depends on the political will of the existing regime. Originality/value Tanzania NGOs have to build strong bonds with citizens, expand the scope of strategies and use deliberative democratic principles to educate the government to change laws and tolerate plural political culture. Also, NGOs in other countries with confined civic space can apply the same.
View
The Role of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights in Promoting the Socio-Economic Rights of Migrants
Chapter
  • Nov 2023
In 1969, African leaders adopted the region’s first human rights instrument, the Organisation of the African Union Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa. Over the next four decades, three key human rights treaties entered into force, expanding on the entitlements of refugees and asylum seekers (RAS). Despite these frameworks, the exclusion of RAS from social security interventions remains pervasive across many host African countries. This setback has driven a disproportionate percentage of this vulnerable population into abject deprivation, hunger and poverty. Against this backdrop, the central research question is: How can the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) contribute to alleviating the socio-economic hardship of RAS? To this end, this chapter argues that the African Court could improve the socio-economic conditions of migrants by advocating for their inclusion in the conventional social security structure of host states. This chapter, however, argues that the optimism around the African Court’s intervention is likely to wane unless it takes bold steps in overcoming the normative and institutional constraints that hinder its effectiveness towards developing a timely jurisprudence on social security.
View
Punishing or Preventing? The Responsibility to Protect and the Wars in South Sudan
Chapter
  • Jun 2023
The chapter retraces the intricate link between the responsibility to protect and South(ern) Sudan. First, a historical retrospective shows how humanitarian efforts in Southern Sudan created the consciousness that an international norm to prevent human rights abuses was vital. Subsequently, an analysis of the 2013–2018 civil war in South Sudan illustrates highly diverging interpretations of R2P’s implementation in practice. Four dimensions of how R2P’s preventive and punitive aspects find expression in discourses and actions are highlighted: judicial accountability, limits to national sovereignty, the United Nations’ changing self-conception, and sanctions regimes. Findings show the mutual exclusivity of different measures, the UN’s shift to human security, the salience of civil society activism in setting the agenda and South Sudanese actors’ active utilization of the R2P norm.
View
Regionalized Governance in the Global South
Book
  • Apr 2023
This Element addresses questions of division of labor and concentration of authority among intergovernmental organizations by examining multilevel governance in the Global South. It focuses on the policy domains of peace and security and human rights in Africa and Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), and its central finding is that the extent of governance regionalization varies across regions and issue areas. In the domain of peace and security, governance is most regionalized in Africa. In the domain of human rights protection, governance is most regionalized in the LAC region. Given the phenomenon of regional specialization, the Element makes the case for the greater explanatory power of regional drivers of regional institutional development. This Element is also available as Open Access on Cambridge Core.
View
References
Chapter
  • Jun 2020
View
View
The law and politics of transnational rights protection: Trusteeship, effectiveness, de‐delegation
Article
  • Sep 2022
International trustee courts embody a specific form of delegation, in which state principals confer on such courts the authority to interpret and apply treaties agreed by the states in order to realize specific values and interests. Human rights courts help states resolve commitment and enforcement problems that are inherent in human rights treaties. This study seeks to answer the question, what happens when states parties seek to reduce or eliminate the authority of a human rights court? To answer these questions, the article assesses six human rights treaty regimes: the Council of Europe; the Organization of American States; the African Union; the Economic Community of West African States; the East African Community; and the Southern African Development Community. The article identifies four types of de‐delegation possible with respect to international human rights courts and assesses the extent to which states have sought to de‐delegate from them. With one exception (the SADC Tribunal), the regimes examined here have so far successfully withstood the challenge of de‐delegation.
View
Die Afrikanische Union und internationale Politik
Chapter
  • Sep 2022
Die Afrikanische Union (AU) ist eine intergouvernementale Organisation, der alle Staaten Afrikas angehören und die vor allem in der Friedens- und Sicherheitspolitik aber auch in der Wirtschafts-, Handels-, Entwicklungs-, Gesundheits-, Klima- und Wissenschaftspolitik sowie der Förderung von Demokratie, Rechtsstaatlichkeit und Menschenrechten aktiv ist. Die AU-Mitgliedstaaten zeigen sich zwar kooperationswillig und haben der Organisation ein weitreichendes Mandat zur Intervention in Krisen gegeben, das diese auch nutzt. Gleichzeitig sind die Mitglieder jedoch zurückhaltend, Souveränität zu Gunsten der AU abzugeben. Deshalb und weil ihr die finanzielle Basis und die personelle Ausstattung fehlen, kann die AU nicht alle selbstgesteckten Ziele erfüllen.
View
View
The LIO's growing democracy gap: An endogenous source of polity contestation
Article
Full-text available
The Liberal International Order (LIO) is under pressure from various angles. To account for this phenomenon, a recent trend is to focus on endogenous sources of contestation-institutional properties of the order that create negative feedback effects. In this article, we seize on and extend an endogenous explanation centring on the LIO's political structure and institutional design. While existing research stipulates a connection between the rising authority of liberal international organizations (IOs) and their increasing politicization, we still lack a clear understanding of the reasons behind the growing rejection of the order at the level of mass publics. We argue that the LIO's institutional setup contains a widening 'democracy gap' denoting a disconnect between the participatory legitimation requirements for the exercise of political authority and the technocratic legitimation rationale characterizing IOs. By creating a justification deficit, the democracy gap incites growing political dissatisfaction and, by implying a responsiveness deficit, it turns policy contestation into outright polity contestation. We probe the plausibility of our theoretical argument in case studies of the EU and the international regimes on trade and human rights, and subsequently discuss the analytical and normative implications of our argument.
View
Backlash against international courts: Explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2018
The paper investigates and theorises different forms and patterns of resistance to international courts (ICs) and develops an analytical framework for explaining their variability. In order to make intelligible the resistance that many ICs are currently facing, the paper first unpacks the concept of resistance. It then introduces a key distinction between mere pushback from individual Member States or other actors, seeking to influence the future direction of a court's case-law, and actual backlash – a critique triggering significant institutional reform or even the dismantling of tribunals. On the basis on the proposed theoretical framework, the paper provides a roadmap for empirical studies of resistance to ICs, considering the key contextual factors necessary to take into account in such studies.
View
Backlash Against International Courts: Explaining the Forms and Patterns of Resistance to International Courts
Preprint
Full-text available
  • Jan 2018
The paper investigates and theorises different forms and patterns of resistance to international courts (ICs) and develops an analytical framework for explaining their variability. In order to make intelligible the resistance that many ICs are currently facing, the paper first unpacks the concept of resistance. It then introduces a key distinction between mere pushback from individual Member States or other actors, seeking to influence the future direction of a court’s case-law, and actual backlash – a critique triggering significant institutional reform or even the dismantling of tribunals. On the basis on the proposed theoretical framework, the paper provides a roadmap for empirical studies of resistance to ICs, considering the key contextual factors necessary to take into account in such studies.
View
A Human Rights’ Tale of Competing Narratives / Um Relato de Narrativas Rivais de Direitos Humanos
Article
Full-text available
  • Jun 2017
The paper explores the 2016 financial crisis experienced by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as an illustrative example within a larger context for rethinking the Inter-American System of Human Rights. We argue that reform must involve a reexamination of the dialectic roles of both member states and Inter-American institutions. The goal is to create new institutional opportunities that can cope with the current contexts of rights violations related to inequality, poverty and income distribution. It is also argued that different human rights narratives are at play within the context of the Inter-American System today, that is, the universalistic narrative of Ius Constitutionale Commune and the less explored story of member states resisting compliance with Inter-American decisions. These narratives are connected to the tension between the main goal of protecting human rights in the Americas and the member states’ roles as the System’s material supporters. The prevalence of the unidirectional and institutionalist narrative of Ius Constitutionale Commune may have contributed to the current challenges experienced within the Inter-American System. Member states have rebelled in recent times against this universal approach, particularly since the later years of the first decade of the 2000s. However, the Inter-American institutions continue to be nonresponsive to this backlash. This paper argues that rather than treating states as entities to be kept under strict surveillance and mistrust, the Inter-American System should be changed and reimagined through dialogue and a deeper consideration of domestic contexts, thus enabling its survival, and encouraging member states to participate at higher levels.
View
Backlash Against International Courts in West, East and Southern Africa: Causes and Consequences
Article
Full-text available
  • Jan 2015
This paper discusses three credible attempts by African governments to restrict the jurisdiction of three similarly-situated sub-regional courts in response to politically controversial rulings. In West Africa, when the ECOWAS Court upheld allegations of torture by opposition journalists in the Gambia, that country’s political leaders sought to restrict the Court’s power to review human rights complaints. The other member states ultimately defeated the Gambia’s proposal. In East Africa, Kenya failed in its efforts to eliminate the EACJ and to remove some of its judges after a decision challenging an election to a sub-regional legislature. However, the member states agreed to restructure the EACJ in ways that have significantly affected the court’s subsequent trajectory. In Southern Africa, after the SADC Tribunal ruled in favor of white farmers in disputes over land seizure, Zimbabwe prevailed upon SADC member states to suspend the Tribunal and strip its power to review complaints from private litigants. Variations in the mobilization efforts of Community secretariats, civil society groups and sub-regional Parliaments explain why efforts to eliminate the three courts or narrow their jurisdiction were defeated in ECOWAS, scaled back in the EAC, and largely succeeded in SADC.
View
‘It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer’: the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights and fair trial rights in Tanzania
Article
  • Nov 2017
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Court) has recently been flooded with fair trial cases against its host state, Tanzania. To date, the African Court has disposed with five of these cases on the merits, and dismissed the other as being inadmissible. These cases are Abubakari v Tanzania, Jonas v Tanzania, Nganyi v Tanzania, Onyachi v Tanzania, and Thomas v Tanzania. Numerous similar cases, all alleging that Tanzania is in violation of fair trial rights as guaranteed in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other human rights instruments, are pending before the African Court. This article traces the involvement of the African Court, in the context of the five decided cases, in nurturing fair trial norms in Tanzania. On the one hand, the emerging Court jurisprudence on fair trial is of importance for the promotion and protection of fair trial norms on the continent; and, on the other hand, it is an opportunity for the African Court to firmly stamp its authority in this thematic domain, taking into account of the little jurisprudence it has in its disposal. In some cases, the African Court has shied away from granting effective remedies in favour of the applicants, whose fair trial rights were ruled to be violated. Further, an assessment of the cases gives an impression that the country’s judiciary and prosecuting authority are careless and sloppy in their application of fair trial standards. There therefore is a need for domestic fair trial rights to be strengthened. TITRE ET RÉSUMÉ EN FRANÇAIS: ‘Il vaut mieux laisser s’échapper dix personnes coupables que de voir souffrir un seul innocent’: La Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples et le droit à un procès équitable en Tanzanie RÉSUMÉ: La Cour africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples (Cour africaine) a récemment été inondée d’affaires concernant le droit à un procès équitable contre son pays d’accueil, la Tanzanie. À ce jour, la Cour africaine s’est prononcée au fond sur cinq de ces affaires et en a déclaré une autre irrecevable. Ces affaires sont Abubakari c Tanzanie, Jonas c Tanzanie, Nganyi c Tanzanie, Onyachi c Tanzanie et Thomas c Tanzanie. De nombreuses affaires similaires, toutes alléguant que la Tanzanie viole le droit à un procès équitable tel que garanti par la Charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples et d’autres instruments relatifs aux droits de l’homme, sont pendantes devant la Cour africaine. Cet article retrace l’implication de la Cour africaine, en ce qui concerne les cinq affaires jugées, dans la promotion des normes de procès équitable en Tanzanie. D’un côté, la jurisprudence émergente de la Cour sur le procès équitable est importante pour la promotion et la protection des normes de procès équitable sur le continent; et, de l’autre, c’est l’occasion pour la Cour africaine d’affirmer fermement son autorité dans ce domaine thématique, compte tenu de la faible jurisprudence dont elle dispose. Dans certains cas, la Cour africaine s’est abstenue d’accorder des demandes efficaces aux requérants dont elle a conclu que les droits à un procès équitable avaient été violés. En outre, une évaluation de la jurisprudence donne l’impression que les autorités judiciaires et celle en charges des poursuites de l’Etat concerné sont imprudentes et négligentes dans l’application des normes du procès équitable. Il est donc nécessaire de renforcer le droit national en matière de procès équitable.
View
Direct Access to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights by Individuals and Non Governmental Organisations: An Overview of the Emerging Jurisprudence of the African Court 2008-2012
Article
  • Jan 2013
Articles 5(3) and 34(6) of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights require that an application before the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court) will not be 'received' unless two conditions are fulfilled. First, the application must be filed against a State which has ratified the Protocol. Second, an application can be received only against a State which made an optional declaration accepting the competence of the Court to receive cases from Non Governmental organisations (NGOs) with observer status before the Commission and individuals. The vast majority of State parties to the Protocol have not filed (and are not likely to file in the near future) a declaration to allow NGOs and individuals, most likely to bring human rights cases before the Court, direct access to the Court. This article examines the impact of the limitation imposed on direct access to the Court by individuals and NGOs on the African Court's jurisdiction by considering the applications decided by the Court since it started its operations in 2006 up to December 2012. It is argued that the limitation is a major challenge currently facing the Court and that it has adversely affected the exercise of the Court's jurisdiction. It is concluded that allowing NGOs and individuals direct access to the Court will make a significant contribution to the attainment of the objectives of the African Charter and the Court's Protocol.
View
Russia’s Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights
Article
  • Sep 2016
Russia’s Constitutional Court Defies the European Court of Human Rights - Volume 12 Issue 2 - Lauri Mälksoo
View
How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts
Article
  • Mar 2016
This article provides a novel and provocative framework to assess the varied authority of international courts (ICs). We generate practicable metric that assesses de facto IC authority according to a conjunctive standard — the recognition of an obligation to comply with IC rulings, and the engagement in meaningful actions that push toward giving full effect to IC rulings. We then identify five possible types of IC authority — no authority in fact, narrow, intermediate, extensive, and public authority — that correspond to the different audiences for IC rulings. The goal of this metric is to help the contributors to a symposium on ICs assess how contextual factors largely beyond the control of judges affect IC authority. We also identify three analytically distinct categories of contextual factors that influence IC authority: institution-specific context, constituencies, and geopolitics. The final section of the paper considers the relationship of IC authority to IC power. Powerful ICs have intermediate and extensive authority that extends across a broad range of issue areas and types of cases. Three features of this framework are distinctive. First, we separate IC authority from IC legitimacy, allowing for the possibility that authoritative ICs might lack legitimacy, and legitimate ICs might lack authority as we have defined it. Second, our framework moves beyond a number of prevalent but misguided binaries, such as the idea that ICs either do or do not have authority. Third, we provide a realistic tool to grapple with the complex reality that IC authority can vary by audience, among countries, over time, and across the issue areas within an IC’s jurisdiction.
View
The Role of Non-governmental Organisations and National Human Rights Institutions at the African Commission
Chapter
  • Jan 2008
Introduction Non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and national human rights institutions have played, and continue to play, a key role in advancing the promotional and protective activities of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (“the African Commission” or “the Commission”). Arguably, the effectiveness and visibility of the African Commission are owed to the active participation of non-State actors, such as NGOs, in its activities. African institutions value the contribution of NGOs in the fostering of a human rights culture on the African continent. The Grand Bay (Mauritius) Declaration firmly recognises the contribution of civil society in the promotion of human rights in Africa. In addition, the African Union (AU) encourages NGOs to participate in decision-making processes in building democracy in Africa. The African Commission has encouraged the participation of civil society in its promotional and protective work, as well as in the elaboration of principles and standards on human and peoples' rights. The active participation of NGOs in the activities of the African Commission is, in part, a desire to have a functional and robust regional body charged with protecting and promoting rights. The African Commission remains the only treaty body with this broad mandate. Even with the functioning of the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (“the African Court” or “the Charter”), which will deliver binding judgments, the African Commission will occupy a prominent position in promoting human rights and guiding policy at national level. © Cambridge University Press 2002, 2008 and Cambridge University Press, 2009.
View
The Implementation of the Findings of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights
Book
  • May 2015
An ‘implementation crisis’ has been identified in the enforcement of rulings of UN and regional human rights bodies and fundamental but crucial questions remain unanswered: what exactly does it mean to implement and comply with international and regional human rights decisions; and what factors influence whether a state implements and complies or not? Much more is now known about the work of the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, but a gap still exists in the literature on the implementation of the findings of the Commission. This book draws upon the data and evaluation from a four-year research project, analysing the range of pronouncements of the African Commission, including its decisions on individual communications, provisional measures, resolutions, and promotional and protective mission reports. It investigates the extent to which States implement these findings and examines how that implementation is monitored by others.
View