No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
African Jurisprudence for Africa’s Problems: Human Rights Norm Diffusion and Norm Generation Through Africa’s Regional International Courts
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 20 January 2017
Abstract
An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Regional and Sub-Regional Human Rights Tribunals: The African Response
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © American Society of International Law 2016
Footnotes
*
Mr. Perrin received his J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania Law School in 2013, where he served as Editor-in-Chief of the University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Volume 34. He received his M.A. in Political Science from Columbia University in 2006.
References
1 See, e.g., Ebobrah, Solomon T., Human Rights Developments in African Sub-Regional Economic Communities During 2009, 10 Afr. Hum. Rts. L.J. 233 (2010)Google Scholar.
2 Koraou v. Niger, ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/08, Judgment (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Oct. 27, 2008).
3 SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria, ECW/CCJ/JUD/07/10, Judgment (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Nov. 30, 2010).
4 SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria (SERAP Case 2), ECW/CCJ/JUD/18/12, Judgment (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Dec. 14, 2012).
5 Manneh v. Gambia, ECW/CCJ/JUD/03/08, Judgment (ECOWAS Court of Justice, June 5, 2008); Siadykhan v. Gambia, ECW/CCJ/JUD/08/10 (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Dec. 16, 2010).
6 Hissène Habré v. Senegal, ECW/CCJ/JUD/06/10, Judgment (ECOWAS Court of Justice, Nov. 18, 2010).
7 Project on International Courts and Tribunals, at http://www.pict-pcti.org/.
8 See, e.g., The Manual on International Courts and Tribunals (Philippe Sands, Yuval Shany & Ruth Mackenzie eds. 1999), Romano, Cesare P.R., The Proliferation of International Judicial Bodies: The Pieces of the Puzzle, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 709 (1999)Google Scholar.
9 Romano, Cesare P.R., A Taxonomy of International Rule of Law Institutions, 2 J. Int’l Disp. Settlement 241 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
10 Daniel Terris, Cesare P.R. Romano & Leigh Swigart, The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women Who Decide the World’s Cases (2007).
11 Karen J. Alter, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Rights, Politics (2014).
12 See Symposium, The Proliferation of International Tribunals: Piecing Together the Puzzle, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 679 (1999)Google Scholar.
13 See Symposium, The Normalizing of Adjudication in Complex International Governance Regimes: Patterns, Possibilities, and Problems, 41 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 755 (2009)Google Scholar.
14 See Symposium, Diversity or Cacophony: New Sources of Norms in International Law, 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 845 (2004)Google Scholar.
15 Chairman of the Study Group, Rep. of the Study Group of the Int’l Law Comm’n: Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law, U.N. Doc. A/CN.4/L.682 (Apr. 13, 2006).
16 Pinto, Monica, Fragmentation or Unification Among International Institutions: Human Rights Tribunals, 31 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 833 (1999)Google Scholar.
17 Burke-White, William W., International Legal Pluralism, 25 Mich. J. Int’l L. 963 (2004)Google Scholar.
18 Teitel, Ruti & Howse, Robert, Cross-Judging: Tribunalization in a Fragmented but Interconnected Global Order, 41 N.Y.U. J. Int’l L. & Pol. 959 (2009)Google Scholar.
19 Anne-Marie Slaughter, A New World Order (2004) (see chapter 2).
20 See, e.g., Waters, Melissa A., Mediating Norms and Identity: The Role of Transnational Judicial Dialogue in Creating and Enforcing International Law, 93 Geo. L.J. 487 (2005)Google Scholar; Young, Ernest A., Supranational Rulings as Judgments and Precedents, 18 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 477 (2008)Google Scholar; Jacob, Marc, Precedents: Lawmaking Through International Adjudication, 12 Ger. L.J. 1005 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Venzke, Ingo, The Role of International Courts as Interpreters and Developers of the Law: Working out the Jurisgenerative Practice of Interpretation, 34 Loy. L.A. Int’l & Comp. L. Rev. 99 (2011)Google Scholar; Cohen, Harlan Grant, Theorizing Precedent in International Law, in Interpretation in International Law 268 (Bianchi, Andrea, Peat, Daniel & Windsor, Matthew eds., 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
21 See, e.g., Berman, Paul Schiff, Global Legal Pluralism, S. Cal. L. Rev 1155 (2007)Google Scholar; Twining, William, Normative and Legal Pluralism: A Global Perspective, 20 Duke J. Comp. & Int’l L. 473 (2010)Google Scholar.
22 See, e.g., Koh, Harold Hongju, Transnational Legal Process, 75 Neb. L. Rev. 181 (1996)Google Scholar; Finnemore, Martha, Norms, Culture, and World Politics: Insights from Sociology’s Institutionalism, 50 Int’l Org. 325 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Koh, Harold Hongju, Why Do Nations Obey International Law, 106 Yale L.J. 2599 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar (book review); Finnemore, Martha & Sikkink, Kathryn, International Norm Dynamics and Political Change, 52 Int’l Org. 887 (1998)Google Scholar; Risse, Thomas & Sikkink, Kathryn, The Socialization of International Human Rights Norms into Domestic Practices: Introduction, in The Power of Human Rights: International Norms and Domestic Change (Risse, Thomas, Ropp, Stephen C. & Sikkink, Kathryn eds., 1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Risse, Thomas and Ropp, Stephen C., International Human Rights Norms and Domestic Change: Conclusions, in The Power of Human RightsCrossRefGoogle Scholar; Goodman, Ryan & Jinks, Derek, How to Influence States: Socialization and International Human Rights Law, 54 Duke L.J. 621 (2004)Google Scholar.
23 See, e.g., Helfer, Laurence R. & Voeten, Erik, International Courts as Agents of Legal Change: Evidence from LGBT Rights in Europe, 68 Int’l Org. 77 (2014)Google Scholar.
24 Alter recalls her earlier insight distinguishing self-binding (law enforcement and constitutional review) versus other-binding (dispute settlement and administrative review) delegations of lawmaking and interpretive authority to international courts, and suggests that compliance is more likely in other-binding contexts. Alter next notes several shortcomings in the “interstate arbiter,” “multilateral adjudication,” and “transnational politics” models of how international courts influence state behavior (for example that states are monoliths and their preferences are fixed over time), and concludes that while each model might have strong explanatory power in certain political and legal contexts and issue areas (e.g., transnational politics in the human rights area), no one model can explain the constraints that all international courts might face or the likelihood of compliance with the decisions of international courts. Alter attempts to move past the binary nature of compliance discourse and explain international court effectiveness; she adds the element of time to her analysis, and notes that while adjudication occurs at “Time 2,” which is when compliance might occur, the legal ruling might be insufficient to induce meaningful change in state behavior. At “Time 3,” through subsequent domestic litigation to enforce an international ruling, for example, “compliance constituencies” can ratchet up the cost of non-compliance. This is when a “culture of law” can emerge, which I suggest approaches the internalization of an international legal norm that represents the thick concept of norm diffusion at which I aim. See Alter, New Terrain, supra note 11, at 32–67.