The African Peer Review Mechanism at Ten: From Lofty Goals to Practical Implementation
Posted: 19 March, 2013 Filed under: Adejoké Babington-Ashaye | Tags: African Peer Review Mechanism, African Union, APRM Day, economic integration, good governance, New Partnership for Africa's Development, political stability, sustainable development, World Health Organisation 1 Comment »
Author: Adejoké Babington-Ashaye
Counsel at the World Bank Administrative Tribunal
March 2013 marks ten years of one of the most innovative initiatives established under the auspices of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). Created in 2003, the main objective of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is to foster the adoption of standard practices for political stability, sustainable development and economic integration through experience sharing between member states. As a voluntary process open to all members of the African Union, the steps of the APRM process include a country self-assessment, a review mission by the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons, a review of the ensuing Panel report by APRM Member States, and a finalized programme of action (NPoA) – the blueprint for development agreed upon by all stakeholders. These NPoAs are critical to identifying development challenges, and laying the foundation for legal and policy changes.
As of January 2013, the APRM boasts a membership of 35 States, with Tunisia and Chad as the newest members. Yet, the APRM has been plagued by financial and logistical challenges, stalled peer reviews and an occasionally negative public perception. In this piece, I highlight how a holistic approach to critiquing the APRM sheds light on some of the positive contributions the mechanism has made to development in Africa, and also illuminates the path for the next ten years.
Should the African Union be accountable and answerable to the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights?
Posted: 11 July, 2012 Filed under: Roopanand Amar Mahadew | Tags: accountability, African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, African Union, transparency 1 Comment »
Author: Roopanand Amar Mahadew
Doctoral candidate, Department of Political Science, University of Delhi
The African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (the Court) has recently delivered a judgment in the case of Femi Falana v The African Union. The judgment is rather controversial on various levels. Firstly, the Court decided to interpret Articles 5(3) and 34(6) which, read jointly, imply that individuals or Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) can have access to the Court only if the state from which they are has deposited the declaration accepting the jurisdiction of the Court in accordance with Article 34(6). This was certainly not the issue in the Falana case. What had to be determined was whether the African Union (AU), which is not a state party to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights or the Protocol establishing the African Court (the Protocol), could be sued and such an interrogation required the interpretation of Articles 3, 30 and 34 (1&4) of the Protocol. Secondly, the Court, at the very onset, failed to consider whether or not it has jurisdiction ratione personae and decided to proceed to judicial consideration of the applications which is procedurally flawed.
The African Union Commission on International Law and the Proposed African Institute of International Law: Where do we go from here?
Posted: 21 May, 2012 Filed under: Olabisi Delebayo Akinkugbe | Tags: African Union, African Union Commission on International Law, Literature on international law, Proposed African Institute of International Law, Studying international law, Teaching international law 6 Comments »
Author: Olabisi Delebayo Akinkugbe
PhD candidate at the University of Ottawa, Canada
The author critically reflects on the African Union Commission on International Law (AUCIL) statute of 2009 particularly in relation to its mandate to advance the teaching and development of international law in Africa; examines its relationship with proposed African Union Institute of International Law (AIIL) in Arusha, Tanzania; and calls for an amendment of the AUCIL Statute in order to enhance the achievement of its goals and clarification of some vague areas.
Historically, the discourse in relation to the role of Africa in the development of international law, especially as a contributor or shaper, can be argued was popularised by the works of the late Taslim Olawale Elias who has been criticised in turn by some scholars for his glorification of Africa. The view that Africa contributes and shapes the development of international law arguably inspires the provisions of Article 6(1) of the AUCIL Statute (Codification of International Law) which mandates the AUCIL to codify such aspects of the rules of international law where “there has been extensive State practice, precedent and doctrine in the African continent.” Following suggestions by African international law scholars such as Muna Ndulo for curriculum revisions to include directed teaching on various subjects in relation to Africa and international law, it is encouraging to see that the African Union (AU) has taken a practical step in broaching the question of partnership in the teaching and studying of international law as it concerns the AU with universities and international institutes in Africa under the auspices of the AUCIL. It is hoped that the current effort which has witnessed a worrisome delay in taking off after three years of the adoption of the AUCIL establishing statute is more than a mere rhetoric.
30 years of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: Challenges, progress and prospects for Portuguese speaking African countries
Posted: 2 April, 2012 Filed under: Emerson U Lopes | Tags: African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights, African Commission, African Union, human rights, PALOP 7 Comments »
Author: Emerson U Lopes
Legal Consultant, SAL & Caldeira Advogados, Mozambique
During its 30 years of existence, the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and its enforcement mechanism, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, have not been used much by citizens of Portuguese speaking African Countries (Angola, Cape Verde, Guinea-Bissau, Mozambique and Sao Tomé e Príncipe, hereafter referred to as PALOP).
What is the reason behind the lack of participation by PALOP citizens in the African human rights system? Could this mean that PALOP States have a better human rights record than other State Parties?
