CIAO DATE: 12/2012
Volume: 4, Issue: 1
Spring 2011
Publisher's Note
We are pleased to announce that as of Volume 4, Issue 1, 2011, the African Journal of Legal Studies (AJLS), will be published by Martinus Nijhoff. AJLS, a peer-reviewed and interdisciplinary journal, began in 2004 as an online publication under the auspices of The Africa Law Institute, and the editorship of its president, Charles Jalloh. the six issues which comprise the back volumes of the Journal, (Vols. 1-3) are now available online and free of charge at: brill.nl/ajls. Subscribers wishing to receive these issue in print should contact the Publisher; a fee will be charged for this service. AJLS accepts online submission only, using Editorial Manager (EM), an online submission and peer review tracking system which is currently used worldwide by over 3000 journals. Editorial Manger allows authors to track the progress of their submission online. Via the EM website for the Journal, authors are guided step-by-step through the submission process. The system automatically converts all source files of the article to a single pdf that is then used in the peer-review process. All correspondence between editors, authors and reviewers proceeds via e-mail. We are confident that this will greatly facilitate the process of submission, peer review and final publication and kindly invite you to register online at: editorialmanager.com/ajls.
Editorial
Charles C. Jalloh
On behalf of the Editorial Board, I am pleased to present issue 4.1 of the African JournalofLegal Studies (AJLS) under a new and exciting partnership with Martinus Nijhoff, the renowned Dutch publisher. On the occasion of our first print edition, I would like to express my most sincere gratitude to all the authors who have submitted manuscripts to A]LS for publication consideration. This special issue on international criminal law aims to contribute to, and to further stimulate, the growing debate on the place and nature of international criminal accountability for all those bearing the greatest responsibility for international crimes in Africa's numerous contemporary con- flicts. While unable to accept every submission, the three peer-reviewed articles selected for this first print issue of the journal confirm the original thinking and high quality we are confident will continue to be this journal's hallmark. Consistent with our new partnership, the journal is pleased to announce that we will publish three issues. We also inaugurate a new look both in our electronic and print formats. Electronically, arrangements are now in place for all the journal's back issues as well as our new content to be available on our new website at brill.nl/ajls. We hope that the many databases associated with Martinus Nijhoff will give our published contents and authors truly global circulation in this age of Internet, Facebook and Twitter.
Assessing the African Union Concerns about Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court
Dapo Akande, Charles C. Jalloh, Max du Plessis
This article assesses the African Union’s (AU) concerns about Article 16 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). It seeks to articulate a clearer picture of the law and politics of deferrals within the context of the AU’s repeated calls to the United Nations Security Council (UNSC, or the Council) to invoke Article 16 to suspend the processes initiated by the ICC against President Omar Al Bashir of Sudan. The Council’s failure to accede to the AU request led African States to formally withhold cooperation from the ICC in respect to the arrest and surrender of the Sudanese leader. Given the AU’s continued concerns, and the current impasse, fundamental questions have arisen about the Council’s authority to exercise, or not exercise, its deferral power. This culminated into a November 2009 African proposal for an amendment to the Rome Statute to empower the UN General Assembly to act should the UNSC fail to act on a deferral request after six months. Although ICC States Parties have so far shown limited public support for the AU’s proposed amendment to the deferral provision, this article examines its merits because a failure to engage the “Article 16 problem” could impact international accountability efforts in the Sudan, and further damage the ICC’s credibility in Africa. This unresolved issue also has wider significance given that the matters underlying the tension ‐ how ICC prosecutions may be reconciled with peacemaking initiatives and the role and power of the Council in ICC business ‐ will likely arise in future situations from around the world.
"Rounding Up the Usual Suspects": Exclusion, Selectivity, and Impunity in the Enforcement of International Criminal Justice and the African Union's Emerging Resistance
Ifeonu Eberechi
Despite the overwhelming ratification of the statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) by African states, recent attempts to prosecute the perpetrators of egregious crimes in the region have come under a sustained opposition from its regional body, the African Union (AU). In fact, the blunt accusation is that international criminal justice has become an instrument of colonization. Within the context of the AU’s claim, this article engages the question of selective enforcement of international criminal accountability, ironically beginning with the Nuremberg trial. Without necessarily justifying the senseless perpetration of heinous crimes in Africa, this article argues that an international justice regime complex that is perceived to be skewed in favour of the West engenders a crisis of legitimacy and ultimately robs it of the much needed cooperation from the region.
Domestic Adjudication of Sexual and Gender-based Violence in Armed Conflict: Considerations for Prosecutors and Judges
Evelyn W. Kamau
The increased domestication of international core crimes like genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes has placed national prosecutors and judges on unfamiliar ground. Specifically, though very welcome, the recognition of acts of sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) as constituting core international crimes poses a further challenge. The circumstances surrounding the commission of SGBV as international core crimes, coupled with their unique elements and manner of proof, makes their domestic prosecution seem that much more difficult. An understanding of how acts of SGBV constitute international core crimes, their constituent elements and the manner of proving them, coupled with how to treat victims and witnesses of SGBV, goes a long way in easing the perceived challenge of domestically prosecuting them. This article is geared towards achieving that and is directed at people who are involved in or are considering carrying out domestic prosecutions and adjudications of SGBV as international core crimes.