File #2534: "2018_Book_NigerianYearbookOfInternationa.pdf"
Text
1|Foreword|6
1|Preface|8
1|Contents|10
1|Part I: International Law and Regional Systems|12
2|Compliance with Judgments and Decisions: The Experience of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A Reassessment|13
3|1 Preliminary Observations|13
3|2 Referral of Non-compliance to the Main Organs of the OAS|14
3|3 Supervision of Compliance with IACtHR Judgments and Decisions|16
3|4 Supervision Motu Propio by the IACtHR Itself: The Leading Case of Baena Ricardo and Others (270 Workers v Panama, 2003)|18
3|5 A Setback in the Practice of the IACtHR: `Partial Compliances´|20
3|6 Final Observations|21
3|References|24
1|Part II: Contemporary Challenges/Emerging Issues|25
2|Responding to Terrorism: Definition and Other Actions|26
3|1 Overview|27
3|2 Introduction|28
3|3 Abandoning the Term?|29
3|4 Does `Terrorism´ Meet the Criteria for an International Customary Crime?|30
3|5 Making the Term `Terrorism´ Manageable|33
4|5.1 The Urgent Need to Focus on Victims|34
4|5.2 Terrorism As a Concept of Criminal Law|35
4|5.3 The Need for an International Legal Concept of Terrorism|36
4|5.4 The Tension Between Domestic and International Norms|36
4|5.5 The Arguments for and Against a Concept of Terrorism As a Crime in Domestic and International Laws|37
3|6 The Problem of Finding or Creating a Common Legal Usage|39
4|6.1 Existing Law?|40
4|6.2 Belling the Cat: Who Is to Deal with the Problem?|40
4|6.3 What If There Is No Existing Law?|42
3|7 Criteria for Developing the Law|43
4|7.1 Avoidance of Injustice|44
4|7.2 Help Abate Public Injury|44
4|7.3 Judicial Development and Creation of Law|45
4|7.4 Grotius and Cicero|45
4|7.5 Whose Opinion Should Govern?|47
4|7.6 Tentative Principles|48
3|8 An International Criminal Law Against Terrorism: What Should It Provide and Who Should Create It?|49
4|8.1 Need for Precision|50
4|8.2 Consequent Need to Trim the Concept|50
4|8.3 In the Case of Terrorism, Can and Should the Judges Properly Perform a Distillation?|51
4|8.4 The Role of the Academy and the Profession|53
3|9 Other Actions|54
3|10 Conclusion|55
3|References|56
2|The Evolution of the Status of the Individual Under International Law|59
3|1 Introduction|59
3|2 The Status of the Individual Under Traditional International Law|61
3|3 New Era|68
3|4 Individual Criminal Responsibility for International Crimes|76
3|5 Concluding Remarks|81
3|References|82
2|Admission into Diplomatic Buildings As an Alternative or Substitute to Diplomatic Asylum?|84
3|1 Introduction: Silence of the Vienna Convention|85
3|2 How to Survive Without a Universal Written Rule on Diplomatic Refuge: Some Historical and Contemporary Examples|86
4|2.1 The South American Answer Based on Regional Treaties, Regional Custom and Ambiguous Practice|86
5|2.1.1 The Relevant South American Treaty Law|86
5|2.1.2 Haya de la Torre´s Famous Refuge of the Columbian Embassy in Lima|89
5|2.1.3 Refuge at the Diplomatic Missions During Pinochet´s Coup d´état (1973)|91
5|2.1.4 Manuel Noriega at the Nunciature in Panama City|91
5|2.1.5 Pedro Carmona in the Columbian Ambassador´s Residence of Caracas|91
5|2.1.6 José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, the President of Honduras and His Fellows in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa|92
4|2.2 The United States´ Position|92
4|2.3 Examples from European Practice|95
5|2.3.1 Diplomatic Shelters During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)|95
5|2.3.2 Historical Examples from Hungary|95
6|Refuge for Prime Minister Kllay at the Residence of the Turkish Envoy|96
6|Refuge for Hungarian Nazi Leader Szlasi at the German Legation in Fall 1944|97
6|Refuge for the Horthy Family at the Nunciature|97
6|Diplomatic Missions Sheltering Hungarian Jews in Order to Protect Them from Deportation and Murder During the Holocaust (1944)...|97
6|Prime Minister Imre Nagy and His Fellows at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest in 1956|100
6|Cardinal Mindszenty at the United States Embassy in Budapest Between 1956 and 1971|100
5|2.3.3 Diplomatic Shelter Granted by Embassies During the 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia by Troops of the Warsaw Pact|103
5|2.3.4 Diplomatic Shelter for Soviet Dissidents in Moscow|103
5|2.3.5 Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Hungarian Minority in the Hungarian Embassy in Sofia (1988-1989)|103
5|2.3.6 The East Germans at the Central European Embassies in 1989|104
5|2.3.7 Albanians in the Embassies in Tirana 1989|105
5|2.3.8 Refuge in the Romanian Embassy in Chisinău|105
5|2.3.9 Julian Assange in the Ecuador Embassy in London|105
4|2.4 Asian Examples|107
5|2.4.1 The Persian Shah´s Wives at the British Embassy at the End of the Nineteenth Century|107
5|2.4.2 A Soviet Soldier in the United States Embassy in Kabul|107
5|2.4.3 North Korean Defectors in Embassies Accredited to China and the Chinese Position|107
4|2.5 African Examples|109
5|2.5.1 The Durban Six|109
5|2.5.2 Meriam Ibrahim´s Refuge in the United States Embassy in Khartoum|109
3|3 Lessons to Be Taken from the Examples|110
3|References|113
2|International Law and Daunting Contemporary Crises to Human Security and the Rule of Law|115
2|Interrogating Colonialism: Bakassi, the Colonial Question and the Imperative of Exorcising the Ghost of Eurocentric Internatio...|119
3|1 Introduction|120
3|2 The Bakassi Case: A Brief Statement of the Issues|121
3|3 The Court´s Jurisprudence on the Colonial Question and British Responsibility to the Bakassi People: A Critique|123
3|4 The Court and the Colonial Question: A Historical Perspective|128
4|4.1 Revisiting Eurocentric `International´ Law and the Colonial Question|128
4|4.2 Pre-colonial Africa as `Uncivilised´ and Devoid of Sovereignty|130
4|4.3 The Legal Status of Treaties with `Uncivilised Natives/Tribes´|131
4|4.4 Terra Nullius and the Acquisition of Territory by Europeans in Africa|135
4|4.5 The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the Question of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States|138
3|5 Revisiting the Sovereignty and Civilisation Questions: The Reconstruction of the Legacy of Africa´s Pre-colonial History|142
4|5.1 The Legacy of History and the Reality of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States|142
4|5.2 The Locus of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States in the Colonial Era|144
3|6 Conclusion: Reinforcing the Imperative of Critical Legal Scholarship with a View to Purging International Law of Its Colonia...|144
3|References|146
2|The International Law of Secession and the Protection of the Human Rights of Oppressed Substate Groups: Yesterday, Today and T...|148
3|1 Introduction|149
3|2 Yesterday|150
4|2.1 Little-if Any-Treaties or Negotiated Soft Law Norms|151
4|2.2 Near-Total Dominance of the Effectiveness Doctrine|151
4|2.3 A Politics with Little Rights|152
4|2.4 Little-if Any-Democratic or Adjudicative Process|153
4|2.5 An Excessively High Level of Unjustifiable Selectivity|154
4|2.6 A Largely Oppressive Concept of Legitimate Statehood|154
4|2.7 The Consequent Production of Severe Disadvantage for Oppressed Substate Groups|155
3|3 Today|155
4|3.1 A Much Greater Resort to Treaties and Negotiated Soft Law Instruments|156
4|3.2 The Waning of the Effectiveness Doctrine|157
4|3.3 A Politics with Much More Rights-Based Praxis|158
4|3.4 A Much Greater Tendency to Turn to Democratic Political or Adjudicative Process|163
4|3.5 The Continuation of High Levels of Selectivity in the Invocation of Pro- or Anti-secession Principles|166
4|3.6 A Significantly Less Oppressive Concept of Legitimate Statehood|167
4|3.7 A Consequently Better Environment for the Protection of Substate Groups|167
3|4 Tomorrow|168
3|5 Conclusion|171
3|References|172
1|Part III: Criminal Law|175
2|International Crimes: A Hybrid Future?|176
3|References|192
2|The ICC and the African Court and the Extended Notion of Complementarity of International Criminal Jurisdictions|194
3|1 Development Economics and the Rule of Law|194
3|2 Complementarity of Jurisdictions in International Criminal Law|199
3|3 The Fundamental Premises of ICC´s Complementary Jurisdiction|199
3|4 Admissibility Under the Rome Statute|201
3|5 The AU Protocol and the Amended Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights|201
3|6 Competing Jurisdictions?|202
3|7 An Expanded Conception of Complementarity|206
3|8 Pooling Sovereignty|208
3|9 Deferral of Investigation and Prosecution|209
3|10 Conclusion|212
3|References|213
2|Fragmentation or Stabilisation? Recent Case Law on the Crime of Genocide in Light of the 2007 Judgment of the International Co...|215
3|1 Introduction|215
4|1.1 The European Court of Human Rights|216
3|2 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda|218
3|3 International Criminal Court|222
3|4 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia|228
3|5 Concluding Observations|238
2|The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Question of Head of State Immunity in International Law: Revisiting the Decision in...|241
3|1 Introduction|241
3|2 The Special Court of Sierra Leone in Perspective|242
3|3 The Question of Head of State Immunity Before the Special Court|244
4|3.1 Head of State Immunity in International Law|245
3|4 Head of State Immunity Before National Courts|249
3|5 Head of State Immunity Before International Courts|252
3|6 Status of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Immunity of Charles Taylor|256
3|7 Judicial Assistance and Cooperation with the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Chapter VII ex Post Facto?|262
3|8 Conclusion|265
3|References|266
3|Authored Books and Book Chapters|267
1|Part IV: Natural Resources/Environmental Law|268
2|Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Developing Countries: Thinking Beyond Constitutional Environmental Rights|269
3|1 Introduction|269
4|1.1 Conceptual Issues|270
3|2 The Case Studies|274
4|2.1 Country Profiles|274
3|3 The Substantive Provisions|276
4|3.1 Nigeria|276
4|3.2 South Africa|278
4|3.3 India|279
4|3.4 Papua New Guinea|280
3|4 Analysis|282
3|5 Conclusion|287
3|References|288
2|Environmental Victims, Access to Justice and the Sustainable Development Goals|290
3|1 Introduction|290
3|2 Access to Justice in Environmental Matters|293
3|3 Developing Countries and Challenges to Access to Justice in Environmental Matters|295
4|3.1 Challenges in National Jurisdictions|298
4|3.2 Challenges in Alternative Forums|300
3|4 Consequences of Regulatory Failure|303
3|5 The Sustainable Development Goals and Environment|304
4|5.1 Goal 16: Access to Justice|306
4|5.2 Operationalising Goal 16 of the SDGs|307
4|5.3 Rule of Law and Access to Justice|308
4|5.4 Participation and Access to Information|309
4|5.5 Dispute Resolution|309
4|5.6 Other Relevant Issues for Further Discussion|310
3|6 Conclusion|310
3|References|310
2|Promoting Functional Distributive Justice in the Nigerian Sovereign Wealth Fund System: Lessons from Alaska and Norway|315
3|1 Introduction|316
3|2 Theoretical Background: Functional Distributive Justice|320
4|2.1 The Commons and Common Ownership|320
4|2.2 Environmental Justice|322
4|2.3 Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources|323
4|2.4 The Right of Self-Determination|324
4|2.5 From Theory to Practice: Functional Distributive Justice|325
3|3 The Nigerian Sovereign Wealth Fund Scheme: A Diagnosis|328
4|3.1 Excess Crude Account|328
4|3.2 Sovereign Wealth Fund|330
3|4 Emerging Best Practices in Sovereign Wealth Fund: Lessons from Norway and Alaska|333
4|4.1 Norway|334
4|4.2 Alaska|337
4|4.3 Nigeria: Comparative Lessons|340
5|4.3.1 Form of Legal Support|341
5|4.3.2 Ownership Principle|342
5|4.3.3 Operational Model|343
5|4.3.4 Risk Management Protocol|345
3|5 Conclusion|346
3|References|347
1|Part V: Book Review|353
2|International Law and Governance of Natural Resources in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong|354
1|Part VI: Year in Review|359
2|Africa, International Courts/Tribunals and Dispute Settlement: Year in Review 2015|360
3|1 Introduction|361
3|2 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)|362
4|2.1 Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), ITLOS Case No. 21, Advisory Opi...|363
5|2.1.1 Introduction|363
5|2.1.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|364
5|2.1.3 The Decision|365
6|What Are the Obligations of the Flag State in Cases Where Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Activities Are Co...|365
6|To What Extent Shall the Flag State Be Held Liable for IUU Fishing Activities Conducted by Vessels Sailing Under Its Flag?|367
6|What Are the Rights and Obligations of the Coastal State in Ensuring the Sustainable Management of Shared Stocks and Stocks of...|368
4|2.2 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and the Republic of Cote d´Ivoire Submitted to a Sp...|368
5|2.2.1 Introduction|368
5|2.2.2 The Request for Provisional Measures|369
5|2.2.3 The Decision|371
3|3 The Permanent Court of Arbitration: Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom)|372
4|3.1 Introduction|373
4|3.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|374
4|3.3 The Decision|374
4|3.4 Conclusion|376
3|4 The African Court of Human and Peoples´ Rights|377
4|4.1 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)|378
4|4.2 Request for Advisory Opinion by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on the Standing of...|380
5|4.2.1 Issues Raised|380
5|4.2.2 The Decision|381
4|4.3 Zongo v. Burkina Faso (March 28, 2014)|383
5|4.3.1 Introduction|383
5|4.3.2 The Applicant´s Case|383
5|4.3.3 Decision|383
5|4.3.4 Zongo v. Burkina Faso: Judgment on Reparations (June 5, 2015)|384
5|4.3.5 Conclusion|385
4|4.4 Lohe Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (December 5, 2014)|385
5|4.4.1 Introduction|385
5|4.4.2 Issues Raised|386
5|4.4.3 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|386
5|4.4.4 Decision|387
4|4.5 Conclusion|388
3|5 The International Criminal Court|389
4|5.1 The Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo|390
4|5.2 The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Withdrawal of Charges)|392
4|5.3 The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Noncompliance)|394
5|5.3.1 Judgment on the Prosecutor´s Appeal Against Trial Chamber V(B)´s ``Decision on Prosecution´s Application for a Finding o...|395
6|Did the Trial Chamber Err in Law by Not Referring Kenya to the ASP When It Had Made a Finding Under Article 87(7) of the Statu...|396
6|Even if the Trial Chamber Had Discretion Not to Refer Kenya to the ASP, Did It Err in Exercising Its Discretion ``by Taking in...|397
3|6 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)|398
4|6.1 The ICTR: The Curtain Falls|399
4|6.2 The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al.: ``The Butare Six´´|400
4|6.3 Beyond the ICTR|401
4|6.4 Conclusion|401
3|7 European Court of Justice: Western Sahara, Indigenous Rights, and the Legality of Certain EU-Morocco Trade Agreements|402
4|7.1 Introduction|402
4|7.2 Frente Polisario v. Council (Case T-512/12)|402
4|7.3 Conclusion|403
3|8 Selected Decisions by National Courts|404
4|8.1 High Court (UK): Western Sahara Campaign UK, R (on the Application of) v. HM Revenue and Customs|404
4|8.2 Court of Appeals (U.S.): John Doe I, et al v. Nestlé, USA, et al.|405
4|8.3 Court of Appeals in The Hague (Netherlands): A Landmark Decision Against Shell|406
1|Preface|8
1|Contents|10
1|Part I: International Law and Regional Systems|12
2|Compliance with Judgments and Decisions: The Experience of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights: A Reassessment|13
3|1 Preliminary Observations|13
3|2 Referral of Non-compliance to the Main Organs of the OAS|14
3|3 Supervision of Compliance with IACtHR Judgments and Decisions|16
3|4 Supervision Motu Propio by the IACtHR Itself: The Leading Case of Baena Ricardo and Others (270 Workers v Panama, 2003)|18
3|5 A Setback in the Practice of the IACtHR: `Partial Compliances´|20
3|6 Final Observations|21
3|References|24
1|Part II: Contemporary Challenges/Emerging Issues|25
2|Responding to Terrorism: Definition and Other Actions|26
3|1 Overview|27
3|2 Introduction|28
3|3 Abandoning the Term?|29
3|4 Does `Terrorism´ Meet the Criteria for an International Customary Crime?|30
3|5 Making the Term `Terrorism´ Manageable|33
4|5.1 The Urgent Need to Focus on Victims|34
4|5.2 Terrorism As a Concept of Criminal Law|35
4|5.3 The Need for an International Legal Concept of Terrorism|36
4|5.4 The Tension Between Domestic and International Norms|36
4|5.5 The Arguments for and Against a Concept of Terrorism As a Crime in Domestic and International Laws|37
3|6 The Problem of Finding or Creating a Common Legal Usage|39
4|6.1 Existing Law?|40
4|6.2 Belling the Cat: Who Is to Deal with the Problem?|40
4|6.3 What If There Is No Existing Law?|42
3|7 Criteria for Developing the Law|43
4|7.1 Avoidance of Injustice|44
4|7.2 Help Abate Public Injury|44
4|7.3 Judicial Development and Creation of Law|45
4|7.4 Grotius and Cicero|45
4|7.5 Whose Opinion Should Govern?|47
4|7.6 Tentative Principles|48
3|8 An International Criminal Law Against Terrorism: What Should It Provide and Who Should Create It?|49
4|8.1 Need for Precision|50
4|8.2 Consequent Need to Trim the Concept|50
4|8.3 In the Case of Terrorism, Can and Should the Judges Properly Perform a Distillation?|51
4|8.4 The Role of the Academy and the Profession|53
3|9 Other Actions|54
3|10 Conclusion|55
3|References|56
2|The Evolution of the Status of the Individual Under International Law|59
3|1 Introduction|59
3|2 The Status of the Individual Under Traditional International Law|61
3|3 New Era|68
3|4 Individual Criminal Responsibility for International Crimes|76
3|5 Concluding Remarks|81
3|References|82
2|Admission into Diplomatic Buildings As an Alternative or Substitute to Diplomatic Asylum?|84
3|1 Introduction: Silence of the Vienna Convention|85
3|2 How to Survive Without a Universal Written Rule on Diplomatic Refuge: Some Historical and Contemporary Examples|86
4|2.1 The South American Answer Based on Regional Treaties, Regional Custom and Ambiguous Practice|86
5|2.1.1 The Relevant South American Treaty Law|86
5|2.1.2 Haya de la Torre´s Famous Refuge of the Columbian Embassy in Lima|89
5|2.1.3 Refuge at the Diplomatic Missions During Pinochet´s Coup d´état (1973)|91
5|2.1.4 Manuel Noriega at the Nunciature in Panama City|91
5|2.1.5 Pedro Carmona in the Columbian Ambassador´s Residence of Caracas|91
5|2.1.6 José Manuel Zelaya Rosales, the President of Honduras and His Fellows in the Brazilian Embassy in Tegucigalpa|92
4|2.2 The United States´ Position|92
4|2.3 Examples from European Practice|95
5|2.3.1 Diplomatic Shelters During the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939)|95
5|2.3.2 Historical Examples from Hungary|95
6|Refuge for Prime Minister Kllay at the Residence of the Turkish Envoy|96
6|Refuge for Hungarian Nazi Leader Szlasi at the German Legation in Fall 1944|97
6|Refuge for the Horthy Family at the Nunciature|97
6|Diplomatic Missions Sheltering Hungarian Jews in Order to Protect Them from Deportation and Murder During the Holocaust (1944)...|97
6|Prime Minister Imre Nagy and His Fellows at the Yugoslav Embassy in Budapest in 1956|100
6|Cardinal Mindszenty at the United States Embassy in Budapest Between 1956 and 1971|100
5|2.3.3 Diplomatic Shelter Granted by Embassies During the 1968 Invasion of Czechoslovakia by Troops of the Warsaw Pact|103
5|2.3.4 Diplomatic Shelter for Soviet Dissidents in Moscow|103
5|2.3.5 Romanian Citizens Belonging to the Hungarian Minority in the Hungarian Embassy in Sofia (1988-1989)|103
5|2.3.6 The East Germans at the Central European Embassies in 1989|104
5|2.3.7 Albanians in the Embassies in Tirana 1989|105
5|2.3.8 Refuge in the Romanian Embassy in Chisinău|105
5|2.3.9 Julian Assange in the Ecuador Embassy in London|105
4|2.4 Asian Examples|107
5|2.4.1 The Persian Shah´s Wives at the British Embassy at the End of the Nineteenth Century|107
5|2.4.2 A Soviet Soldier in the United States Embassy in Kabul|107
5|2.4.3 North Korean Defectors in Embassies Accredited to China and the Chinese Position|107
4|2.5 African Examples|109
5|2.5.1 The Durban Six|109
5|2.5.2 Meriam Ibrahim´s Refuge in the United States Embassy in Khartoum|109
3|3 Lessons to Be Taken from the Examples|110
3|References|113
2|International Law and Daunting Contemporary Crises to Human Security and the Rule of Law|115
2|Interrogating Colonialism: Bakassi, the Colonial Question and the Imperative of Exorcising the Ghost of Eurocentric Internatio...|119
3|1 Introduction|120
3|2 The Bakassi Case: A Brief Statement of the Issues|121
3|3 The Court´s Jurisprudence on the Colonial Question and British Responsibility to the Bakassi People: A Critique|123
3|4 The Court and the Colonial Question: A Historical Perspective|128
4|4.1 Revisiting Eurocentric `International´ Law and the Colonial Question|128
4|4.2 Pre-colonial Africa as `Uncivilised´ and Devoid of Sovereignty|130
4|4.3 The Legal Status of Treaties with `Uncivilised Natives/Tribes´|131
4|4.4 Terra Nullius and the Acquisition of Territory by Europeans in Africa|135
4|4.5 The Berlin Conference of 1884-1885 and the Question of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States|138
3|5 Revisiting the Sovereignty and Civilisation Questions: The Reconstruction of the Legacy of Africa´s Pre-colonial History|142
4|5.1 The Legacy of History and the Reality of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States|142
4|5.2 The Locus of the Sovereignty of Pre-colonial African States in the Colonial Era|144
3|6 Conclusion: Reinforcing the Imperative of Critical Legal Scholarship with a View to Purging International Law of Its Colonia...|144
3|References|146
2|The International Law of Secession and the Protection of the Human Rights of Oppressed Substate Groups: Yesterday, Today and T...|148
3|1 Introduction|149
3|2 Yesterday|150
4|2.1 Little-if Any-Treaties or Negotiated Soft Law Norms|151
4|2.2 Near-Total Dominance of the Effectiveness Doctrine|151
4|2.3 A Politics with Little Rights|152
4|2.4 Little-if Any-Democratic or Adjudicative Process|153
4|2.5 An Excessively High Level of Unjustifiable Selectivity|154
4|2.6 A Largely Oppressive Concept of Legitimate Statehood|154
4|2.7 The Consequent Production of Severe Disadvantage for Oppressed Substate Groups|155
3|3 Today|155
4|3.1 A Much Greater Resort to Treaties and Negotiated Soft Law Instruments|156
4|3.2 The Waning of the Effectiveness Doctrine|157
4|3.3 A Politics with Much More Rights-Based Praxis|158
4|3.4 A Much Greater Tendency to Turn to Democratic Political or Adjudicative Process|163
4|3.5 The Continuation of High Levels of Selectivity in the Invocation of Pro- or Anti-secession Principles|166
4|3.6 A Significantly Less Oppressive Concept of Legitimate Statehood|167
4|3.7 A Consequently Better Environment for the Protection of Substate Groups|167
3|4 Tomorrow|168
3|5 Conclusion|171
3|References|172
1|Part III: Criminal Law|175
2|International Crimes: A Hybrid Future?|176
3|References|192
2|The ICC and the African Court and the Extended Notion of Complementarity of International Criminal Jurisdictions|194
3|1 Development Economics and the Rule of Law|194
3|2 Complementarity of Jurisdictions in International Criminal Law|199
3|3 The Fundamental Premises of ICC´s Complementary Jurisdiction|199
3|4 Admissibility Under the Rome Statute|201
3|5 The AU Protocol and the Amended Statute of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights|201
3|6 Competing Jurisdictions?|202
3|7 An Expanded Conception of Complementarity|206
3|8 Pooling Sovereignty|208
3|9 Deferral of Investigation and Prosecution|209
3|10 Conclusion|212
3|References|213
2|Fragmentation or Stabilisation? Recent Case Law on the Crime of Genocide in Light of the 2007 Judgment of the International Co...|215
3|1 Introduction|215
4|1.1 The European Court of Human Rights|216
3|2 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda|218
3|3 International Criminal Court|222
3|4 International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia|228
3|5 Concluding Observations|238
2|The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Question of Head of State Immunity in International Law: Revisiting the Decision in...|241
3|1 Introduction|241
3|2 The Special Court of Sierra Leone in Perspective|242
3|3 The Question of Head of State Immunity Before the Special Court|244
4|3.1 Head of State Immunity in International Law|245
3|4 Head of State Immunity Before National Courts|249
3|5 Head of State Immunity Before International Courts|252
3|6 Status of the Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Immunity of Charles Taylor|256
3|7 Judicial Assistance and Cooperation with the Special Court for Sierra Leone: Chapter VII ex Post Facto?|262
3|8 Conclusion|265
3|References|266
3|Authored Books and Book Chapters|267
1|Part IV: Natural Resources/Environmental Law|268
2|Mainstreaming Environmental Justice in Developing Countries: Thinking Beyond Constitutional Environmental Rights|269
3|1 Introduction|269
4|1.1 Conceptual Issues|270
3|2 The Case Studies|274
4|2.1 Country Profiles|274
3|3 The Substantive Provisions|276
4|3.1 Nigeria|276
4|3.2 South Africa|278
4|3.3 India|279
4|3.4 Papua New Guinea|280
3|4 Analysis|282
3|5 Conclusion|287
3|References|288
2|Environmental Victims, Access to Justice and the Sustainable Development Goals|290
3|1 Introduction|290
3|2 Access to Justice in Environmental Matters|293
3|3 Developing Countries and Challenges to Access to Justice in Environmental Matters|295
4|3.1 Challenges in National Jurisdictions|298
4|3.2 Challenges in Alternative Forums|300
3|4 Consequences of Regulatory Failure|303
3|5 The Sustainable Development Goals and Environment|304
4|5.1 Goal 16: Access to Justice|306
4|5.2 Operationalising Goal 16 of the SDGs|307
4|5.3 Rule of Law and Access to Justice|308
4|5.4 Participation and Access to Information|309
4|5.5 Dispute Resolution|309
4|5.6 Other Relevant Issues for Further Discussion|310
3|6 Conclusion|310
3|References|310
2|Promoting Functional Distributive Justice in the Nigerian Sovereign Wealth Fund System: Lessons from Alaska and Norway|315
3|1 Introduction|316
3|2 Theoretical Background: Functional Distributive Justice|320
4|2.1 The Commons and Common Ownership|320
4|2.2 Environmental Justice|322
4|2.3 Permanent Sovereignty Over Natural Resources|323
4|2.4 The Right of Self-Determination|324
4|2.5 From Theory to Practice: Functional Distributive Justice|325
3|3 The Nigerian Sovereign Wealth Fund Scheme: A Diagnosis|328
4|3.1 Excess Crude Account|328
4|3.2 Sovereign Wealth Fund|330
3|4 Emerging Best Practices in Sovereign Wealth Fund: Lessons from Norway and Alaska|333
4|4.1 Norway|334
4|4.2 Alaska|337
4|4.3 Nigeria: Comparative Lessons|340
5|4.3.1 Form of Legal Support|341
5|4.3.2 Ownership Principle|342
5|4.3.3 Operational Model|343
5|4.3.4 Risk Management Protocol|345
3|5 Conclusion|346
3|References|347
1|Part V: Book Review|353
2|International Law and Governance of Natural Resources in Conflict and Post-Conflict Situations by Daniëlla Dam-de Jong|354
1|Part VI: Year in Review|359
2|Africa, International Courts/Tribunals and Dispute Settlement: Year in Review 2015|360
3|1 Introduction|361
3|2 International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS)|362
4|2.1 Request for an Advisory Opinion Submitted by the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC), ITLOS Case No. 21, Advisory Opi...|363
5|2.1.1 Introduction|363
5|2.1.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|364
5|2.1.3 The Decision|365
6|What Are the Obligations of the Flag State in Cases Where Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU) Fishing Activities Are Co...|365
6|To What Extent Shall the Flag State Be Held Liable for IUU Fishing Activities Conducted by Vessels Sailing Under Its Flag?|367
6|What Are the Rights and Obligations of the Coastal State in Ensuring the Sustainable Management of Shared Stocks and Stocks of...|368
4|2.2 Dispute Concerning Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary Between Ghana and the Republic of Cote d´Ivoire Submitted to a Sp...|368
5|2.2.1 Introduction|368
5|2.2.2 The Request for Provisional Measures|369
5|2.2.3 The Decision|371
3|3 The Permanent Court of Arbitration: Chagos Marine Protected Area Arbitration (Mauritius v. United Kingdom)|372
4|3.1 Introduction|373
4|3.2 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|374
4|3.3 The Decision|374
4|3.4 Conclusion|376
3|4 The African Court of Human and Peoples´ Rights|377
4|4.1 Alex Thomas v. United Republic of Tanzania (Application No. 005/2013)|378
4|4.2 Request for Advisory Opinion by the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child on the Standing of...|380
5|4.2.1 Issues Raised|380
5|4.2.2 The Decision|381
4|4.3 Zongo v. Burkina Faso (March 28, 2014)|383
5|4.3.1 Introduction|383
5|4.3.2 The Applicant´s Case|383
5|4.3.3 Decision|383
5|4.3.4 Zongo v. Burkina Faso: Judgment on Reparations (June 5, 2015)|384
5|4.3.5 Conclusion|385
4|4.4 Lohe Issa Konaté v. Burkina Faso (December 5, 2014)|385
5|4.4.1 Introduction|385
5|4.4.2 Issues Raised|386
5|4.4.3 Jurisdiction and Admissibility|386
5|4.4.4 Decision|387
4|4.5 Conclusion|388
3|5 The International Criminal Court|389
4|5.1 The Prosecutor v. Simone Gbagbo|390
4|5.2 The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Withdrawal of Charges)|392
4|5.3 The Prosecutor v. Uhuru Muigai Kenyatta (Noncompliance)|394
5|5.3.1 Judgment on the Prosecutor´s Appeal Against Trial Chamber V(B)´s ``Decision on Prosecution´s Application for a Finding o...|395
6|Did the Trial Chamber Err in Law by Not Referring Kenya to the ASP When It Had Made a Finding Under Article 87(7) of the Statu...|396
6|Even if the Trial Chamber Had Discretion Not to Refer Kenya to the ASP, Did It Err in Exercising Its Discretion ``by Taking in...|397
3|6 The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR)|398
4|6.1 The ICTR: The Curtain Falls|399
4|6.2 The Prosecutor v. Pauline Nyiramasuhuko et al.: ``The Butare Six´´|400
4|6.3 Beyond the ICTR|401
4|6.4 Conclusion|401
3|7 European Court of Justice: Western Sahara, Indigenous Rights, and the Legality of Certain EU-Morocco Trade Agreements|402
4|7.1 Introduction|402
4|7.2 Frente Polisario v. Council (Case T-512/12)|402
4|7.3 Conclusion|403
3|8 Selected Decisions by National Courts|404
4|8.1 High Court (UK): Western Sahara Campaign UK, R (on the Application of) v. HM Revenue and Customs|404
4|8.2 Court of Appeals (U.S.): John Doe I, et al v. Nestlé, USA, et al.|405
4|8.3 Court of Appeals in The Hague (Netherlands): A Landmark Decision Against Shell|406