Suchergebnisse

The purpose of this volume is dual. The first is to provide information about the question of the role that doctrines and practices of international law have played in the emergence and persistence of the phenomenon of socio-cultural fragmentation, and therefore of inter-group conflict, within African states. The second is to provide original thought about the ways in which, prompted by the emergent turn in our time to minority and group rights, international law and multilateral African states have begun the long journey toward modifying those doctrines and practices that have led to such unfortunate results, and have thereby begun to make very valuable contributions to the effort to prevent and/or reduce the incidence of inter-group strife in specific African contexts. The book is not, however, limited in scope by its utilisation of Africa as a case study. The book's core is based on analysis of traditional and contemporary international legal doctrines and practices, their effects in specific contexts, as well as on the role of multilateral institutions in the prevention of internecine conflict within established states. It is hoped that, with the use of African states as case studies, the book will be a contribution to the advancement of scholarly knowledge regarding the general question of the relationship among the doctrines of international law, the activities of multilateral institutions, and the management of the problems of fragmentation and internecine strife within established states the world over. This volume is relevant to international lawyers, specialists in international politics, diplomats, theorists, minority and group rights scholars, historians, and human rights activists in general. It is particularly relevant to the African studies specialist, the statesman and the diplomat

Any attempt to address the ever-present problem of instability in Africa gives rise to questions regarding legitimate governance. Without future thinking and action on the legitimacy of governance in Africa and how to secure it, past mistakes will go unheeded rather than informing forward movement. Surprisingly, no existing work has comprehensively addressed this critical issue. Legitimate Governance in Africa provides this needed coverage for the first time, examining such key components in the struggle for legitimate governance as the role of the international community in addressing the problem, the particular role women can play and ways in which women can improve their involvement in the whole enterprise of governance, and the roles of non-governmental organizations and civil society. In this diverse collection of essays, a wide range of expert legal contributors, all familiar with the status of the struggle for legitimate governance in a specific institution or particular African state, brings unique perspectives to the scholarly investigation of legitimate governance in Africa. The individual authors have thought deeply about the complexities and subtleties of conducting and evaluating the business of African state governance, considering both the practical sustainability of potential approaches and theoretical problems and issues. The probing, high-quality essays facilitate a real understanding of the obstacles to progress in the struggle for legitimate governance. Through their depth and diversity of views, every one of the papers included in this collection enriches the pool of knowledge on this important subject

As Professor Jastram has noted, in and of itself, international refugee law is not explicit enough on the issue at hand. It is not clear enough in protecting persons who come in aid of, or show solidarity to, refugees or asylum-seekers. That does not mean, however, that no protections exist for them at all in other, if you like, sub-bodies of international law. This presentation focuses on the nature and character of those already existing international legal protections, as well as on any protection gaps that remain and recommendations on how they can be closed. It should be noted though that although the bulk of the presentation focuses on the relevant international legal protection arguments, this presentation begins with a short examination of the nature of the acts of criminalization and suppression at issue.

Between 1999 and 2007, a popular Labour-led movement led a pro-poor struggle to resist the fuel price hike policy of the Nigerian government. Waged in the context of the poverty in which nearly 70 per cent of Nigerians lived, the operation of powerful incentives to raise fuel prices, and Labour's extraordinary socio-political leverage, these struggles triggered much government frustration. One of the strategies adopted by the government to legitimize its attempt to repress the movement was to resort to the courts. This article analyses, from a socio-legal perspective, the key cases relating to the validity of the government's attempts to repress the struggles. The article concludes that, although both pro- and anti-movement trends can be observed in the jurisprudence, the anti-movement tendency having so far prevailed in terms of formal legal precedent, the pro-movement (ie pro-poor) decisions have, as a result of their massive popular legitimacy, actually functioned as the "living law."

Between 1999 and 2007, a broad-based labour-led movement which focused most of its energies on its struggle against unpopular fuel price hikes in Nigeria was able to exert considerable, though limited, influence on an Obasanjo-led executive arm of government that was at best quasidemocratic in its orientation. This article argues that, despite the very important roles played by other factors (notably the presence of more democratic space in Nigeria post-1999), the movement's adoption of a mass social movement approach facilitated its ability to exert such influence.

ABSTRACTDuring 1999–2007, a labour-led but broad-based socio-economic rights movement, which focused on a pro-poor (and therefore highly popular) anti-fuel price hike message, persuaded and/or pressured Nigeria's federal legislature, the National Assembly, to: mediate between it and the Executive Branch of Government; take it seriously enough to lobby it repeatedly; re-orient its legislative processes; explicitly oppose virtually all of the Executive Branch's fuel price hikes; and reject key anti-labour provisions in a government bill. Yet the movement did not always succeed in its efforts to influence the National Assembly. This article maps, discusses, contextualises and analyses these generally remarkable developments. It also argues that while many factors combined to facilitate or militate against the movement's impact on legislative reasoning, process and action during the relevant period, this movement's 'mass social movement' character was the pivotal factor that afforded it the necessary leverage to exert considerable, if limited, influence on the National Assembly.

Caught between pressure from dominant global economic actors (such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Bank (WB), and certain states) to implement painful socio-economic reform measures, and pressure from significant numbers of their own peoples to reject these IMF/WB-style prescriptions, formally democratic "third world" governments often yield to the demands of the former to push through such reforms, sometimes at great social cost. This article utilizes a contemporary Nigerian case study to illustrate this point and to show how the curtailment of labour rights and the weakening of labour movements have formed an important part of the economic strategy of many such governments. This anti-labour rights/movements strategy is an attempt by governments to deal with the human rights contradictions that are often generated when third world countries attempt dual political and economic transitions. The article argues that the deployment of an anti-labour strategy is grounded in a new kind of "full belly thesis" that prioritizes a particular IMF/WB-friendly vision of economic development over certain kinds of political (especially labour) rights. The powerful global economic actors, who would otherwise advocate the observance of all human rights, have nevertheless found this thesis more acceptable than its earlier iteration, which was grounded in a far less IMF/WB-friendly economic vision.