The ECOWAS Court of Justice as an Investment Tribunal

Author(s):  
Matthew Happold ◽  
Relja Radović

Abstract This article considers the extent to which foreign investors in Member States of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) might be able to use the ECOWAS Court of Justice to protect their investments against actions of their host States. It does so taking into account the ECOWAS Supplementary Act on Investments and the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice on, in particular, the extent of its substantive jurisdiction. Although it is not suggested that the Court of Justice would be better forum than an international arbitral tribunal, it is argued that it has considerable advantages over national courts.

2011 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 181-202 ◽  
Author(s):  
ES Nwauche

AbstractOne of the constitutional challenges of regional integration is how to manage the limitation of national judicial sovereignty of member states to ensure that community law is recognized as superior to national law and is accordingly applied and interpreted by national courts at the instance of community citizens. This challenge arises from the national ordering of legal systems and the fact that states are the primary parties to agreements in which they limit their sovereignty in favour of the success of the community. This article examines the enforceability of the law of the Economic Community of West African States in the national courts of the West African states which comprise ECOWAS, with the aim of determining how this affects the integration goals of ECOWAS.


2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kangnikoé Bado

One of the major innovations made by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) is the unequivocal granting of a supranational role to the Court of Justice of the organisation. However, its human rights mandate has led to real and potential tensions within the ECOWAS legal order. The tensions stem from the legal force of judgments of constitutional courts of member states and the admissibility of individual petitions before the Court. This work identifies some deficiencies in the current regime of the human rights mandate of the Court. Gaps exist at the level of the member states’ constitutional order, as well as at the community level. The supranational competence of the jurisdiction must be implemented by the possibility of ordering concrete measures to be taken by states for the reparation of human rights violations. Innovative solutions are suggested in this work in order to fill procedural and substantial gaps in the protection system established in West Africa.


2010 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 111-137
Author(s):  
A.O. Enabulele

AbstractOnly recently, the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States, which was hitherto opened only to Community States, was expanded to allow direct human rights violation claims by individuals. Though the court has since started to function, its impact is yet to be felt ‐ citizens of recalcitrant Community States still live in wanton violation of their rights in most of the States, where national courts are weak and effective remedies for rights violations largely nonexistent. This is consequent upon the failure of Community States to align their national laws with the new legal order represented by the Community Court; national laws and indeed national courts are still very hostile to the court and its judgements, thereby discouraging citizens from attending the court. This Article takes a look at the relevant provisions of the constitutions of Community States and advocates an urgent need for the cooperation to be forged between national legal systems and the community legal system through the amendment of hostile laws, as a prerequisite to the achievement of the virile community legal order.


2001 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-96 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunday Babalola Ajulo

Articles 6(e) and 15(1–4) of the ECOWAS Revised Treaty (1993) provide for the establishment of a Court of Justice of the Community. These provisions should, however, be read along with those of the Protocol on the Community Court of Justice initialled in 1991. Attempts have been made to analyse various aspects of the institutions of the Community, including the Court of Justice. While Bankole Thompson examined the legal problems of the economic integration in West Africa, Kofi Oteng Kufuor attempted to look at the Court of Justice from the angle of compliance with its judgments by member states. Denakin, for his part, appraised generally the prospects of the Court.


2013 ◽  
Vol 107 (4) ◽  
pp. 737-779 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen J. Alter ◽  
Laurence Helfer ◽  
Jacqueline R. McAllister

The Community Court of Justice of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS Court) is an increasingly active and bold adjudicator of human rights. Since acquiring jurisdiction over human rights complaints in 2005, theECOWASCourt has issued numerous decisions condemning human rights violations by the member states of the Economic Community of West African States (Community). Among this Court’s path-breaking cases are judgments against Niger for condoning modern forms of slavery and against Nigeria for impeding the right to free basic education for all children. TheECOWASCourt also has broad access and standing rules that permit individuals and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) to bypass national courts and file suits directly with the Court. Although the Court is generally careful in the proof that it requires of complainants and in the remedies that it demands of governments, it has not shied away from politically courageous decisions, such as rulings against the Gambia for the torture of journalists and against Nigeria for failing to regulate multinational companies that have degraded the environment of the oil-rich Niger Delta.


2020 ◽  
Vol 28 (Supplement) ◽  
pp. 86-109
Author(s):  
Kehinde Ibrahim

The judgments of the ECOWAS Court, which are final and immediately binding, are vital for the realisation of ECOWAS aims and objectives. The enforcement of its judgments is particularly important in the case of individuals whose enjoyment of fundamental human rights, as guaranteed under the ECOWAS Community laws, is dependent on effective enforcement. Yet, an existential puzzling paradox emanates through a poor record in the implementation of the ECOWAS Court's judgments. This problem, which is not limited to the West African region deserves scrutiny and concrete proposals. Legal and political considerations surface in assessing the existence of this paradox, and despite the lack of a consistent political will, to implement the decisions of ECOWAS Court relevant judicial actors have roles to play. National courts could take a bolder approach in complementing the work of the ECOWAS Court. The ECOWAS Court itself could put in place concrete mechanisms and adopt certain practices to address this poor record of non-implementation. It is yet to be seen how substantive mechanisms would work in practice.


Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.


Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document