16 African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Advisory Opinion following Request for Advisory Opinion by the Pan African Lawyers Union (palu) on the Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Other Human Rights Instruments Applicable in Africa, No. 001/2018, 4 December 2020

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 192-195
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Pan African ◽  
African Charter

scholarly journals Advisory Opinion on the Request by the Pan African Lawyers Union Regarding the Compatibility of Vagrancy Laws with the African Charter of Human and Peoples' Rights and Other Human Rights Instruments Applicable in Africa (Afr. Ct. H.P.R.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-27
Author(s):  
Ndanga Kamau
Keyword(s):  
Social Issue ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Women's Rights ◽  
Children's Rights ◽  
Women’S Rights ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
African Continent ◽  
Pan African ◽  
Welfare Of The Child ◽  
African Charter

On December 4, 2020, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Court) issued an advisory opinion on the compatibility of vagrancy laws with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter), the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (Children's Rights Charter), and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Protocol on Women's Rights). In this landmark advisory opinion, the Court considered an important social issue on the African continent.

III. INDIGENOUS PEOPLES' HUMAN RIGHTS IN AFRICA: THE PRAGMATIC REVOLUTION OF THE AFRICAN COMMISSION ON HUMAN AND PEOPLES' RIGHTS

2011 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 245-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jérémie Gilbert
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Working Group ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Indigenous Populations ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
African Charter ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
African Commission

The definition and scope of indigenous peoples' human rights are usually contentious in the context of Africa.2While in recent years indigenous peoples' human rights have expanded immensely internationally, in Africa indigenous peoples' rights are still perceived to be in their infancy.3At the United Nations, the group of African States delayed the process that finally led to the adoption of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 (UNDRIP).4At a national level, most of the States in Africa are still reluctant to recognize the specific rights of indigenous peoples.5Until recently, the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission), the leading human rights institution for the continent,6had kept a low profile on the issue and had ‘not always interpreted indigenous peoples’ rights favourably'.7From this perspective Commission regarding the communication submitted by the indigenous Endorois community against Kenya casts new light on the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.8The decision, which has already been hailed as a ‘landmark,’9touches on several crucial issues regarding the development of indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. This groundbreaking decision did not materialize unexpectedly but is part of a wider evolution of the Commission regarding indigenous peoples' human rights in Africa. It echoes the work of the Commission's own Working Group of Experts on Indigenous Populations/Communities (Working Group) which was established in 2001 with the mandate to focus specifically on the promotion and protection of the rights of indigenous peoples in Africa.10The mandate of the Working Group is to examine the concept of indigenous communities in Africa, as well as to analyse their rights under the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (African Charter).11In 2003 the Commission adopted the report of the Working Group which proposes several avenues for the recognition and promotion of indigenous rights in Africa.12The adoption of an Advisory Opinion by the Commission to support the adoption of UNDRIP marked another step toward the affirmation of indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.13The Advisory Opinion not only participated in unlocking the reluctance of the group of African States to adopt the UNDRIP, but also reflected developments taking place at the international level on the rights of indigenous peoples as well as their connection to the continent. Remarkably, in recent years, the Commission has started to refer to indigenous peoples' rights in its examination of States' periodic reports.14All these factors and the recent decision of the Commission in the Endorois case indicate the emergence of a consistent jurisprudence on indigenous peoples' rights in Africa.

The Regional Law of Refugee Protection in Africa

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marina Sharpe
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
African Unity ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Original Analysis ◽  
The Status ◽  
Organization Of African Unity ◽  
African Charter ◽  
African Refugee ◽  
Institutional Architecture

This book analyses the legal framework for refugee protection in Africa, including both refugee and human rights law as well as treaty and institutional elements. The regime is addressed in two parts. Part I analyses the relevant treaties: the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1969 Organization of African Unity Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, and the 1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The latter two regional instruments are examined in depth. This includes the first fulsome account of the African Refugee Convention’s drafting, an interpretation of its unique refugee definition, and original analysis of the relationships between the three treaties. Significant attention is devoted to the systemic relationship between the international and the regional refugee treaties and to the discrete relationships of conflict and relationships of interpretation between the two refugee instruments, as well as to the relationships of conflict and of interpretation between the African Refugee Convention and African Charter. Part II focuses on the institutional architecture supporting the treaty framework. The Organization of African Unity is addressed in a historical sense, and the contemporary roles of the African Union, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the current and contemplated African human rights courts are examined. This book is the first devoted to the legal framework for refugee protection in Africa.

scholarly journals The Protection of Internally Displaced Children in Africa: A Doctrinal Analysis of Article 23(4) of the African Children's Charter

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Romola Adeola ◽  
Benyam D Mezmur
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Internal Displacement ◽  
Refugee Children ◽  
Internally Displaced ◽  
Welfare Of The Child ◽  
Displaced Children ◽  
African Charter

Abstract This article considers the protection of, and assistance for, internally displaced children (IDCs) in Africa. Internal displacement has become one of Africa's most pressing human rights challenges. Over the last decade, millions of persons have been internally displaced on the continent by conflict, disaster and other causes. Children are one of the most affected categories of persons, given the implications of displacement for them. Article 23(4) of the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child incorporates specific protection for IDCs. This article examines the protection of IDCs in the context of this regional framework. It argues that, while article 23(4) requires that both refugee children and IDCs should be accorded the same protection from a rights-based perspective, it also requires that the protection of IDCs should be construed with reference to the Kampala Convention, which is the most recent applicable regional regime governing internal displacement.

scholarly journals A Commentary on the African Commission's General Comment on the Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence under Article 12(1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Romola Adeola ◽  
Frans Viljoen ◽  
Trésor Makunya Muhindo
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Movement ◽  
Number Of Factors ◽  
African Charter ◽  
The Right ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
African Commission

Abstract In 2019, the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights adopted General Comment No 5 on the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights: The Right to Freedom of Movement and Residence (Article 12(1)). In this general comment, the commission elaborated on the right to freedom of movement and residence within state borders. This issue, while explicit in international human rights law, is a challenge within various jurisdictions, including in Africa. This article provides a background to and commentary on General Comment No 5, leveraging on the insight of the authors, who participated in its drafting. Unlike the UN Human Rights Committee's earlier general comment, General Comment No 5 provides detailed guidance on the internal dimension of the right to free movement and residence. As “soft law”, its persuasive force depends on a number of factors, including its use at the domestic level, its visibility and its integration into regional human rights jurisprudence.

Classifications of Objections Based on the Legal Assessment of a Reservation by Objecting States

2014 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 333-370
Author(s):  
Marina Girshovich
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Functional Approach ◽  
Theoretical Interpretation ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Legal Assessment ◽  
Human Rights Treaties ◽  
International Obligations

Current doctrine assumes that the “Vienna regime” delinked objections from the criterion of object and purpose (op) compatibility of reservations. Shifting the focus from reservations to objections, this article finds implicit continuity between the Genocide Advisory Opinion and the Vienna regime: in both cases the op criterion enables a distinction between objections on the grounds of incompatibility of reservations (op objections) and all others. Embracing this distinction, a new theoretical interpretation of the Vienna regime safeguards against the adverse effects of objections, namely a “reinforced two-tier test” is suggested, whereby any reservation may be subject to an assessment of opposability (non-op objections) and a double assessment of permissibility. Adopting a functional approach, the article suggests a classification of international obligations based on the applicability of the Vienna regime’s various safeguard mechanisms, locating the roles of objections to reservations to human rights treaties in context.

Advisory Opinion on the Environment and Human Rights

2018 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 460-466
Author(s):  
Angeliki Papantoniou
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Caribbean Region ◽  
Environmental Harm ◽  
Significant Finding ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Personal Integrity ◽  
Infrastructure Projects ◽  
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction

On November 15, 2017, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Court) rendered a historic advisory opinion (Advisory Opinion) on the relationship between human rights and the environment. The opinion was a response to a request from Colombia regarding extraterritorial jurisdiction of state parties to the American Convention, in particular their obligations under the rights to life and personal integrity, arising from the construction and operation of large-scale infrastructure projects in the Greater Caribbean region. Colombia's concern was that, due to their dimensions and permanence, such projects could cause significant environmental harm, that goes beyond national borders, and, as a consequence, adversely affect the inhabitants of the whole region and the enjoyment of their rights under the Convention (para. 2). One of the most important aspects of the Advisory Opinion is the Court's finding that in relation to large-scale transboundary infrastructure projects, state parties to the Convention can exercise extraterritorial jurisdiction under certain circumstances and thus be responsible for the human rights of the people in the affected area. Another significant finding of the Court is that Article 26 of the American Convention, which provides for the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights, includes an autonomous right to a healthy environment—a right fundamental for the existence of humankind. Finally, the Court directly linked the rights to life and personal integrity with general principles of international environmental under a due diligence obligation. The Court's extensive use of international environmental law instruments, case law, and reasoning could pave the way for greater interconnection and integration between human rights and international environment law obligations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document