scholarly journals The Role of the Southern African Development community in the Management of Zimbabwe’s Post-election Crisis

2009 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 46-73 ◽  
Author(s):  
Khabele Matlosa
Author(s):  
Erika de Wet

The article examines four categories of litigation that were undertaken in the wake of the suspension of the SADC Tribunal. The first category of proceedings concerned a claim and request for an advisory opinion under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter); the second related to arbitration proceedings based on the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP); the third focussed on proceedings regarding the potential unconstitutionality of a government’s participation in the suspension of the SADC Tribunal; while the fourth concerned conflicts between the SADC and employees before the Botswana High Court. In analysing these proceedings, the article assesses whether litigation thus far undertaken is likely to increase pressure on SADC member states to reinstate some form of individual complaints procedure before the SADC Tribunal.


Author(s):  
E. Tendayi Achiume

This chapter uses the trajectory of the Southern African Development Community (“SADC”) Tribunal to chart sociopolitical constraints on international judicial lawmaking. It studies the SADC Tribunal backlash case, which paved the way for a curtailment of the Tribunal’s authority, stripping the Tribunal of both private access and its jurisdiction over human rights. Showing how jurisprudential engagement with sociopolitical context plays a significant role in explaining the Tribunal's loss of authority, the chapter introduces the concept of sociopolitical dissonance. Sociopolitical dissonance is a state that results when a legal decision contradicts or undermines deeply held norms that a given society or community forms on the basis of its social, political, and economic history. Sociopolitical resonance, on the other hand, describes the quality of affirming or according with a given society's norms as informed by its sociopolitical history.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 180-204
Author(s):  
Lawrence Ngobeni ◽  
Babatunde Fagbayibo

Abstract In 2016, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) amended Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investment (FIP) in order to remove investor access to international arbitration or Investor-State Dispute Resolution (ISDS). The recent formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Trade Agreement (T-FTA) are factors that will likely curtail SADC’s ability to regulate foreign investments. Both AfCFTA and T-FTA are supposed to have their own investment protocols. This means that SADC faces the loss of regulatory authority over foreign investments. The recent formation of the Pan African Investment Code (PAIC) has shown that some African Union (AU) Member States want to provide ISDS for their investors, while others including SADC Members States do not. This article intends to evaluate the lessons SADC can learn from other jurisdictions in terms of the effective regulation of ISDS.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 100029
Author(s):  
Joana Carlos Bezerra ◽  
Tony Robert Walker ◽  
C Andrea Clayton ◽  
Issahaku Adam

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document