DOCSLIB.ORG

Universal Jurisdiction

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Universal Jurisdiction UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A PRELIMINARY SURVEY OF LEGISLATION AROUND THE WORLD – 2012 UPDATE Amnesty International Publications First published in October 2012 by Amnesty International Publications International Secretariat Peter Benenson House 1 Easton Street London WC1X 0DW United Kingdom www.amnesty.org Copyright Amnesty International Publications 2012 Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Original Language: English Printed by Amnesty International, International Secretariat, United Kingdom All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise without the prior permission of the publishers. Amnesty International is a global movement of more than 3 million supporters, members and activists in more than 150 countries and territories who campaign to end grave abuses of human rights. Our vision is for every person to enjoy all the rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. We are independent of any government, political ideology, economic interest or religion and are funded mainly by our membership and public donations. CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................1 A. The two annexes...........................................................................................................6 B. Definitions...................................................................................................................7 C. Analytical principles used in the preliminary survey..........................................................8 D. Limited scope of this preliminary global survey..............................................................10 II. DEFINITIONS OF CRIMES IN NATIONAL LAW AND UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION ...................12 A. War crimes ................................................................................................................12 B. Crimes against humanity.............................................................................................13 C. Genocide ...................................................................................................................13 D. Torture......................................................................................................................13 E. Ordinary crimes..........................................................................................................13 ANNEX I: COUNTRY LEGISLATION PROFILE CHART...............................................................16 ANNEX II: BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON LEGISLATION IN EACH COUNTRY ......................22 ABBREVIATIONS...............................................................................................................22 COUNTRIES .....................................................................................................................23 UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION 1 A preliminary survey of legislation around the world – 2012 update I. INTRODUCTION Universal jurisdiction, an essential tool of international justice, is the ability of the court of any state to try persons for crimes committed outside its territory that are not linked to the state by the nationality of the suspect or the victims or by harm to the state’s own national interests. The Sixth (Legal) Committee of the UN General Assembly began having annual discussions of the scope and application of this rule of customary international law four years ago at the request of the African Union (AU). In that request, the AU proclaimed its support for “the principle of universal jurisdiction within the context of fighting impunity as well as the need to punish perpetrators of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes”, but expressed its concerned about the supposed “ad hoc and arbitrary application, particularly towards African leaders”. 1 That request followed the publication of a joint study of an ad hoc expert group that had been commissioned by the AU and European Union Troika. 2 As explained below, this updated preliminary survey by Amnesty International of legislation around the world is designed to assist the Sixth Committee in its annual discussions of universal jurisdiction. The updated version takes into account amendments to national legislation in Luxembourg and Comoros extending the scope of jurisdiction of their courts to provide for universal jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes that have taken place since the preliminary survey was published in October 2011. It also includes information received since October 2011 concerning a similar extension of the scope of jurisdiction of the courts of Mauritius that had taken place earlier and it clarifies that the courts of Ghana can exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes in both non-international and international armed conflict. In addition, Amnesty International is publishing simultaneously a separate paper, Universal jurisdiction: Strengthening this essential tool of international justice , that provides advice to states on how, at both the international and national levels, they can improve the effectiveness of their role as agents of the international community in enforcing international criminal law and provides information about positive developments and setbacks over the past year. 3 Brief summary of results of the preliminary survey. This updated preliminary survey indicates that 166 (approximately 86%) of the 193 UN member states have defined one or more of four crimes 1 Request for the inclusion of an additional item in the agenda of the sixty-third session, The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction, Letter dated 29 June 2009 from the Permanent Representative of the United Republic of Tanzania to the United Nations addressed to the Secretary-General, U.N. Doc. A/63/237/Rev.1, 23 July 2009 (http://daccess-dds- ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N09/421/25/PDF/N0942125.pdf?OpenElement). 2 This expert group concluded that • international law did not give states where the crimes were committed priority over investigation and prosecution; • the majority of AU member states have universal jurisdiction legislation regarding crimes defined in treaties and customary international law which only one has ever tried to use; • Thirteen African states have abolished in national law, or have agreed to do so, provisions recognizing claims of immunity by state officials for crimes under international law; • EU universal jurisdiction cases involve a broad range of nationalities; and • some of the cases that have been cited as evidence of “abuse” of universal jurisdiction were not even based on universal jurisdiction. The study is available at: http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st08/st08672.en09.pdf . 3 Universal jurisdiction: Strengthening this essential tool of international justice , Index: IOR 53/020/2012, September 2012. Index: IOR 53/019/2012 Amnesty International October 2012 2 UNIVERSAL JURISDICTION A preliminary survey of legislation around the world – 2012 update under international law (war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and torture) as crimes in their national law. As noted below, however, not only have many states failed to define all of these crimes under international law as crimes under national law, but in many instances the definitions are not consistent with the strictest requirements of international law, creating a serious impunity gap. 24 states apparently have not defined any of them as crimes in their national law. No relevant legislation could be located in one state (Swaziland) and insufficient legislation in another (Suriname), making it impossible to determine whether they had included any of these crimes in national law. In some states, legislation could be located regarding only one crime. In addition, it appears that 147 (approximately 76.2 %) out of 193 states have provided for universal jurisdiction over one or more of these crimes. In addition, at least 16 (approximately 8.29%) out of 193 UN member states can exercise universal jurisdiction over conduct amounting to a crime under international law, but only as an ordinary crime (indeed, a total of 91 states have provided universal jurisdiction over ordinary crimes, even when the conduct does not involve conduct amounting to a crime under international law). Thus, a total of 163 states (approximately 84.46%) can exercise universal jurisdiction over one or more crimes under international law, either as such crimes or as ordinary crimes under national law. As explained below in Section II.D on ordinary crimes, this ability has proved to be very useful when the state concerned has not yet included particular crimes under international law as crimes under national law, but it is an unsatisfactory substitute for defining crimes under international law as crimes under national law. As previously noted, no relevant legislation could be found in some states and in some states not all relevant legislation could be located. Unfortunately, as noted below, the mere existence of universal jurisdiction legislation does not mean that the state can effectively act as an agent of the international community to enforce international criminal law. All too often, the legislation contains numerous obstacles to the effective use of this tool of international justice. However, the preliminary survey is a useful compilation
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Internacional De Derechos Civiles Y Políticos
    INTERNACIONAL Distr. DE DERECHOS GENERAL ~ CIVILES C OPR/C/l/Add.17 21 de septiembre de 1 9 7 7 Y POLÍTICOS ESPAÑOL Original: INGLES COMITE DE' DERECHOS HUMANOS Tercer período de sesiones EXAMEN DE LOS INFORMES PRESENTADOS POR LOS ESTADOS PARTES DE CONFORMIDAD CON EL ARTICULO 40 DEL PACTO Informes iniciales de los Estados Partes que deben presentarse en 1977 Adición REINO UNIDO DE GRAN BRETAÑA E IRLANDA DEL NORTE [.18 de agosto de 1 9 7 7 ] Introducción 1. El Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos no tiene por sí mismo fuerza de ley en el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte ni en los territorios dependientes de él. La obligación asumida en virtud del parrefo 2 del artículo 2, que deja a cada Parte Contratante la libertad de elegir la forma de hacer efectivos los derechos reconocidos en el Pacto, se cumple en el Reino Unido mediante salvaguardias ‘ de distintos tipos que se aplican en los varios sistemas jurídicos, independientemente: : del Pacto pero en plena concordancia con él. 2. ^ Las explicaciones que contiene el presente informe se limitan en general al sistema jurídico de Inglaterra y Gales. Las normas jurídicas de ese sistema corresponden a dos categorías principales : normas qtie figuran en la legislación y normas que se deducen de las decisiones de los tribunales con facultades decisorias. Las de esta última categoría se derivan, a su vez, de dos fuentes -en primer lugar, el "common law” propia­ mente dicho (es decir, las leyes y costumbres reconocidas judicialmente desde los primeros tiempos) y, en segundo lugar, la interpretación de las leyes.
    [Show full text]
  • The Pinochet Judgment: New Accountability for Old Dictators †
    463 THE PINOCHET JUDGMENT: NEW ACCOUNTABILITY FOR OLD DICTATORS † Sarah L Murphy * This article analyses the groundbreaking 1999 judgment of the House of Lords on the question of the extradition of Pinochet from the United Kingdom to Spain for crimes committed during his time as Head of State of Chile. It examines the two main components of the judgment: that Pinochet's status as former Head of State of Chile did not allow him to benefit from sovereign immunity for acts of torture committed during his reign; and that he could be extradited to Spain for acts of torture committed after 1989, when the United Kingdom codified its obligations under the Torture Convention. It supports the conclusion that the laws against torture override the immunity of former Heads of State, and suggests that the reasoning could be extended to apply to other crimes against humanity, and where the accused is an incumbent Head of State. On the question of extradition, it argues that the Law Lords had several avenues open under which Pinochet could have been extradited to face all counts of torture. It concludes with an analysis of the New Zealand legislation and case law on sovereign immunity, the prosecution of crimes against humanity, and extradition, and suggests several law reforms to bring New Zealand legislation in line with evolving international obligations to prosecute or extradite the perpetrators of crimes against humanity. † This article was accepted for publication in 2000. In September 2000, the International Crimes and International Criminal Court Act 2000 was passed. The Act removes many of the hur dles that existed at the time of the Pinochet proceedings to prosecuting crimes against humanity in New Zealand.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes Act 1991 Page 1
    War Crimes Act 1991 Page 1 War Crimes Act 1991 1991 CHAPTER 13 Sweet & Maxwell Ltd. UK Statutes Crown Copyright. Reproduced by permission of the Controller of Her Majesty©s Stationery Office. An Act to confer jurisdiction on United Kingdom courts in respect of certain grave violations of the laws and customs of war committed in German-held territory during the Second World War; and for connected purposes. [9th May 1991] BE IT ENACTED by the Queen©s most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by authority of the same, as follows:Ð 1.Ð Jurisdiction over certain war crimes. (1) Subject to the provisions of this section, proceedings for murder, manslaughter or culpable homicide may be brought against a person in the United Kingdom irrespective of his nationality at the time of the alleged offence if that offenceÐ (a) was committed during the period beginning with 1st September 1939 and ending with 5th June 1945 in a place which at the time was part of Germany or under German occupation; and (b) constituted a violation of the laws and customs of war. (2) No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought against any person unless he was on 8th March 1990, or has subsequently become, a British citizen or resident in the United Kingdom, the Isle of Man or any of the Channel Islands. (3) No proceedings shall by virtue of this section be brought in England and Wales or in Northern Ireland except by or with the consent of the Attorney General or, as the case may be, the Attorney General for Northern Ireland.
    [Show full text]
  • Consents to Prosecution Consultation
    PART I INTRODUCTION 1.1 In this consultation paper we examine one of the procedural mechanisms used to control the prosecution process, namely the requirement in respect of certain offences of the consent of the Law Officers (the Attorney-General or the Solicitor- General) or the Director of Public Prosecutions (“the DPP”)1 as a condition precedent to the institution of criminal proceedings. In preparing this paper, we have borne in mind the constitutional gravity of consent provisions – not only do they fetter the right of private prosecution, but also, by their nature, they impose an administrative burden on senior officials and cause an additional administrative delay within the criminal justice system. THE NEED FOR REVIEW 1.2 Although the use of consent provisions is not a recent development, their proliferation is. As we shall see in Part IV,2 although the first example is thought to date back to the early nineteenth century, it was not until the Second World War that consent provisions became widely used. We believe that the consents regime is a pressing and important subject for review. We hold this belief for a number of reasons. 1.3 First, the Royal Commission on Criminal Procedure (“the Philips Commission”), under the chairmanship of Sir Cyril Philips, noted that the wide-ranging list of Acts which included a consent provision suggested that “some of the restrictions ha[d] been arbitrarily imposed”;3 and in formulating proposals which eventually led to the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Commission took the view that the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service (“the CPS”) provided the apposite moment for reviewing the consents regime and, noting that the DPP had said in evidence to the Commission that “the time was ripe for some rationalisation of the restrictions”,4 recommended that rationalisation should not be delayed.5 1.4 Second, notable former Law Officers have criticised the consents system.
    [Show full text]
  • Australian Capital Territory
    AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986 No. 93 of 1986 I, THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL of the Commonwealth of Australia, acting with the advice of the Federal Executive Council, hereby make the following Ordinance under the Seat of Government (Administration) Act 1910. Dated 18 December 1986. N. M. STEPHEN Governor-General By His Excellency’s Command, LIONEL BOWEN Attorney-General An Ordinance relating to the application in the Territory of certain Acts of the United Kingdom Short title 1. This Ordinance may be cited as the Imperial Acts Application Ordinance 1986.1 Commencement 2. (1) Subject to this section, this Ordinance shall come into operation on the date on which notice of this Ordinance having been made is published in the Gazette. (2) Sub-section 4 (2) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in Gazette. (3) Sub-section 4 (3) shall come into operation on such date as is fixed by the Minister of State for Territories by notice in the Gazette. Authorised by the ACT Parliamentary Counsel—also accessible at www.legislation.act.gov.au Imperial Acts Application No. 93 , 1986 2 Interpretation 3. (1) In this Ordinance, unless the contrary intention appears—“applied Imperial Act” means— (a) an Imperial Act that— (i) extended to the Territory as part of the law of the Territory of its own force immediately before 3 September 1939; and (ii) had not ceased so to extend to the Territory before the commencing date; and (b) an Imperial Act, other than an Imperial
    [Show full text]
  • Section 2 of the Parliament Act 1911
    SECTION 2 OF THE PARLIAMENT ACT 1911 This pamphlet is intended for members of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel. References to Commons Standing Orders are to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons relating to Public Business of 1 May 2018 and the addenda up to 6 February 2019. References to Lords Standing Orders are to the Standing Orders of the House of Lords relating to Public Business of 18 May 2016. References to Erskine May are to Erskine May on Parliamentary Practice (25th edition, 2019). Office of the Parliamentary Counsel 11 July 2019 CONTENTS CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General . 1 Text of section 2. 1 Uses of section 2 . 2 Role of First Parliamentary Counsel . 3 CHAPTER 2 APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE PARLIAMENT ACT 1911 Key requirements . 4 Bills to which section 2(1) applies . 4 Sending up to Lords in first Session . 6 Rejection by Lords in first Session . 7 Same Bill in second Session. 7 Passing Commons in second Session . 10 Sending up to Lords in second Session . 11 Rejection by Lords in second Session . 11 Commons directions . 14 Royal Assent . 14 CHAPTER 3 SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS Commons timing and procedure . 16 Function of the procedure . 17 Form of suggested amendment . 19 Lords duty to consider. 19 Procedure in Lords . 19 CHAPTER 4 OTHER PROCEDURAL ISSUES IN THE SECOND SESSION Procedure motions in Commons . 21 Money Resolutions . 23 Queen’s and Prince’s Consent . 23 To and Fro (or “ping-pong”) . 23 APPENDIX Jackson case: implied restrictions under section 2(1) . 25 —i— CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION General 1.1 The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949 were passed to restrict the power of veto of the House of Lords over legislation.1 1.2 Section 1 of the 1911 Act is about securing Royal Assent to Money Bills to which the Lords have not consented.
    [Show full text]
  • Universal Jurisdiction
    MFK-Mendip Job ID: 10390BK-0187-8 7 - 735 Rev: 05-08-2004 PAGE: 1 TIME: 07:22 SIZE: 61,08 Area: JNLS OP: MF Universal Jurisdiction Clarifying the Basic Concept Roger O’Keefe* Abstract Academic analysis of the Arrest Warrant case in the International Court of Justice has tended to focus to date on the Court’s judgment on immunity. Comparatively little attention has been paid to the question of universal jurisdiction, as discussed in detail in most of the separate and dissenting opinions and declarations. The following article focuses less on the various judges’ conclusions as to the international lawfulness of universal jurisdiction than on their treatment of the basic concept. The article argues that this treatment is open to question, reflecting, as it does, both a conceptual conflation of states’ jurisdiction to prescribe their criminal law with the manner of that law’s enforcement and an inattention to crucial temporal considerations. As well as fostering dubious terminology, these factors lead some judges to an unsatisfying conclusion regarding the permissibility of the enforcement in absentia of universal jurisdiction, and cause others to underestimate the degree of state practice in favour of universal jurisdiction over crimes under general inter- national law. 1. Introduction The separate and dissenting opinions and declarations of the judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in Arrest Warrant1 invite discussion of what is meant by ‘universal jurisdiction’. This article suggests that the respective judges’ understanding of the concept is debatable, since underlying it is a tendency, when dealing with states’ criminal jurisdiction, to elide prescription and enforcement, as * University Lecturer and Deputy Director, Lauterpacht Research Centre for International Law, University of Cambridge; Fellow, Magdalene College, Cambridge.
    [Show full text]
  • Legal Remedies for Victims of “ International Crimes”
    Legal Remedies for Victims of “ International Crimes” Fostering an EU Approach To Extraterritorial Jurisdiction FINAL REPORT MARCH 2004 Realised with financial support from: Grotius II programme of the European Commission “[G]enocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes must not go unpunished and [… ] their effective prosecution must be ensured by taking measures at national level and by enhancing international cooperation.” Council Decision 2003/335/JHA, 8 May 2003 “The serious crimes within the jurisdiction of the [International Criminal] Court are of concern to all Member States, which are determined to cooperate for the prevention of those crimes and for putting an end to the impunity of the perpetrators thereof” Council Common Position 2003/444/CFSP, 16 June 2003 “The [International Criminal Court’s] strategy of focussing on those who bear the greatest responsibility for crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court will leave an impunity gap unless national authorities, the international community and the Court work together to ensure that all appropriate means for bringing other perpetrators to justice are used.” Paper on some policy issues before the Office of the Prosecutor, International Criminal Court – Office of the Prosecutor, 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... 1 II. THE PROJECT .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference
    ALRC 33 Civil Admiralty Jurisdiction Terms of Reference I, NEIL ANTHONY BROWN, the Minister of State for Communications, acting for and on behalf of the Attorney-General of the Commonwealth of Australia, HAVING REGARD TO THE FOLLOWING: (a) that the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia is at present still exercised pursuant to the United Kingdom Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890; (b) that the Constitution enables the Commonwealth Parliament to make laws conferring jurisdiction on the High Court and other federal courts in matters of Admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, and to make laws investing any court of a State or Territory with such jurisdiction; and (c) the other countries, including Canada and New Zealand, to which the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890 previously applied, have enacted their own Admiralty legislation in a revised and updated form; HEREBY REFER to the Law Reform Commission, for INQUIRY, REVIEW and REPORT thereon to the Attorney-General, all aspects of the Admiralty jurisdiction in Australia, and REQUEST the Law Reform Commission, in considering this reference, (a) to have regard to the Report of the Joint Committee of the Law Council of Australia and the Maritime Law Association of Australia and New Zealand dated 22 April 1982 on Admiralty Jurisdiction in Australia, and (b) to take note of the draft Admiralty Jurisdiction Bill set out as Appendix “A” to that Report, and, in particular, to (i) make recommendations on the provisions to be included in an Australian Admiralty Act; (ii) consider whether any, and
    [Show full text]
  • The Organic Laws in Francophone Africa and The
    Article The organic laws in Special Issue on African Courts and francophone Africa and the Contemporary Constitutional judicial branch: a contextual Developments analysis Enyinna S Nwauche Guest Editor Jennifer Gitiri Senior State Counsel, Office of the Attorney Vol 35 No 1 (2021) General & Department of Justice, Kenya. Published 31 March 2021 Boldizsár Dr. Szentgáli-Tóth ISSN 2523-2177 Research Fellow, Hungarian Academy of Science, Hungary. Abstract Organic, qualified, or institutional laws are a special category of statutes that have a constitutional mandate to protect institutional frameworks and fundamental rights and freedoms. They operate using stricter procedural mechanisms than those available under ordinary legislative processes as they are usually passed by a supermajority. The three main models of organic laws are the French, Spanish, and Hungarian. There is arguably a fourth African model that is yet to crystallise as it is still in flux and ever-changing. Each of these models espouses unique constitutional, Speculum Juris legal, and historical characteristics that set it apart from the other. Due to its origin, organic laws are more common in civil rather than common-law countries. Organic laws are vested with certain constitutional, political, and historical functions. For example, they are used to protect institutional frameworks and fundamental rights and freedoms. In Spain, organic laws form part of the Spanish Constitution and are only invoked during times of constitutional reviews of ordinary laws. In Africa, the institutional function of organic law is given primary consideration as a mechanism that indirectly protects fundamental rights and freedoms. Since organic laws are promulgated to promote clear constitutional objectives, its scope differs from state to state on account of varying historical contexts, despite sharing a similar origin.
    [Show full text]
  • João Bertola Franco De Gouveia
    10 INTRODUÇÃO Historicamente, tratando-se dos Estados, a matéria das imunidades é regida por regras costumeiras de direito internacional. O direito das imunidades foi, em seguida, enriquecido por algumas convenções. A primeira foi a convenção de Bruxelas de 1926 sobre as imunidades dos navios de Estado. Depois, surgiu a convenção de Basiléia de 1972 sobre as imunidades dos Estados, negociada sob a égide do Conselho da Europa. Posteriormente, diferentes Estados da common law, como os Estados Unidos, Reino Unido, Canadá, e, ainda, a África do Sul, adotaram legislação interna sobre as imunidades. Inicialmente, a imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados era absoluta, evoluindo mais tarde para uma imunidade relativa, havendo algumas exceções em que não se aplicava a imunidade de jurisdição. Assim, as leis internas desses Estados previram exceções nos casos de lides trabalhistas ou de acidentes automobilísticos. O direito brasileiro, seguindo a tendência mundial, também adotou a imunidade relativa, a partir da Magna Carta de 1988, com uma nova interpretação do art.114, I da mesma, no caso de questões trabalhistas. Atualmente, no entanto, o direito das imunidades de jurisdição continua a evoluir, havendo doutrina e jurisprudência que sustentam a sua ausência no caso de violação dos direitos humanos. Dessa forma, o leading case seria o caso Pinochet, no qual a Câmara dos Lordes entendeu que Pinochet não teria imunidade de jurisdição perante a corte inglesa em função de atos funcionais violadores dos direitos humanos praticados durante o tempo em que foi presidente do Chile. Dessa maneira, dentre as exceções à imunidade de jurisdição dos Estados, poder-se-ia acrescentar uma nova exceção no caso de violação dos direitos humanos.
    [Show full text]
  • Nation Building and Human Rights in Emergent African Nations S
    Cornell International Law Journal Volume 2 Article 2 Issue 1 Spring 1969 Nation Building and Human Rights in Emergent African Nations S. K. B. Asante Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Asante, S. K. B. (1969) "Nation Building and Human Rights in Emergent African Nations," Cornell International Law Journal: Vol. 2: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cilj/vol2/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell International Law Journal by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. NATION BUILDING AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN EMERGENT AFRICAN NATIONS* S. K. B. Asante** I SOURCES AND MANIFESTATIONS The second half of the twentieth century has witnessed the emergence of some thirty new nations in Africa. Independence evoked sanguine expectations; it meant the end of alien rule, but the vast majority of Africans also saw in nationhood the promise of firm human rights guarantees. National independence was in fact identified with individual liberty. Nor was this identifi- cation surprising. African nationalist movements after all flourished in a world which had emerged from Nazism and Fascism-- a world which had proclaimed a new order imbued with a profound concern for human rights. The struggle for self-determination was itself regarded as an aspect of this human rights movement, and nationalist leaders freely invoked affirmations of human rights in international as well as national thinking.
    [Show full text]