• International Law

Rethinking State Responsibility: The Case Of Drc V Uganda (reparations)

Article by Musana Joshua Malcolm


The International Court of Justice, in a recent decision, resolved to award USD 325 million to the DRC as compensation for Uganda’s actions in its territory. This sum was awarded on the basis of Uganda’s culpability for violations of International Law and its obligations under the established norms of state responsibility. In its ruling, the Court reached this amount on reference to the concept of a ‘global sum’. This article seeks to appraise the Court’s decision while making a case for the reform of some of the current rules governing state responsibility.

Related Articles

The Dilemma In International Migration: An Era of International Immigration And GeoPolitics

Ernest Jovan Talwana

At the end of both World War I and II, there was an influx of refugees caused by death, destruction and displacement of many groups of people. Most of these groups constituted minorities living in the collapsed Ottoman, Habsburg empires after WWI and the communities affected by Nazi occupation of Central Europe which had culminated into WWII. Both wars created refugee crises which required resettlement of displaced peoples. Refugee crises have never ended because human kind has a propensity to dispute and hence conflict. This has seen a persistent number of people displaced across the world. From the influx of Guatemalan refugees to the United States during the late 20th Century, to the Afghan war, Iraqi war and, currently, the Syrian and Libyan refugee crises affecting Europe courtesy of the endless conflicts that have ravaged those nations. Such conflicts create social and economic difficulties which push people to migrate. When all these issues happen simultaneously, it is bound to create a situation that is exploited by certain parties in order to advance their own agendas, at the expense of immigrants.

The African Woman In International Law

Lorna Afoyomungu Olum

This article interrogates the problematic nature of classical international law, showing the ways in which it historically privileged, and advanced, European values and interests over those of subaltern groups. While acknowledging the contributions of the Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL) and Feminist approaches, as important challenges to traditional international law, the article argues that these critical movements themselves contain a blind spot - insofar as they do not adequately surface the needs and concerns of the African woman as a subject of international law. To this end, the article suggests a need for further reflection upon, and responses to, the multiple ways in which the African woman is excluded - normatively and institutionally - in the contemporary international legal framework.

From Non-interference To Non-indifference: The Origin And Status Of Article 4(h) Of The Constitutive Act Of The African Union

Lornah Afoyomungu Olum

This article examines the historical, legal and political context within which Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of the African Union was formulated. It also considers the place of Article 4(h) in the contemporary international legal order. In the main, it is considered that, as recognized by Principle 11 of the Pretoria Principles, Article 4(h) is envisaged and validated by Article 53 of the UN Charter. More affirmatively, it is suggested that the place of Article 4(h) as a feature of the normative legal framework on intervention is secured by the emergence of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine, which has been broadly endorsed under the UN framework.

Decimating The Enemy Below: Ottawa Convention And The Realization Of Landmine Ban In International Law

Olusola Babatunde Adegbite

The article presents an eclectic overview of the most comprehensive and boldest attempt at landmine ban that is the Ottawa Convention 1997. It examines how for the first time a major global movement, made up of International NGOs and less than powerful states, broke new grounds and produced this historic document. It shows how international treaty-making was successfully carried out, notwithstanding a lack of cooperation from the superpower nations. Importantly, it discusses how the international legal framework under the convention, effectively addresses the ban on landmines. It notes that the convention not only expands the scope of the previously existing international legal framework but also creates cutting-edge international obligations while in uncommon firmness shuts out the vexed issue of reservations. It also highlights a major challenge before the convention which is the seeming aloofness and cavalier attitude of major superpowers such as the United States (US). It particularly examines the standoff between the US and the convention, submitting that the US stands to gain more by signing the convention, rather than its current state of disinterestedness and this would go a long way in realization of the objectives of the convention.