Thesis (M.M. (Security))--University of the Witwatersrand, Faculty of Commerce, Law and Management, Graduate School of Public and Development Management, 2013. / The African Union is legally mandated by its Constitutive Act to intervene in security situations like the Libyan crisis of 2011, namely, to protect populations from genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, collectively known as mass atrocity crimes. In this respect, Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act accords the right of AU “to intervene in a member State pursuant to a decision of Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely; war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.” When the Libyan crisis that had all the hallmarks of mass atrocity crimes broke out, African Union showed willingness to intervene and solve the crisis by passing resolutions, establishing fact finding missions, and, forming High Level Ad hoc committee comprising of 5 African Presidents and the AU Commission. However, when the time for reckoning came, AU was relegated to the periphery by NATO and other International actors in finding solutions to the Libyan crisis. This study therefore, examines and assesses the African Union’s response to the Libyan crisis of 2011 in light of the Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act (intervention). The method of data collection majorly relied on what AU did in form of resolutions, Letters and other publications, and what has been written about AU’s actions in reference to the Libyan crisis of 2011. The study examined the measures AU took to respond to the crisis, the AU organs that were greatly engaged in looking for the solution to the crisis, and whether the measures undertaken were sufficient in resolving the crisis, and, in the hind sight what AU ought to have done. The study looked at the weaknesses that beset African Union in trying to look for a solution to the Libyan crisis, and concludes by proving recommendations for strengthening African Union Peace and Security Architecture to be able to confront head on, future African security crises like the Libyan one of 2011.

Doctor Legum - LLD / The principle of complementarity forms the basis upon which the International Criminal Court (ICC) exercises its jurisdiction. This principle of international law first appears in the Preamble to the Rome Statute and then the admissibility provisions under Article 17 of the Rome Statute, which outline that the Court will declare a case inadmissible where it is being investigated or prosecuted by a state which has jurisdiction over it; unless the state is unwilling or unable to genuinely carry out the investigation or prosecution. Alternatively where the case has been investigated by a state which has jurisdiction over it and the state has decided not to prosecute the person concerned, unless the decision resulted from the unwillingness or inability of the state to genuinely prosecute. This principle implies that the ICC is a court of last resort and will therefore not intervene in a case where the state of commission is either able or willing genuinely to investigate and prosecute perpetrators of grave crimes. It is common cause that Africa has been the staging area of mass atrocities for decades. The indictment of Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta’s’ and his deputy William Ruto, Hissene Habre case, and the indictment and issuance of an arrest warrant against the Sudanese President Omar El-Bashir are instructive in this regard. The ICC’S actions created the perception of bias, injustice and inequity. This prompted a sharp reaction from African states, which threated a mass withdrawal from the Rome Statute in 2013. The one positive spin off from the AU reaction was the expansion of the jurisdiction of the merged court to include a criminal chamber in 2014, thus creating Africa’s first international criminal court, the African Criminal Court (ACC). This development was the result of the discontent and frustration of the African continent towards the work of the ICC, which was perceived as focusing only on African cases, whilst ignoring the litany of cases coming from other regions of the world.

Translation is enjoying growing recognition in today’s globalised world. It plays an important role in all spheres of human activities and is fundamental to intercultural communication, particularly in international organisations. This empirical research therefore explores how the profession is practised at the African Union, particularly at the African Union Commission (AUC) and the Pan-African Parliament (PAP). More specifically, it establishes the profile of translators in both institutions, assesses the quality of translations, and determines if translations are source or target-oriented. To this end, this study uses statistical and documentary research as well as quantitative and qualitative data gathering through personal interviews with translators and a supervisor. Further, it critically evaluates four original texts and their translations using House’s (1997) model of translation quality assessment. Except for the Solemn Declaration of Oath of Allegiance, the evaluated texts displayed ideational features purposefully aimed at informing the readership. These result in a covert translation strategy being employed by translators and a cultural filter being applied in order to achieve a functional equivalence. A critical analysis of questionnaires and personal interviews with translators and one supervisor through purposive sampling shows that translation plays a strategic role in the smooth running of the two institutions. Translators mostly adhered to original texts, while ensuring that the translation was natural and fluent.

No description available.

No description available.

This research was conducted to assess cultural diversity in the institutionalisation of the African Union (AU). Most researchers have found interest on the subject of cultural diversity that edifice the African Union because “Africa does not have a single culture not in religions, not in economic systems, and especially not in languages, the number of different languages spoken on the continent, numerous dialects not included, range as high as 2,000 or more languages. While some languages, such as Swahili, are spoken by millions, other languages may be spoken by only a handful” (Robert & Feldman, 2008: 267) The AU member states heads are quiet aware of the forces of cultural diversity in the Union, hence several workshops were carried out between member states heads to put together the cultural policy for the Union. There are also numerous policies on African cultural diversity that were approved previously by different organisations that intended to unify Africa before the African Union was formed. Those policies are aligned within the AU cultural policy - The Charter for African Renaissance that will be reviewed in length in Chapter 3 in the literature review. What comes as a mystery is that, even though the Charter for African Renaissance has unified and adopted various policies ethnic and religion segregations within states and between states is still visible in most African countries (ethnicity, language and religion will also be evaluated and a sample of various cultures found in African countries will also be discussed in Chapter 3 under literature review). The Charter for African Renaissance contains guiding principle and objectives of the AU pertaining cultural diversity and these objectives needs to be met. However the biggest well known challenge about policies is that in most cases they remain on paper and shelved, they never make that much difference to the society that they intend to change. As Cloete and Wissink (2000) will put it that “policies only exist because they need to bring about change, however, it is also possible to change policies on paper, whilst effecting no real social change" (2000: 239). African cultural diversity policies are as well littered with failed institutions and initiatives that have not been followed through to completion, or of promises that have been broken. The driving force for this research is that Africans has seen many false starts in the last few decades and they are desperate for change, they need to see democracy, development and institutional building in the African countries. African Union on the other hand has existed for a decade but it has not yet achieved its objectives. How do we know that this is not just another focus for a misplaced enthusiasm? Will the current initiatives of the AU fall by the wayside? Will the world continue to mock Africa as the land of broken promises, of criminalized and failed states that inevitably subvert the best intentions of their peoples and their development partners? Unfortunately these questions has influenced this investigation but cannot be answered by this paper. However this paper intends to find out if cultural diversity has an impact in the missed opportunities and broken promises of Africa and this will be examined in the structures of the African Union.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

"The study is divided into five chapters. Chapter one provides the context in which the study is set, the focus and objectives of the study, its significance, and other preliminary issues including the hypothesis and literature survey. Chapter two first seeks to briefly portray the current state of human rights in Africa. In the second part, history and development of the African Union is traced, within the context of its predecessor - the OAU. Its third part extracts and analyses the specific human rights content of the AU Constitutionve Act and other relevant provisions, both independently and collectively; while its fourth part progresses to examine the conribution of the AU to human rights so far, by gauging and scrutinizing the human rights content of its summits. The fifth and final part scrutinizes the implications of the linkage of human rights to development and hence, its re-conceptualisation or otherwise, in Africa. Chapter three seeks to examine the extant implications of the AU human rights agenda on the existing human rights protection framework. First, it provides a brief overview of the existing regional human rights protection system, while its second part elucidates the human rights enforcement mechanisms that have been developed under the African Charter system. Its third part seeks to examine the problem of enforcement of, and non-compliance with human rights in Africa, with a view to understanding the problem, and forging a way forward. Its fourth part looks at the relationship between the AU and the existing human rights institutions within the context of the AU Constituve Act, while its concluding part addresses the latent risk of proliferation and redundancy that might attend the proposed creation of more human rights-oriented institutions under the AU/NEPAD; proposing rationalization of the same and the fusion of compatible mandates, with the view of avoiding unnecessary and expensive duplications. Chapter four seeks to present the probable picture of the fusion of the emerging and existing frameworks. Its first part sets out to describe, as well as explicate the justifications for the proposed human rights enforcement framework under the AU, citing models. Its second part seeks to explore the potentialities of trade as veritable tool of sanction within the proposed structure, while its concluding part seeks to do the same in relation to the device of peer pressure. The fifth and final chapter of the study seeks to draw some conclusions and further give recommendations on how the proposed hybrid framework can be achieved, while emphasizing the importance of such synergy as a feasible solution of the problem of human rights enforcement in Africa." -- Chapter 1. / Prepared under the supervision of Prof. J. Oloka-Onyango, Faculty of Law, Makerere University / Mini Dissertation (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa))--University of Pretoria, 2003. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

No abstract available Copyright / Dissertation (LLM)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Public Law / unrestricted

This study set out to examine the opportunities and constraints for Zimbabwean civil society participation in African Union policy initiatives. The work came up after a realisation that there are serious challenges that inhibit participation of Zimbabwean civil society organisations (CSOs) in the policy-making initiatives of the continental body. The problem arises from the structure of the African Union (AU) in that it is an inter-state organ and, as such, any engagement with the African citizens has to be done through the various governments of members‘ states. This means that for Zimbabwean CSOs‘ voices to be heard in the AU policy-making, they have to go through their Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Zimbabwean situation is a very unique and problematic one in that the government and CSOs are sworn enemies. The animosity arises from the allegations by the government that the CSOs are part of a well-orchestrated plot led by the United States of America and Britain to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe. It is the argument of the ZANU PF government that the West is sponsoring the opposition as a response to the land redistribution exercise. Given this background, it has been difficult for CSOs to make their representations to the government. This work therefore sought to determine alternative avenues for engagement by CSOs. The research was done through interviews of 20 CSOs involved in issues of democracy and good governance. It also utilised a lot of secondary information from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as the AU. The research came to the conclusion that CSOs need to improve their working relations with the government and also try to utilise other avenues for engagement like the Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC). The work further concluded that the ―cat and mouse‖ relationship between the government and civil society in Zimbabwe has created a situation where the latter has been demonised, if not totally criminalised to the extent of limiting its access into mainstream AU affairs. This, in brief, has presented a situation 5 where the feasibility of a democratic experience in Zimbabwe becomes increasingly remote and misty. Zimbabwe‗s contribution to African political and economic life has been disabled by the Zimbabwean government‘s next to single-handed approach to African and international affairs. The absence of the Zimbabwean civil society‗s voice in the African economic and political life reduces Zimbabwe‘s place in African affairs to a narrow and shallow location. The democratic doctrine of multiplicity of voices and diversity of opinions, which are important ingredients of democracy as it is globally perceived, are negated by the Zimbabwean government‘s enduring interest to collapse the civil society to dormant national shareholders whose role is theoretical at the expense of being real and meaningful. At a prima facie level, the Zimbabwean civil society is an isolated and hindered entity through legislation and economic and political conditions that the Zimbabwean government has caused. On the other hand, on a point of strategy and creative positive thought, this creates a window of opportunities and some interesting challenges to the actors and players in the Zimbabwean civil society to generate methods and approaches relating to the greater African economic and political reality without the co-operation, or the consent, of the Zimbabwean government. This presents a case study to the test of Africa and the globe that governance is not only a preserve of the governments, but is an all-inclusive process that must also involve non-state actors, lest it becomes a partisan and narrow meaningless affair. That, in the African context, can be summarised in a West African saying that ―no matter how big your hand is, it can not cover the sky‖. In this context, no matter how big the AU can be, it cannot adequately serve the interests of the whole of Africa without involving other key players like the civil society movement.