No description available.

The legal framework and legislation governing the rights of the children have become of great concern in modern societies, particularly, in the area of criminal justice and human rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child and African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child are basic international and regional conventions regulating the rights of the children and include how to deal with children in conflict with the law. States parties to these conventions are required to take appropriate measures, which includes enactment of legislation to give effect to these rights. Legislative instruments must address the following issues: The principle of the best interest of the child; the age of criminal responsibility; restorative justice; diversion; and the trials of children in conflict with the law. The above-mentioned instrument require and emphasise the use of an alternative approach in respect of the children who are in conflict with law. In this research a comparative approach is used to compare the South African and South Sudanese child justice legislative instruments. The legislative instruments pertaining to child justice in both countries are set out and compared. It is concluded that the South African legislative instruments are more aligned to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child. Recommendations and proposals are made to enact to adopt in South Sudan new legislative measures and provisions aim to afford more protection to children in conflict with the law and to strike a better balance between rights of a child and victim of crimes.

Sudan is located in the Northern part of the African continent and has a total land mass of 2.5 million square kilometres, with an estimated population of about 39.15 million people.1 Before the secession that established the South as an independent state from the North, Sudan was the largest country on the continent and hitherto was administered as a colony under the British mandate. From 1898 the United Kingdom (UK) and Egypt administered Sudan as an Anglo-Egyptian territory but North and South Sudan were administered as separate provinces of the condominium.2 In the early 1920s, the British passed the Closed District Ordinances which stipulated that passports were required for travelling between the two zones. Permits were also required to conduct business from one zone to the other, and totally separate administrations prevailed.3 However, in 1946 the British administration reversed its policy and decided to integrate North and South Sudan under one government. The South Sudanese authorities were informed at the Juba Conference of 1947 that they will be governed in the future under a common administrative authority with the north.5 From 1948, 13 delegates nominated by the British authorities represented the South in the Sudan Legislative Assembly. Many Southerners felt betrayed by the British as they were largely excluded from the new government. To them, it was a strategy by the British aimed at protecting their interest as far as colonial legacy is concerned.6 They complained that the language of the new government was Arabic and they were under represented. Of the eight hundred positions vacated by the British in 1953, only four were given to the Southerners. The political structure in the South was not as organized as that in the North and for this reason, political groupings and parties from the South were not represented at the various conferences that established the modern state of Sudan. As a result, many southerners did not consider Sudan to be a legitimate state. Although the Sudanese state was considered illegitimate by the Southerners, the Sudanese parliament unilaterally declared Sudan’s independence on 1st January 1956.8 Subsequently, the Arab-led Khartoum government reneged on promises it had made to Southerners to create a federal system. This led to a mutiny led by Southern army officers and sparked off a civil war after independence in 1956.9 Besides the issues highlighted above, the Abyei region of Sudan is rich in natural mineral resources and has been a bone of contention between the North and South. It has also affected Darfur negatively as most of the rebel groups involved in the Darfur conflict, like the Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) and the Justice and Equity Movement (JEM), also seek for a share in the wealth of the region.10 However, before the June 2011 referendum, the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon called for the Sudan to withdraw all police officers from the Abyei region of South Sudan.11 Although the referendum resulted in the Republic of South Sudan, separating it from the North which remains the Republic of Sudan, political views expressed by the provinces in the North region have further captured more attention from the international community.12 The quest for Arab domination is common in this area and, one among the leading regions that have fallen prey to this practice is Darfur

The main objectives of this study are: 1) To critically appraise the supposed tension between ‘territorial integrity’ on the one hand, and the peoples’ right to self-determination as a basis for secession. 2) To demonstrate that the current position of the law is tactically vague and crippling to the international efforts for a better and peaceful world for all. 3) To draw lessons from the practice of the United Nations and other regional bodies in diffusing violent conflict and maintaining peace where secession claims have taken violent forms. 4) To suggest an edifice for the permanent mandate of the United Nations to deal with secession claims. / A dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Dr Ben Twinomugisha, Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Uganda. / LLM Dissertation (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa -- University of Pretoria, 2009. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / Centre for Human Rights / LLM