The study examines SA‟s human rights diplomacy in Africa and the selected countries, namely Libya, Nigeria, the Sudan and Zimbabwe during the presidencies of Presidents Mandela and Mbeki. When SA decided to follow an ethics based foreign policy, especially in the area of human rights, it joined a number of countries who had adopted a similar approach such the United States of America, the Netherlands and Australia. These countries have an established history of human rights diplomacy which is supported by institutional and policy frameworks. The study argues that although both presidents were committed to a human rights oriented foreign policy, due to constraints that they faced in the continent human rights issues were not consistently and concertedly pursued by them, especially following SA‟s 1995 engagement with Nigeria during the term of the Sani Abacha government. These constraints led to a major shift in SA‟s human rights diplomacy. This shift entailed a move away from unilateral action to reliance on multilateral forums to deal with human rights challenges; the development of continental norms and standards, as well as strengthening continental structures; and conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction and development in Africa. This shift became evident in the content of Departmental strategic plans, and reporting both internally and externally to oversight structures such as Parliament. Hardly any proactive plans were developed to address human rights issues in any of the individual countries. Reporting to Parliament also focused on developments at a multilateral level both at the UN and AU with little coverage of human rights issues in individual countries. The use of multilateral bodies such as the SADC to address human rights issues became more pronounced, the Zimbabwean crisis being the case in point. Despite the merits of the collective approach, its value is diminished if it is undertaken to the exclusion of bilateral engagements by South African diplomats in specific countries or if gross human rights violations are not raised in multilateral bodies. Similarly, the significance of the normative framework and requisite structures cannot be doubted, but because the results of these initiatives are only realisable in the medium to long term, this approach needs to be buttressed by bilateral diplomatic engagements. During the period from 1994 to 2008, SA also engaged in a number of conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction and development initiatives. These interventions averted human rights violations by securing peace as well as facilitating the development of constitutional and related frameworks to ensure the protection of human rights in the affected states. In conclusion, with the exception of Nigeria, SA hardly intervened on its own to intercede on behalf of victims of civil and political rights violations in any of the four states covered by the study. Its approach undermined its commitment to promote and protect human rights in the African continent. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2013. / gm2015 / Political Sciences / MA / Unrestricted

The main aim of the master thesis titled "Syria and the concept responsibility to assist: new approach towards conflict resolution?" is to find out whether the extension of the doctrine of responsibility to protect by the concept of responsibility to assist that is based on the support of nonviolent movements could work as a new approach towards conflict resolution and thanks to this it could constitute another way of international assistance and civilian protection in cases when it is the regime that perpetrates the violence against its own population. For this reason the thesis, via the Syrian civil war that offers wide range of internal responses to the violence perpetrated by the regime against civilians, focuses on three different forms of international involvement and assistance. These are the international military intervention under the third pillar of R2P, the backing of domestic violent groups and insurgents and last but not least the assistance to nonviolent movements and civil initiatives in the form of R2A as a potential expansion of the second pillar under the R2P doctrine. These approaches are analyzed with regard to the issues of state sovereignty and moral responsibility to protect civilians that arises from the inconsistency of these two aspects in relation to any kind of...

As a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the Russian Federation plays an important role in the debate over humanitarian interventions. These are defined by the Responsibility to Protect principle that allows international military intervention into internal political crisis of other countries in case the security of civilian population is in danger. Russia sent its army to Georgia in 2008 and Crimea in 2014 referring to this principle. However, it was Russia's reluctance to approve any intervention that governed the diplomatic negotiations during the Libyan civil war in 2011. The importance of the problem of various understanding of the R2P principle by different world powers is still crucial and is also clearly visible on the ongoing conflict in Syria. This thesis focuses on the approach of the Russian Federation to the Responsibility to Protect principle. It determines general factors that influence the issue of humanitarian intervention in the framework of Russian foreign policy, and puts Russian attitude to the overall context of the discussion about this principle. The thesis confirms the assumption that the R2P principle has become a Russian foreign policy instrument, which has been misused within the Russian sphere of interest and used to obstruct the interventions initiated by the...

No description available.

This study draws on the theories of pluralism and solidarism from the English School to analyze the approaches of Security Council members towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya and Syria. Using Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation analysis, the study also provides a normative critique of these arguments. The study illuminates the divergent positions taken by the permanent members of the UN Security Council in the context of R2P during the crises in Syria and Libya. The analysis uncovers two starkly different approaches. On one side, representatives from Great Britain, France, and the United States advocate for the protection of human rights, democracy, and freedom. On the other side, representatives from Russia and China prioritize state sovereignty and the maintenance of order and stability. This stark contrast underscores the complexity and challenges inherent in implementing R2P. The study also highlights the concrete arguments and approaches taken by the Security Council’s permanent members. This provides a detailed understanding of how these differences manifest in practice and how they affect decision-making in the Security Council.  Based on the normative analysis, The study found that the normative frameworks of pluralism and solidarism offer distinct perspectives on human rights and state sovereignty, influencing the strength of the permanent members' arguments. Pluralism emphasizes state sovereignty and non-intervention, showing skepticism towards R2P, while solidarism highlights the protection of human rights and supports international interventions, aligning with R2P principles. In practice, examples like Libya and Syria have demonstrated the complexity and challenges of implementing R2P. In the case of Libya, NATO's intervention led to significant loss of life and destabilization, questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of the actions. This situation has underscored the difficulty of balancing the protection of human rights with respect for state sovereignty. The integration of Responsibility While Protecting is proposed in R2P's third pillar to ensure responsible and effective humanitarian interventions.

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Because of its mandate and its enforcement powers, the ICC has been hailed as a major advance on the road towards individual accountability for the perpetration of the most heinous violations of human rights (international crimes) and thus as a major contribution to the prevention of such horrible crimes. However, with its limited resources in terms of human and financial means, the ICC will not be able to deal with all perpetrators of the crimes that come under its jurisdiction wherever such crimes are committed throughout the world. For this reason, in order to end impunity in the commission of international crimes, there will always be a need for combined efforts by the ICC and national courts. This reality is recognised by the Rome Statute which, in the preamble and article 1 of the Statute, provides that the jurisdiction of the ICC is “complementary” to national courts and that, therefore, States Parties retain the primary responsibility for the repression of international crimes. In legal literature, this is generally referred to as the “principle of complementarity” or the “complementarity regime of the Rome Statute”. In order to give effect to the complementarity principle of the Rome Statute, South Africa passed the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act 27 of 2002 (hereafter the Implementation Act); which determines the modalities of prosecuting perpetrators of the crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes in South African courts. The Implementation Act also provides that South African courts will have jurisdiction over these crimes not only when they are committed on South African territory but also when they are committed outside the Republic, thus empowering South African courts to exercise “universal jurisdiction” over these three international crimes. This thesis examines the extent to which South African courts, acting under the complementarity regime of the Rome Statute are, or are not, allowed to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. The study is based on two assumptions. First, it is assumed that since under the principle of complementarity South African courts are required to do the same job as the ICC, they should have the same powers as those States Parties gave to the ICC when they adopted the Rome Statute. Secondly, it is assumed that, although having the same mandate as the ICC in terms of the complementarity principle, South African courts are nonetheless domestic courts as opposed to the ICC which is an international court and that, accordingly, the international law principle of State sovereignty may impose limitations on their ability to exercise universal jurisdiction over international crimes committed in foreign States. In the light of the above assumptions, this study investigates three issues. Firstly, do South African courts have the same powers as the ICC has to disregard immunities of foreign States’ officials which, under international customary law, attach to their functions or status? Secondly, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to disregard amnesties granted by foreign States, either in the process of national reconciliation or as means to shield the criminals from prosecution by the ICC? Finally, are South African courts entitled, as the ICC is, to retry a case which has already been tried in a foreign country but with the aim of shielding the accused from criminal responsibility or where, for example, the sentence imposed was too lenient in comparison with the gravity of the crime? / PhD (Law), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

L'une des critiques fondamentales adressées au mécanisme de contrôle et de surveillance de la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en matière électorale tient au risque qu'il portera atteinte à la souveraineté de l'État. En effet, certains auteurs estiment que l'autonomie constitutionnelle de l'État dans le domaine électoral, jusqu'à tout récemment strictement protégée, s'affaiblit sous l'influence de la protection des droits de l'homme dans le système européen. Le présent mémoire a pour but de déterminer les conditions imposées aux autorités étatiques par la Cour européenne des droits de l'homme en vue d'assurer l'exercice efficace du droit à des élections libres. Ensuite, il analysera les effets de ces conditions sur la souveraineté des États parties à la Convention européenne des droits de l'homme. Notre étude s'intéresse, dans un premier temps, à l'examen du principe de la souveraineté de l'État et de son évolution progressive sous l'influence des droits de l'homme. Dans un deuxième temps, elle présentera le droit à des élections libres et ses manifestations théoriques et jurisprudentielles. L'étude des affaires tranchées par la Cour européenne permettra de remarquer que la déférence qui est accordée à la souveraineté des États s'accompagne d'une certaine limitation de la marge d'appréciation des autorités étatiques en cas de privation de l'exercice efficace du droit à des élections libres. Ensuite, les acquis théoriques et conceptuels seront appliqués à l'étude des restrictions électorales relevant des mesures législatives, administratives et judiciaires des États ainsi que des conditions imposées par la Cour européenne. À cet égard, l'analyse de ces conditions nous permettra de saisir l'étendue de la limitation de la liberté d'action des États en matière électorale. Cette recension analytique nous permettra de conclure que le mécanisme de contrôle de la Cour européenne entraîne de multiples effets limitatifs sur la souveraineté des États. / One of the fundamental criticisms levelled at the ECtHR review mechanism relates to the fact that it is jeopardizing State's sovereignty. According to some commentators the State's constitutional autonomy, untill recently strictly preserved under international law, is now questioned as a result of the international protection of human rights. This study aims to identify the link between the principle of State sovereignty, the guarantee of the electoral rights, and the role of the ECtHR. Our study will be divided into three chapters. Chapter l, "Progressive evolution of the principle of State sovereignty and the European mechanism for the protection of fundamental human rights", discusses the principle of State sovereignty and its interpretations in contemporary international law. The chapter traces the evolution of the principle and links it with the progressive development of fundamental human rights. Chapter II, "The interaction between the State's margin of appreciation and the European supervisory mechanism", considers what role the positive obligations of States may have played in the crystallization of States' attitudes towards the application of international human rights instruments. After a brief discussion of the doctrine of the margin of appreciation and States' obligations under the European Convention, the chapter focuses on the ECtHR's control and supervision of the States' electoral restrictions. Chapter III, "Electoral restrictions and the scope of limits imposed on the State sovereignty", is central to our study. This chapter examines the ECtHR case-Iaw on electoral rights (1987-2008) and draws attention to some electoral restrictions in legislative, administrative and judicial matters. This study looks at the challenges which surround the application of the right to free elections, focusing on electoral rights in national political discourse, and the development of the ECtHR's enhanced role in protecting electoral rights in Europe. It draws conclusions as to the relationships between the development of an effective protection of electoral rights and the resultant limitations to the State sovereignty.

The present study describes the nature, scope and application of universal jurisdiction as an important tool against impunity in international criminal law, in a straight forward manner, where inquiry into the recent developments of universal jurisdiction is undertaken. Forthwith, the formation of the principle of universal jurisdiction - especially its practical application - must be guided by international consensus, not through advocacy action of states with short term and narrow objectives. The thesis seeks to identify and observe how far the law of universal jurisdiction has actually evolved and how far we should expect it to evolve in the near future, considering its restrains and challenges. It is argued that the concept of state sovereignty, which constitutes the greatest impediment on the exercise of universal jurisdiction, has seen various changes to its fundamentals elements in the 21st Century. The aim is to look at the universality principle, not as an isolated part, but as part of a broader framework in modern international law and thus special attention is given to the relationship between universal jurisdiction and the principle of aut dedere aut judicare. These principles are interrelated, yet distinct, parallels in deterring commission of the most heinous offences of international...

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:30:17Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Ricardo Henrique Lopes Pinto.pdf: 637415 bytes, checksum: ab1f3d7aa69158df10bcf6b49ce8c99c (MD5) Previous issue date: 2010-04-26 / International judicial cooperation is collaboration or mutual assistance provide to each other, with the purpose of predicting, outside the territory of the requesting State, the various steps necessary for the development of a process or research. Is still act of reciprocity which involves a series of enactments, such as communications and activities relating to procedural statement, citation, notification, subpoena, supervision, examination, assessment, surveys, investigations, outlive witnesses, among others. The objective of this study, this concept, determine the most relevant aspects of international judicial cooperation, linked to their pleas relating to issues of State sovereignty, cooperation itself, universalisation of access to justice, respect for public order and reciprocity. These elements are understood as fundamental to the idea of building a genuine international cooperation not only that consolidated in treaties and conventions but, above all, one that consolidates international relations more harmony and balance / A cooperação judiciária internacional é a colaboração ou assistência mútua que os Estados prestam uns aos outros, com a finalidade de poder adiantar, fora do território próprio do Estado solicitante, as diversas diligências necessárias para o desenvolvimento de um processo ou investigação. É, ainda, ato de reciprocidade que envolve a realização de uma série de atos, tais como comunicações e atividades referentes à instrução processual, citação, notificação, intimação, fiscalização, exames, avaliação, inquéritos, averiguações, oitiva de testemunhas, dentre outros. O presente estudo objetiva, à vista desse conceito, determinar os aspectos mais relevantes da cooperação judiciária internacional, vinculados aos seus fundamentos referentes às questões da soberania estatal, da cooperação propriamente dita, da universalização do acesso à justiça, do respeito à ordem pública e da reciprocidade. Estes elementos são compreendidos como fundamentais à idéia de construção de uma verdadeira cooperação internacional, não somente aquela consolidada em tratados e convenções, mas, sobretudo, aquela que consolida relações internacionais mais harmônicas e equilibradas