Explaining African participation in international courts

Peter Brett, Line Engbo Gissel

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

Africa has more international courts than any other continent, yet International Relations scholarship has failed to explain this move to law on the African continent. This article provides such an explanation using Jean-François Bayart’s concept of extraversion. It shows how the creation of international courts in the 1990s and early 2000s was the result of extraverted strategies for attracting international resources and pre-empting donor pressures for political and legal reforms. By adopting these strategies, African states failed to behave in the ‘strategic’ manner anticipated by both constructivist and liberal institutionalist International Relations theories. International court creation did not reflect the pursuit of national interests or a response to normative NGO pressures. Making this argument, the article analyses the design and ratification of two new international courts: the SADC Tribunal and International Criminal Court. Using the case studies of Zimbabwe and Kenya, it shows how global scripts were repeated by even those states which have, in recent years, most vocally asserted their national interests against these courts.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftAfrican Affairs
Vol/bind117
Udgave nummer467
Sider (fra-til)195-216
Antal sider22
ISSN0001-9909
DOI
StatusUdgivet - 1 apr. 2018

Emneord

    Citer dette

    @article{9b246fd25a0641e4bfb7607399383c59,
    title = "Explaining African participation in international courts",
    abstract = "Africa has more international courts than any other continent, yet International Relations scholarship has failed to explain this move to law on the African continent. This article provides such an explanation using Jean-Fran{\cc}ois Bayart’s concept of extraversion. It shows how the creation of international courts in the 1990s and early 2000s was the result of extraverted strategies for attracting international resources and pre-empting donor pressures for political and legal reforms. By adopting these strategies, African states failed to behave in the ‘strategic’ manner anticipated by both constructivist and liberal institutionalist International Relations theories. International court creation did not reflect the pursuit of national interests or a response to normative NGO pressures. Making this argument, the article analyses the design and ratification of two new international courts: the SADC Tribunal and International Criminal Court. Using the case studies of Zimbabwe and Kenya, it shows how global scripts were repeated by even those states which have, in recent years, most vocally asserted their national interests against these courts.",
    keywords = "International Courts, Extraversion, SADC Tribunal, International Criminal Court, Zimbabwe, Kenya",
    author = "Peter Brett and Gissel, {Line Engbo}",
    year = "2018",
    month = "4",
    day = "1",
    doi = "10.1093/afraf/ady005",
    language = "English",
    volume = "117",
    pages = "195--216",
    journal = "African Affairs",
    issn = "0001-9909",
    publisher = "Oxford University Press",
    number = "467",

    }

    Explaining African participation in international courts. / Brett, Peter; Gissel, Line Engbo.

    I: African Affairs, Bind 117, Nr. 467, 01.04.2018, s. 195-216.

    Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

    TY - JOUR

    T1 - Explaining African participation in international courts

    AU - Brett, Peter

    AU - Gissel, Line Engbo

    PY - 2018/4/1

    Y1 - 2018/4/1

    N2 - Africa has more international courts than any other continent, yet International Relations scholarship has failed to explain this move to law on the African continent. This article provides such an explanation using Jean-François Bayart’s concept of extraversion. It shows how the creation of international courts in the 1990s and early 2000s was the result of extraverted strategies for attracting international resources and pre-empting donor pressures for political and legal reforms. By adopting these strategies, African states failed to behave in the ‘strategic’ manner anticipated by both constructivist and liberal institutionalist International Relations theories. International court creation did not reflect the pursuit of national interests or a response to normative NGO pressures. Making this argument, the article analyses the design and ratification of two new international courts: the SADC Tribunal and International Criminal Court. Using the case studies of Zimbabwe and Kenya, it shows how global scripts were repeated by even those states which have, in recent years, most vocally asserted their national interests against these courts.

    AB - Africa has more international courts than any other continent, yet International Relations scholarship has failed to explain this move to law on the African continent. This article provides such an explanation using Jean-François Bayart’s concept of extraversion. It shows how the creation of international courts in the 1990s and early 2000s was the result of extraverted strategies for attracting international resources and pre-empting donor pressures for political and legal reforms. By adopting these strategies, African states failed to behave in the ‘strategic’ manner anticipated by both constructivist and liberal institutionalist International Relations theories. International court creation did not reflect the pursuit of national interests or a response to normative NGO pressures. Making this argument, the article analyses the design and ratification of two new international courts: the SADC Tribunal and International Criminal Court. Using the case studies of Zimbabwe and Kenya, it shows how global scripts were repeated by even those states which have, in recent years, most vocally asserted their national interests against these courts.

    KW - International Courts

    KW - Extraversion

    KW - SADC Tribunal

    KW - International Criminal Court

    KW - Zimbabwe

    KW - Kenya

    U2 - 10.1093/afraf/ady005

    DO - 10.1093/afraf/ady005

    M3 - Journal article

    VL - 117

    SP - 195

    EP - 216

    JO - African Affairs

    JF - African Affairs

    SN - 0001-9909

    IS - 467

    ER -