Explaining African participation in international courts

Peter Brett, Line Engbo Gissel

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-review

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-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.
Original languageEnglish
JournalAfrican Affairs
Volume117
Issue number467
Pages (from-to)195-216
Number of pages22
ISSN0001-9909
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 Apr 2018

Keywords

  • International Courts
  • Extraversion
  • SADC Tribunal
  • International Criminal Court
  • Zimbabwe
  • Kenya

Cite this

Brett, Peter ; Gissel, Line Engbo. / Explaining African participation in international courts. In: African Affairs. 2018 ; Vol. 117, No. 467. pp. 195-216.
@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.

In: African Affairs, Vol. 117, No. 467, 01.04.2018, p. 195-216.

Research output: Contribution to journalJournal articleResearchpeer-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 -