Minnesota Law Review

Note, Jurisprudential Innovation or Accountability Avoidance? The International Criminal Court and Proposed Expansion of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights

From Nuremburg to The Hague, international criminal justice has evolved dynamically and at times unpredictably. Among recent developments is a proposal to expand the subject matter jurisdiction of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR) to include a mandate to prosecute individuals for serious international crimes. Expansion of the ACJHR concerns observers for several reasons. First, the proposed expansion of the court would create the world’s first combined state-level and individual-level criminal accountability mechanism for human rights violations on an international scale. International criminal law and human rights law have long existed side-by-side in a bifurcated system of accountability, and observers fear that their conflation may be undesirable. Second and perhaps more problematically, expansion of the ACJHR would produce an area of overlapping jurisdiction between the court and the International Criminal Court (ICC) not statutorily contemplated by either court and not definitively addressed by treaty interpretation law. Supporters, however, counter that ACJHR expansion could reflect a welcome jurisprudential innovation.

This Note investigates the ways in which modern developments in international criminal law interact with both long-standing and novel accountability institutions—specifically, how proposed expansion of the ACJHR would relate to existing systems of state- and individual-level accountability for human rights abuses. Following an overview of global judicial human rights mechanisms, this Note examines myriad legal and policy-based issues related to extending the ACJHR’s jurisdiction and suggests approaches through which stakeholders could address procedural and practical difficulties in the event of expansion. Ultimately, this Note predicts that the ACJHR will likely expand as the result of jurisprudential evolution and political will, suggesting that stakeholders should recognize the potential benefits to expansion and develop benchmarks to ensure the court’s integrity and effectiveness.


:: View PDF

De Novo

  • Case Comment: Bhogaita v. Altamonte

    EVERY DOG CAN HAVE HIS DAY IN COURT: THE USE OF ANIMALS AS DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBITS Kyle R. Kroll, Volume 100, Online Managing Editor In Bhogaita v. Altamonte, the Eleventh Circuit recently decided whether to allow a dog in the courtroom as a demonstrative exhibit.[1] Although the case presented many serious [...]

  • Revisiting Water Bankruptcy

    REVISITING WATER BANKRUPTCY IN CALIFORNIA’S FOURTH YEAR OF DROUGHT Olivia Moe, Volume 100, Managing Editor This spring, as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought stretched across most of California—indicating that a four-year streak of drought was not about to resolve itself[1]—Governor Jerry Brown issued an unprecedented order to reduce potable urban water [...]

  • Defying Auer Deference

    DEFYING AUER DEFERENCE: SKIDMORE AS A SOLUTION TO CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS IN PEREZ v. MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION Nicholas R. Bednar, Volume 100, Lead Articles Editor* On March 9, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision in Perez v. Mortgage Bankers Association.[1]F The Court overturned the D.C. [...]