Peter Brett and Line Engbo Gissel. Africa and the Backlash Against International Courts. London: Zed Books, 2020. 288 pp. $26.95. Paper. ISBN: 9781786992970.

This book makes a significant contribution to the fields of African studies, international law, and international relations by examining the often-perplexing relationship between African States and transnational courts.It frames this dynamic as a product of an extraversion strategy, marked by backlash when domestic governments perceive their legitimacy as being threatened.In the introductory chapter, two goals are identified: One, addressing the imbalanced scholarly concentration on Africa's engagement with the International Criminal Court (ICC) to deepen understanding of the continent's interaction with "all international courts" (2).Two, "improve upon existing explanations" on the relationship (2).The author pursues these aims, employing interpretive methods to understand the actions and justifications of political leaders.Chapter One begins with an explanation for the proliferation of international courts in Africa.It is seen as "the product of strategies of extraversion" (22).A tactic involving state elites pursuing and maintaining dependence relations with more powerful actors to secure their support.The author argued that this approach influenced Africa's backing of the ICC, the World Trade Organization Appellate Body, the African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights, and various subregional courts.Chapter Two further examines the relationship between Africa and the ICC through exploring how African states have justified backlash against the court by invoking norms such as sovereign equality in international relations and judicial independence, while also critiquing how these principles have been applied in the court's engagement with Africa.The African backlash has involved "exposing politicisation by the Court, non-cooperation and withdrawal threats" (47).African proposals to reform the current conception of international criminal justice, involving the ICC, have included conferring international criminal jurisdiction on regional courts and proposing amendments to ICC policies and the Rome Statute.Chapter Three analyses the curtailment of the Southern African Development Community Tribunal (the Tribunal).It is argued that the Tribunal was established through extraversion strategies, and backlash against it and similar regional courts has followed rulings undermining states' "primary legitimations" such as land issues in Southern Africa (57).The argument is illustrated with the 2008 Campbell decision involving Zimbabwe, which threatened "regional norms of legitimate statehood" concerning land rights (77).The verdict triggered a successful backlash enabling political action curtailing private access to the Tribunal, its ability to intervene in domestic issues, and changes to international investment agreements.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.