The African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights Decision in the Ogiek Case: An Appraisal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this chapter, using the Ogiek case as pivot, our objective is to articulate key questions about the position of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACtHPR or the Court) on its jurisdiction (including the subjects of access, admissibility and state sovereignty) and relationship with the ACHPR. More substantively, as the Ogiek decision turns on the ‘indigenous people’ concept, this work raises the question of the applicability or appropriateness of the concept in sub-Saharan Africa, more so in the natural resource governance context. We contend that the three themes of – jurisdiction, ACtHPR-ACHPR relationship, and the concept of indigenous people – have the potential to shape the future of the court and the perception (cooperation) of African States of the court significantly, in the next years. In part II, we summarize the Ogiek decision by focusing on facts pertaining to the above themes. In Parts III, IV and V, we analyze more deeply the triad themes of jurisdiction, ACtHPR-ACHPR relationship, and the concept of indigenous people. Noting that the ‘positive’ perception of African States to the decisions of the court is crucial to such States’ cooperation, an attempt to sketch a pragmatic yet progressive agenda for the court in respect of the afore-listed themes will be made in part VI. It should be emphasized that this chapter focuses more on articulating questions on the highlighted themes than giving conclusive answers on them. We hope that in articulating the questions clearly and bringing possible implications of extant positions to light, the court, and indeed African human rights jurisprudence, will be further strengthened.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".