Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:11:20.124Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Judicial diplomacy: International courts and legitimation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 November 2020

Theresa Squatrito Open the ORCID record for Theresa Squatrito [Opens in a new window]
Theresa Squatrito*
Affiliation:
Department of International Relations, London School of Economics and Political Sciences, United Kingdom
*
*Corresponding author. Email: t.j.squatrito@lse.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Observers of international courts (ICs) note that several ICs carry out a broad range of non-judicial activities, ranging from legal training workshops and public seminars to visits with public officials. Despite the growing prominence of these activities, they have received little attention from scholars. Seeking to fill this gap, this article examines these activities as a form of ‘judicial diplomacy’, asking how and why ICs employ judicial diplomacy. The article argues that ICs use judicial diplomacy as a means of legitimation. They seek to boost institutional legitimacy through their judicial diplomacy by targeting the public and communicating norm-referential narratives about their processes and outcomes. This argument bears out in case studies on the judicial diplomacy of the African Court of Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Caribbean Court of Justice. Both courts are shown to have judicial diplomacy that is public-oriented and people-centred. This argument has important implications for literature on international courts and the legitimacy of international institutions.

Keywords

International CourtLegitimacyInternational InstitutionsDiplomacy
Type
Research Article
Information
Review of International Studies , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2021 , pp. 64 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2020. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the British International Studies Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 ACtHPR, ‘Press Release: African Court Successfully Concludes Three Day Sensitization Mission to Cape Verde’ (18 December 2017), available at: {www.african-court.org/en/index.php/news/press-releases/item/213-african-court-successfully-concludes-three-day-sensitisation-mission-to-cape-verde} accessed 23 March 2018.

2 Ibid.

3 Peskin, Victor, ‘Courting Rwanda: The promises and pitfalls of the ICTR outreach programme’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, 3:4 (2005), pp. 950–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Clark, Janine Natalya, ‘International war crimes tribunals and the challenge of outreach’, International Criminal Law Review, 9:1 (2009), pp. 99–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 ICC, ‘Approved Budget for 2015’ (24 March 2015), available at: {www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/other/ICC_Approved_Budget_2015.pdf} accessed 23 March 2018.

5 Alter, Karen, Helfer, Laurence, and Madsen, Mikael Rask (eds), International Court Authority (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2018)Google Scholar; Squatrito, Theresa, Young, Oran, Follesdal, Andreas, and Ulfstein, Geir (eds), The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

6 Dingwerth, Klaus, Witt, Antonia, Lehmann, Ina, Reichel, Ellen, and Weise, Tobias (eds), International Organizations under Pressure: Legitimating Global Governance in Challenging Times (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2019)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, ‘Self-legitimation in the face of politicization: Why international organizations centralized public communication’, Review of International Organizations, 13:4 (2018), pp. 519–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Sending, Ole Jacob, Pouliot, Vincent, and Neumann, Iver, ‘Introduction’, in Neumann, Iver, Sending, Ole Jacob, and Pouliot, Vincent (eds), Diplomacy and the Making of World Politics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), p. 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Sharp, Paul, ‘For diplomacy: Representation and the study of International Relations’, International Studies Review, 1:1 (1999), pp. 33–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Cooper, Andrew, Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh, ‘Introduction: The challenges of 21st-century diplomacy’, in Cooper, Andrew, Heine, Jorge, and Thakur, Ramesh (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 1–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Jönsson, Christer and Hall, Martin, ‘Communication: An essential aspect of diplomacy’, International Studies Perspectives, 4:2 (2003), pp. 195–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

10 Cooper, Heine, and Thakur, ‘Introduction’, p. 2.

11 Duran, Manuel, Mediterranean Paradiplomacies: The Dynamics of Diplomatic Reterritorialization (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 Betsill, Michele and Corell, Elisabeth, NGO Diplomacy: The Influence of Nongovernmental Organizations in International Environmental Negotiations (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008)Google Scholar.

13 Margaret Karns and Karen Mingst, ‘International organizations and diplomacy’, in Cooper, Heine, and Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, pp. 142–59.

14 Stavridis, Stelios and Jančić, Davor, Parliamentary Diplomacy in European and Global Governance (Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Schiff, Benjamin, ‘Diplomacy and the International Criminal Court’, in Cooper, Heine, and Thakur (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), pp. 745–62Google Scholar.

16 Tatham, Allan, ‘Off the bench but not off duty: The judicial diplomacy of the Court of Justice’, European Foreign Affairs Review, 22:3 (2017), pp. 303–22Google Scholar.

17 Cooper, Heine, and Thakur, ‘Introduction’, p. 27.

18 Sharp, ‘For diplomacy’; Jönsson and Hall, ‘Communication’.

19 ICs are permanent, operational international judicial bodies that issues binding rulings based on international law in disputes where at least one party is a state or international organisation; see Romano, Cesare, ‘A taxonomy of international rule of law institutions’, Journal of International Dispute Settlement, 2:1 (2011), pp. 261–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

20 This definition contrasts with ‘legal diplomacy’ as described by Madsen, which refers to the interplay of law and politics in foreign policy and judicial decision-making; Madsen, Mikael Rask, ‘“Legal diplomacy”: Law, politics and the genesis of postwar European human rights’, in Stefan-Ludwig, (ed.), Human Rights in the Twentieth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 62–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 Clark, ‘International war crimes tribunals and the challenge of outreach’.

22 Ibid., pp. 101–02.

23 Ibid. (for ICC and Special Court for Sierra Leone); Peskin, ‘Courting Rwanda’ (for Rwandan tribunal).

24 ECtHR, ‘2016 Annual Report of the ECtHR’ (2016), pp. 169–77, available at: {www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Annual_report_2016_ENG.pdf} accessed 23 March 2018.

25 CJEU, ‘Annual Report 2016: Year in Review’ (2016), p. 35, available at: {https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-04/ragp-2016_final_en_web.pdf} accessed 23 March 2018.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid., p. 36.

28 Henkin, Louis, How Nations Behave: Law and Foreign Policy (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979)Google Scholar.

29 Dai, Xinyuan, ‘Why comply? The domestic constituency mechanisms’, International Organization, 59:2 (2005), pp. 363–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Simmons, Beth, Mobilizing for Human Rights: International Law in Domestic Politics (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alter, Karen, The New Terrain of International Law: Courts, Politics, Rights (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2014)Google Scholar.

30 Burley, Anne-Marie and Mattli, Walter, ‘Europe before the Court: A political theory of legal integration’, International Organization, 47:1 (1993), pp. 41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mattli, Walter and Slaughter, Anne-Marie, ‘Revisiting the European Court of Justice’, International Organization, 52:1 (1998), pp. 177–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Alter, Karen, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar.

31 See, for example, Alter, Establishing the Supremacy of European Law.

32 Burley and Mattli, ‘Europe before the Court’, p. 62.

33 Finnemore, Martha and Sikkink, Kathryn, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, International Organization, 52:4 (1998), pp. 887–917CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Johnston, Alastair Iain, ‘Treating international institutions as social environments’, International Studies Quarterly, 45:4 (2001), pp. 487–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 Finnemore, Martha, ‘International organizations as teachers of norms: The United Nations educational, scientific, and cultural organization and science policy’, International Organization, 47:4 (1993), pp. 565–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

36 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, p. 902.

37 Squatrito, Theresa, Lundgren, Magnus, and Sommerer, Thomas, ‘Shaming by international organizations: Mapping condemnatory speech acts across 27 international organizations, 1980–2015’, Cooperation and Conflict, 54:3 (2019), pp. 356–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 Goodman, Ryan and Jinks, Derek, Socializing States Promoting Human Rights through International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Alter, Karen, ‘Agents or trustees? International courts in their political context’, European Journal of International Relations, 14:1 (2008), pp. 33–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Nicole De Silva, ‘International courts’ socialization strategies for actual and perceived performance’, in Squatrito, Young, Follesdal, and Ulfstein (eds), The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals, pp. 288–323.

41 Non-state actors may be a secondary target of judicial diplomacy from this perspective, as these actors may have leverage over public officials.

42 Finnemore and Sikkink, ‘International norm dynamics and political change’, p. 900.

43 Tallberg, Jonas and Zürn, Michael, ‘The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations: Introduction and framework’, Review of International Organizations, 14:4 (2019), p. 585CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also Imerman, Dane, ‘Contested legitimacy and institutional change: Unpacking the dynamics of institutional legitimacy’, International Studies Review, 20:1 (2018), pp. 74–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 I use the term ‘institution’ to refer to formal institutions, or organisations, including international courts.

45 Buchanan, Allen and Keohane, Robert, ‘The legitimacy of global governance institutions’, Ethics and International Affairs, 20:4 (2006), pp. 405–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

46 Imerman, ‘Contested legitimacy and institutional change’; Hurd, Ian, After Anarchy: Legitimacy and Power in the United Nations Security Council (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

47 Hurd, Ian, ‘Legitimacy and authority in international politics’, International Organization, 53:2 (1999), pp. 379–408CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Self-interest and legitimacy as sources of power can be mutually reinforcing, and they are likely to both contribute to why actors comply with international law and courts. Nevertheless, the underpinnings of how ICs understand their strategic environment, and their own sources of power, have different behavioural implications.

48 Franck, Thomas, The Power of Legitimacy among Nations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

49 Ian Hurd, After Anarchy, p. 30.

50 Tallberg and Zürn, ‘The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations’.

51 Zürn, Michael, Binder, Martin, and Ecker-Ehrhardt, Matthias, ‘International authority and its politicization’, International Theory, 4:1 (2012), pp. 69–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

52 Morse, Julia and Keohane, Robert, ‘Contested multilateralism’, Review of International Organizations, 9:4 (2014), pp. 385–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 Imerman, ‘Contested legitimacy and institutional change’, p. 75.

54 Klaus Dingwerth, Antonia Witt, Ina Lehmann, Ellen Reichel, and Tobias Weise, ‘International organizations under pressure: Introduction’, in Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure, pp. 4–5.

55 Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure.

56 Imerman, ‘Contested legitimacy and institutional change’; Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure; Dominik Zaum (ed.), Legitimating International Organizations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013); Steffek, Jens, ‘The legitimation of international governance: A discourse approach’, European Journal of International Relations, 9:2 (2003), pp. 249–75CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ecker-Ehrhardt, ‘Self-legitimation in the face of politicization’.

57 Tallberg and Zürn, ‘The legitimacy and legitimation of international organization’; Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure.

58 Tallberg and Zürn, ‘The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations’; Dellmuth, Lisa, Scholte, Jan Aart, and Tallberg, Jonas, ‘Institutional sources of legitimacy for international organisations: Beyond procedure versus performance’, Review of International Studies, 45:4 (2019), pp. 627–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Some legitimation literature refers to procedures and performance. I use process and outcomes because broader literature conceives of performance as including of processes and outcomes; see Gutner, Tamar and Thompson, Alex, ‘The politics of IO performance: A framework’, Review of International Organizations, 5:3 (2010), pp. 227–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Squatrito et al. (eds), The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals.

59 Ecker-Ehrhardt, ‘Self-legitimation in the face of politicization’.

60 Gronau, Jennifer and Schmidtke, Henning, ‘The quest for legitimacy in world politics: International institutions’ legitimation strategies’, Review of International Studies, 42:3 (2016), pp. 535–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

61 Jennifer Welsh and Dominik Zaum, ‘Legitimation and the UN Security Council’, in Zaum (ed.), Legitimating International Organizations, pp. 65–87.

62 Rocabert, Jofre, Schimmelfennig, Frank, Crasnic, Loriana, and Winzen, Thomas, ‘The rise of international parliamentary institutions: Purpose and legitimation’, Review of International Organizations, 14:4 (2019), pp. 607–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rittberger, Berthold, Building Europe's Parliament: Democratic Representation beyond the Nation-state (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

63 I focus on externally directed legitimation, even though it may simultaneously affect internal audiences’ beliefs. While previous literature refers to externally directed legitimation as ‘self-legitimation’, I adopt von Billerbeck's approach which differentiates between externally and internally directed legitimation, using ‘self-legitimation’ to refer to the latter. Sarah von Billerbeck, ‘No action without talk? UN peacekeeping, discourse, and institutional self-legitimation’, Review of International Studies, Online First (2020), pp. 1–18.

64 Gibson, James and Caldeira, Gregory, ‘The legitimacy of transnational legal institutions: Compliance, support, and the European Court of Justice’, American Journal of Political Science, 39:2 (1995), p. 464CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

65 Alter, The New Terrain of International Law.

66 Madsen, Mikael Rask, Cebulak, Pola, and Wiebusch, Micha, ‘Backlash against international courts: Explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts’, International Journal of Law in Context, 14:2 (2018), pp. 197–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

67 Mills, Kurt and Bloomfield, Alan, ‘African resistance to the International Criminal Court: Halting the advance of the anti-impunity norm’, Review of International Studies, 44:1 (2018), pp. 101–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Alter, The New Terrain of International Law.

69 Easton, David, A Systems Analysis of Political Life (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1965)Google Scholar.

70 Tallberg and Zürn, ‘The legitimacy and legitimation of international organizations’; Ecker-Ehrhardt, ‘Self-legitimation in the face of politicization’.

71 Ecker-Ehrhardt, ‘Self-legitimation in the face of politicization’, p. 535.

72 Gibson, James, Caldeira, Gregory, and Baird, Vanessa, ‘On the legitimacy of national High Courts’, American Political Science Review, 92:2 (1998), pp. 343–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Vanberg, Georg, The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar.

73 Putnam, Robert, ‘Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games’, International Organization, 42:3 (1988), pp. 427–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

74 Gibson, James and Caldeira, Gregory, ‘The legitimacy of transnational legal institutions: Compliance, support, and the European Court of Justice’, American Journal of Political Science, 39:2 (1995), pp. 459–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Dai, ‘Why comply?’; Simmons, Mobilizing for Human Rights.

76 Kelemen, Daniel, ‘The political foundations of judicial independence in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 19:1 (2012), pp. 43–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Ginsburg, Tom, ‘Political constraints on international courts’, in Romano, Cesare, Alter, Karen, and Shany, Yuval (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013), p. 494Google Scholar.

77 Recent research on the CJEU shows that the Court's decisions are influenced by policy-specific public opinion. Blauberger, Michael, Heindlmaier, Anita, Kramer, Dion, Martinsen, Dorte Sindbjerg, Thierry, Jessica Sampson, Schenk, Angelika, and Werner, Benjamin, ‘ECJ judges read the morning papers. Explaining the turnaround of European citizenship jurisprudence’, Journal of European Public Policy, 25:10 (2018), pp. 1422–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Harsch, Michael F. and Maksimov, Vladislav, ‘International courts and public opinion: Explaining the CJEU's role in protecting terror suspects' rights’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 57:5 (2019), pp. 1091–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

78 Voeten, Erik, ‘Public opinion and the legitimacy of international courts’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14:2 (2013), pp. 411–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pelc, Krzysztof, ‘Googling the WTO: What search engine data tell us about the political economy of institutions’, International Organization, 67:3 (2013), pp. 629–55.

79 Geoff Dancy, Yvonne Marie Dutton, Tessa Alleblas, and Eamon Aloyo, ‘What determines perceptions of bias toward the International Criminal Court? Evidence from Kenya’, Journal of Conflict Resolution, Online First (2019).

80 Terris, Daniel, Romano, Cesare, and Swigart, Leigh, The International Judge: An Introduction to the Men and Women who Decide the World's Cases (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), p. 170Google Scholar.

81 Interested stakeholder can overlap closely with compliance constituencies.

82 Klaus Dingwerth and Antonia Witt, ‘Legitimation contests: A theoretical framework’, in Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure; Michael Barnett and Martha Finnemore, Rules for the World: International Organizations in Global Politics (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2004), pp. 166–7.

83 Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure.

84 Dellmuth, Aart Scholte, and Tallberg, ‘Institutional sources of legitimacy for international organisations’.

85 Buchanan and Keohane, ‘The legitimacy of global governance institutions’, p. 168.

86 Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure.

87 The CCJ is financially secure. It is funded by an independent trust fund and states do not control its budget. States indirectly control the ACtHRP's funding and budgeting. The ACtHPR has significant economic shortfalls. Squatrito, Theresa, ‘Resourcing global justice: The resource management design of international courts’, Global Policy, 8:5 (2017), pp. 62–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 The ACtHPR's judges are nominated and selected by states for six-year, once renewable terms. Judges of the CCJ apply for open positions and are selected by an independent commission to serve until retirement. See respective protocols cited below.

89 The CCJ does not have a competing jurisdiction on community law (but it does in its appellate jurisdiction). The ACtHPR's jurisdiction competes with that of the ECOWAS Court (for the ten states that have overlapping membership, but only six allow private access). The ACmHPR has complementary jurisdiction with the ACtHPR.

90 Some data were received by direct request to the ACtHRP as it was no longer available on its website.

91 A total of thirty interviews were conducted in November to December 2015 (ACtHPR) and March to April 2016 (CCJ). I also observed the ACtHPR's moot court competition from 30 November to 3 December 2015.

92 Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of an African Court on Human and People's Rights, OAU Doc. OAU/LEG/MIN/ACTHPR/PROT.1 rev.2 (1997), entered into force 25 January 2004, Article 3, available at: {http://au.int/en/treaties/protocol-african-charter-human-and-peoples-rights-establishment-african-court-human-and} accessed 6 December 2016.

93 Ibid., Art. 5.

94 Ibid.

95 Sensitisation visits are documented and described in the Court's annual reports, available at: {http://www.african-court.org/en/index.php/publications/activity-reports}.

96 ACtHPR, ‘Press Release: African Court Successfully Concluse Three Day Sensitization Mission to Cape Verde’.

97 Ibid.

98 ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report of the African Court for the Year 2013’, AU Executive Council, Twenty-Fourth Ordinary Session, 21–8 January 2014, EX.CL/825(XXIV), paras 71–3, available at: {www.african-court.org/en/index.php/publications/activity-reports} accessed 23 March 2018.

99 Ibid., paras 77–80.

100 ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report of the African Court for the Year 2016’, AU Executive Council Thirtieth Ordinary Session, 22–7 January 2017, Ex .CL/999(XXX), para. 52, available at: {http://www.african-court.org/en/index.php/publications/activity-reports} accessed 23 March 2018.

101 See annual reports.

102 ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report of the African Court for the Year 2016’, para. 31.

103 These states are: Benin, Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Gambia, Ghana, Malawi, Mali, Rwanda, Tanzania, and Tunisia. Four of these states have withdrawn their Article 34(6) declaration. Rwanda withdrew it in February 2016, which came into effect on 28 February 2017. Tanzania gave notice to withdraw in November 2019, Benin in March 2020 and Cote d'Ivoire in April 2020. Withdrawals enter into force after 12 months.

104 See, for example, ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report of the African Court for the Year 2016’.

105 Augustino Ramadhani, ‘Statement at the Opening of the Validation of the African Court's Strategic Plan’, 5 March 2016, Arusha, Tanzania.

106 ACtHPR, ‘2016–2020 Strategic and Implementation Plan’ (Arusha, Tanzania, 2016).

107 Sophia Akuffo, ‘Report of the ACtHPR on the Relevant Aspects Regarding the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa’, presented at the First Summit of Constitutional, Regional and Supreme Court Justices, Mexico City, 8–9 November 2012, para. 20, available at: {www.african-court.org/en/images/Other%20Reports/Report_of_the_African_Court_on_Human_and_Peoples_Rights_in_the_Protection_of_Human_Rights_in_Africa_final.pdf} accessed 19 March 2018.

108 Interview 9, ACtHPR administrator, Arusha, 1 December 2015.

109 Interview 7, Judge of the ACtHPR, Arusha, 30 November 2015.

110 Sylvain Oré, ‘Opening Statement by the President: 48th Ordinary Session of the ACtHPR’, Arusha, 26 February 2018, pp. 3–4, available at: {www.african-court.org/en/images/Speeches/EG_48th_Opening_Statement_Prez_26_March_2018.pdf} accessed 23 March 2018.

111 Akuffo, ‘Report of the ACtHPR on the Relevant Aspects Regarding the Judiciary in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa’, para. 21.

112 ACtHPR, ‘Press Release: African Court Successfully Concluse Three Day Sensitization Mission to Cape Verde’.

113 Interview 10, Judge of the ACtHPR, Arusha, 3 December 2015.

114 ACtHPR, ‘Activity Report of the African Court for the Year 2013’, para. 82.

115 These activities are supported by external funders. Interviewees revealed that the funders do not dictate what activities the ACtHPR conducts. Interviews 3 and 4, GIZ representatives, Arusha, 26 November 2015; Interview 9.

116 Participant observation, Remarks by Registrar Robert Eno and Justice Duncan Tambala, Arusha, 30 November 2015.

117 Ben Achour Râfaa, ‘La Cour Africaine des Droit de l'Homme et des Peuples’, presented at the Sensitization Visit to Tunisia, April 2017, available at: (https://en.african-court.org/images/Speeches/La_Cour_Africaine_des_droits_de_lHomme-Judge_Raafa.pdf} accessed 17 June 2020; as video, available at: {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j56Zg06jyYw&t=17s} accessed 17 June 2020.

118 ACtHPR, ‘African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights on Freedom of Expression’ (16 October 2016), available at: {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaC5_QwdKv4} accessed 17 June 2020; ACtHPR, ‘Basic Facts: African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights’ (19 September 2019), available at: {https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcTjtZHyIU8} accessed 17 June 2020.

119 See {https://en.african-court.org/index.php/about-us/mandate-vision-mission-values} accessed 16 June 2020.

120 See, for example, participant observation; Râfaa, ‘La Cour Africaine des Droit de l'Homme et des Peuples’ (YouTube video).

121 Gerard Niyungeko, ‘Presentation during the 5th Ordinary Session of the Second Parliament of the Pan African Parliament’, 6 October 2011, Midrand, South Africa.

122 Participant observation.

123 Interview 6, Judge of the ACtHPR, Arusha, 28 November 2015.

124 Participant observation.

125 Sylvain Oré, ‘Speech by His Excellency Sylvain Ore, President of the ACtHPR: The Opening Ceremony of the Third Contintenal Judicial Dialogue’, Arusha, 9 November 2017, available at: {www.african-court.org/en/images/Speeches/Opening_Prez_3rd_JD_2017.pdf} accessed 23 March 2018.

126 Interview 6.

127 Participant observation.

128 Oré, ‘Opening Statement by the President: 48th Ordinary Session of the ACtHPR’, p. 3.

129 Business Ghana, ’African Court Rejuvenated for the Next 10 Years’ (23 November 2016), available at: {http://www.businessghana.com/site/news/business/138199/African-Court-rejuvenated-for-the-next-10-yrs} accessed 23 March 2018.

130 Ibid.

131 Only four states (Barbados, Belize, Dominica, and Guyana) are subject to the appellate jurisdiction.

132 CCJ, ‘Annual Report: 2016–2017’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2017), p. 40, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/annual-reports} accessed 1 April 2019.

133 Ibid.

134 Interview 22, Judge of CCJ, Port of Spain, 4 April 2016.

135 CCJ, ‘Media Release No. 4: 2014’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2014), available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/MEDIA-RELEASE-4-2014.pdf} accessed 11 February 2020.

136 CCJ Academy, ‘Overview of the CCJ Academy for Law’, available at: {www.ccjacademy.org/about-ccj-afl/overview} accessed 1 April 2019.

137 Ibid.

138 CCJ, ‘11th Annual Caribbean Court of Justice International Law Moot Court’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2019), available at: {www.ccj.org/events/11thannuallawmoot} accessed 1 April 2019.

139 Dennis Byron, ‘Remarks at the International Law Moot 2018 Award Ceremony’, Port of Spain, 9 March 2018, p. 8, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

140 Interview 17, Judge of CCJ, Port of Spain, 4 April 2016.

141 Interview 22.

142 CCJ, ‘Annual Report 2017–2018’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2018), p. 3, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/annual-reports} accessed 1 April 2019.

143 CCJ, ‘Unlocking Potential: Strengthening Caribbean Jurisprudence, Strategic Plan 2019–2024’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2019), p. 14, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/ccj-strategic-plan} accessed 1 April 2019.

144 CCJ, ‘Responsive, Innovative, Inspirational: The Caribbean Court of Justice Strategic Plan, 2013–2017’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2012), p. 11, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/ccj-strategic-plan} accessed 1 April 2019.

145 CCJ, ‘Annual Report: 2005–2006’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2006), p. 22, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/annual-reports} accessed 1 April 2019.

146 CCJ, ‘Media Release No. 15: 2015’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2015), available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MEDIA-RELEASE-15-2015.pdf} accessed 1 April 2019.

147 Adrian Saunders, ‘Speech Delivered at Special Sitting in St. Vincent & the Grenadines of the Caribbean Court of Justice’, St. Vincent & the Grenadines, 20 July 2018, p. 1, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

148 CCJ, ‘Media Release No. 1: 2008’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2008), available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/PRESS-RELEASE-01-2008.pdf} accessed 1 April 2019; CCJ, ‘Media Release No. 6: 2011’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2011), available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/MEDIA-RELEASE-06-2011.pdf} accessed 1 April 2019.

149 CCJ, ‘Annual Report: 2010–2011’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2011), p. 28, available at: {https://www.ccj.org/publications/annual-reports/} accessed 1 April 2019.

150 CCJ, ‘Media Release No. 24: 2015’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2015), available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/MEDIA-RELEASE-24-2015.pdf} accessed 1 April 2019.

151 CCJ, ‘Annual Report: 2010–2011’, p. 25.

152 Dennis Byron, ‘Opening Remarks at the 6th Annual CCJ International Law Moot Competition’, Port of Spain, 14 March 2014, p. 1, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

153 Interview 19, Judge of CCJ, Port of Spain, 24 March 2016.

154 Ibid.

155 CCJ, ‘Statement by the CCJ on the Occasion of a Donor Meeting in Support of the Grenada Constitutional Reform Project’, Barbados (19 November 2014), p. 2, available at: {https://ccj.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/STATEMENT-BY-THE-CARIBBEAN-COURT-OF-JUSTICE-ON-THE-OCCASION-OF-A-DONOR-MEETING-IN-SUPPORT-OF-THE-GRENADA-CONSTITUTIONAL-REFORM-PROJECT.pdf} accessed 1 April 2019.

156 Saunders, ‘Speech Delivered at Special Sitting in St. Vincent & the Grenadines of the Caribbean Court of Justice’, p. 3.

157 David Hayton, ‘Speech Delivered at Special Sitting in St. Vincent & the Grenadines of the CCJ’, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, 20 July 2018, p. 5, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

158 CCJ, ‘Annual Report: 2016–2017’ (Port of Spain: CCJ, 2017), p. 41, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/annual-reports} accessed 1 April 2019.

159 Interview 19.

160 Interview 25, Representative of bar association, Port of Spain, 6 April 2016.

161 Adrian Saunders, ‘The Role of the Caribbean Court of Justice in the Private Sector: Guyana Manufacturing and Services Association Ltd.’, Guyana (2 August 2018), p, 20, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

162 Byron, ‘Remarks at the International Law Moot 2018 Award Ceremony’, p. 5.

163 Winston Anderson, ‘Free Movement within CARICOM: Deconstructing Myrie v. Barbados’, paper presented at OECS Bar Association Meeting, St Georges, Grenada, 7 December 2013, pp. 2–3, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

164 Dennis Byron, ‘Eminent Speakers Lecture of the UWI Law Society, Faculty of Law, Barbados, 9 November 2011, p. 3, available at: {www.ccj.org/publications/papers-speeches} accessed 1 April 2019.

165 Alter et al. (eds), International Court Authority; Squatrito et al. (eds), The Performance of International Courts and Tribunals.

166 Dingwerth et al. (eds), International Organizations under Pressure.