Paper IV of the African Sovereign Debt Justice Network Paper Series

Paper III of the African Sovereign Debt Justice Network Paper Series.

Paper II of the African Sovereign Debt Justice Network Paper Series.

Paper I of the African Sovereign Debt Justice Network Paper Series

Using the question of justice in the digital space to assess current liability regimes, we interrogate the conventional liability regime based on liberal political theory, identify its shortcomings for dealing with the questions of justice raised by the digital space, and propose an alternative to address the identified shortcomings through an alternate perspective of responsibility inspired by the African ethics of duty. This perspective can contribute to the improvement of access to justice and re-center the African ethics of duty in the conversation around quest for justice.

The transnational pursuit of redress for corporate human rights violations in Africa has been partly premised on Western courts providing such redress. Their perceived failures to do so are thus susceptible to being understood as judicial and legal inaction, as may be observed in early responses to the UK Court of Appeal decision last year in Kalma v African Minerals Ltd (Kalma). That decision unanimously upheld the judgment of Mr Justice Turner of the High Court, which dismissed a civil action brought by 142 Sierra Leonean claimants for human rights violations in the vicinity of the UK-domiciled defendant’s iron ore mine in Sierra Leone.

October 12, 2021

To register, click here

Date: Thursday, October 14, 2021

Time: 8.00am - 10.30am

The African Sovereign Debt Network cordially invites you to join the launch of the AfSDJN paper series on October 15.

I am then wearing my ‘amateur’ hat to metaphorically ask: Is Kenya’s strategy terrible? To critically answer this question, I first consider the effect of the non-appearance of Kenya in the hearing on the merits of the case. Second, I look into the withdrawal of the declaration accepting compulsory jurisdiction the ICJ and what that means for the present case as well as for future disputes. Third, I provide concluding remarks.

While multinational companies at times play a notable role in conflicts and mass atrocity events, there is an ongoing debate on how and where to acknowledge their involvement when countries seek to come to terms with past wars or human rights violations. Should economic crimes and other types of corporate complicity be addressed within the Transitional Justice (‘TJ’) process? And considering that corporate involvement in conflicts is often transnational, what States and (domestic or international) judicial bodies should be involved in providing justice?