Litigating Self-Determination: A Regional Approach Comparing the Right to Self-Determination for Coastal Kenyans and Nubians Under the African and Arab Charter of Human Rights

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Citation: (2016) 3(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 84
• Author: Nora Mbagathi
• Date: 16 August 2019
• Published date: 16 August 2019
• Pages: 84-111

84

LITIGATING SELF-DETERMINATION: A

REGIONAL APPROACH COMPARING THE

RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION FOR

COASTAL KENYANS AND NUBIANS UNDER

THE AFRICAN AND ARAB CHARTER OF

HUMAN RIGHTS

NORA MBAGATHI

George Washington University Law School Graduate

This paper examines the issue of a people’s self-determination under the African

Charter on Human and People’s Rights and compares it to the Arab Charter of

Human Rights. Specifically, it looks at the cases of the Mijikenda in Kenya and

the Nubians in Egypt to determine when groups may be entitled to the remedial

secession as a remedy for state violations regarding self-determination. The paper

traces the development of the definition of ‘a people’ and compares these two cases

with decisions the African Commission has already made in the Gunme and

Katanga cases, regarding the issue of self-determination and secession. The issue

of self-determination and of remedial secession is mainly driven by real politics

on the international stage. This paper posits that regional courts and commissions

would be best equipped to deal with self-determination. Regional judicial bodies

may be able to impose remedies other than that of remedial secession and can

thereby create a normative legal standard with regards to self-determination and

secession, when necessary. The paper concludes that it would be in the best interest

of states to give regional bodies more power and follow their rulings so that self-

determination of various groups can be ensured and the break-up of existing states

avoided.

Cet article examine la question de l’autodétermination d’un peuple en vertu de

la Charte Africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples et la compare à la

Charte Arabe des Droits de l’Homme. Plus précisément, il se penche sur les cas

des Mijikenda au Kenya et les Nubiens en Egypte pour déterminer quand les

groupes peuvent avoir droit à la sécession corrective comme une réparation pour

les violations de l’État en matière d’auto-détermination. Le document dessine

l’évolution de la définition de «peuple» et compare ces deux cas, avec les décisions

quee la Commission Africaine a déjà rendu dans les cas Gunme et du Katanga,

en ce qui concerne la question de l’autodétermination et de la sécession. La

question de l’autodétermination et de la sécession corrective est principalement

tirée par la politique réelle sur la scène internationale. Cet article pose que les

tribunaux et les commissions régionales seraient mieux équipés pour s’occuper

de l’autodétermination. Les organes judiciaires régionales peuvent être en mesure

d’imposer des mesures correctives autres que celle de la sécession corrective et peuvent

ainsi créer un standard juridique normatif en ce qui concerne l’autodétermination et

(2016) 3(2) Journal of Comparative Law in Africa 84

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd

85

LITIGATING SELF-DETERMINATION

la sécession, si nécessaire. Le document conclut qu’il serait dans le meilleur intérêt

des Etats de donner aux organes régionaux plus de puissance et de suivre leurs

décisions afin que l’auto-détermination des différents groupes peut être assurée et

l’éclatement des États existants évité.

Keywords: Self-determination; secession; state violations; African and

Arab Charter of Human Rights; Kenya; Egypt

Introduction

The issue of self-determination and the possibility of remedial secession

outside the context of colonial domination are topics that arise increasingly

often in the international arena. Self-determination hereby refers to the

ability of a specific group to exercise independent control over its land

and resources without gaining independence from the larger parent-state.

Remedial secession refers to such a group gaining independence from

a parent-state due to abuse the group has suffered from said state. In

a post-colonial world, in which the protection of economic, social and

cultural rights and the question of access to resources and environmental

protection are becoming more and more important, international law

is yet to give a precise normative standard regarding the issue of self-

determination as it relates to remedial secession or other possible remedies.

The general consensus appears to be that, while there is nothing

prohibiting self-determination and remedial secession in certain

circumstances, under international law there is no particular right to it

either.1 However, on a regional level, there are documents that give certain

groups the explicit right to self-determination, for example, Article 20 of

the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and Article 2 of the

Arab Charter on Human Rights.2

This paper will compare the right to self-determination under these

two documents. It will examine the effect that precedent in the African

system, as well as provisions in other documents concerned with the

topic of self-determination, would have on secessionist movements on

the Kenyan coast or on the Nubians in Egypt, if they tried to litigate their

rights before a regional body.

Finally, the paper will show that, with regards to the right to self-

determination, academics in international law and policy should pay

closer attention and lay more focus on the regional bodies. In the broader

international system, the issue of remedial secession in the context of

self-determination will always remain one mainly driven by diplomacy

and real politics rather than general legal concepts, due to the system’s

focus on nation-state and sovereign actors. On a regional level, however,

1 See eg The Kosovo Case (22 July 2010) (2010) General List No. 141.

2 These documents are more closely examined in sections III and V of this paper.

© Juta and Company (Pty) Ltd