This article analyses the domestication of human rights treaties in Nigeria. It points out the shortcomings of the present dualist model under the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and makes suggestions for reform. It also examines the effect of beliefs and cultural values on the effective application of human rights treaties in Nigeria. at 162, a Supreme Court decision during the military era in Nigeria, where the court put the decree (decrees were legislation by Nigeria's then federal military government) suspending and amending the existing constitution and all decrees of the federal military government in a superior position to the unsuspended provisions of the constitution.

Th e Law of the Sea Convention requires that eff ective participation of developing States Parties in activities in the deep seabed beyond national jurisdiction (the Area) should be promoted having due regard to their special interests and needs (especially those of landlocked and geographically disadvantaged states). Th is article examines the diffi culties in actual, direct and eff ective participation by African states in deep seabed mining and possible co-operative endeavours that African states may embark upon to overcome some of these constraints in order to advance the prospects of their actual, direct and eff ective participation in deep seabed mining.

No abstract

The decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in the case of the Attorney General of the Federation v. the Attorney General of Abia State & 35 Ors. was delivered on 5 April, 2002 in respect of the proviso to section 162(2) of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, which incorporates what is popularly known in Nigeria as the “derivation formula”. It brought to the forefront the need to determine (especially as regards revenue derived from the oil and gas resources) whether the offshore bed of the territorial sea, exclusive economic zone and continental shelf of Nigeria should be regarded as part of the littoral states of the federation or not? This article critically examines the decision of the Supreme Court as it relates to the “ownership” of the offshore seabed as between the federal Government and the littoral states in the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

No abstract