Legal systems have long known the pressure exerted by the executive or the legislative branches on their judicial counterparts in the battle for more operative legal space, or alternatively, to constrain judicial oversight of the respective activities of the other two branches of a state. 1 Likewise, jurisdictional competitions for adjudications of constitutional issues have reached heightened proportions in some countries, 2 due mainly to ordinary courts' reluctance to cede cases to the stand-alone constitutional courts or other similar tribunals. 3

Since 85 per cent of African freshwater comes from international rivers, the realisation of the newly emerging human right to water depends on the volume and quality of shared water resources. Each continental African State shares a river with at least one other State. Thus, a State has the capacity to hamper the realisation of the right in other co-riparian States by reducing the volume or polluting the shared river unless they are legally prevented from jeopardising the right abroad. The right would prove an empty promise for the right holders unless they are given legal avenues to hold third States accountable for their (in)actions that produce extraterritorial consequences. This article examines the extraterritorial reach of States' human rights duties in the African human rights system in the light of the regional case law and comparative jurisprudence.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract