Africa before International Courts: The Generational Gap in International Adjudication and Arbitration

Controversy persists as to whether or not international law is Eurocentric in nature and international relations are stacked against the interests of developing States in general and African States in particular. This article examines these issues and seeks to prove that there are grave inequities in the established systems of international adjudication and arbitration. It does so by examining the record of the two foremost international courts—the International Court of Justice and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. In particular, the article offers a detailed analysis of their jurisprudence in relation to two recent disputes involving African States—the Case concerning the Land And Maritime Boundary between Cameroon and Nigeria (Cameroon v. Nigeria: Equatorial Guinea Intervening) and the Decision Regarding the Delimitation of the Border between The State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. The article concludes that the international law espoused and practiced by the leading international courts and tribunals is no more than a means of maintaining the sanctity of past colonial acts and solidifying the continuing interests of the older and more developed States.