Chapter 8 examines the Court’s decision in Women against Violence and Exploitation in Society (WAVES) & Anor. v. The Republic of Sierra Leone. In this case, the Court declared that Sierra Leone had discriminated against pregnant schoolgirls by banning them from attending mainstream schools and providing substandard education in the special school established for the girls. The WAVES case is one of the few women’s rights cases decided by the ECOWAS Court, which granted all the reliefs sought by the applicants against the state without exception. The chapter argues that the Court’s reasoning in WAVES perfectly illustrates its narrow application of the due diligence principle, as WAVES presents an ideal set of facts that align with the Court’s thinking. It further argues that the Court should expand its application of the due diligence principle, drawing the attention of applicants and their legal representatives to what they can do to persuade the Court to broaden its scope.

Chapter 5 examines three cases involving victims of rape: Adama Vandi v. Sierra Leone, Ekundayo Idris v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Satta Lamin Banya v. Republic of Sierra Leone. In two of these judgments, there was a partial award of the applicants’ claims for violations against the defendant states, as well as the remedies sought, while in the third case, all claims were granted. In the cases of Vandi and E.I., the Court declined to declare the respective defendant states liable for GBV as a form of gender-based discrimination, which was the specific relief sought by the applicants. However, it did issue such a declaration in Banya. The Court’s reasoning for this decline echoes its reasoning in Njemanze, discussed in Chapter 2. Nonetheless, the Court’s finding of gender-based discrimination in Banya was not supported by its earlier jurisprudence set out in Njemanze. Essentially, the ECOWAS Court is reluctant to declare a violation of gender-based discrimination by a state on the basis of individual victims unless the violation is demonstrated to be systemic. This chapter explains how this reasoning is rooted in the Court’s first Maputo Protocol decision – Njemanze – which drew on the ideology of the Velasquez case that established the due diligence principle. It argues that a broader and proper application of the due diligence principle could expand the Court’s limited perspective on state responsibility for human rights violations. The discussion contrasts the proposed wider application of the principle with the implications it may have on the Court’s functioning, given its liberal access rules, highlighting the need for a balanced approach.

Chapter 10, the final chapter of the book, compiles all the qualitative and quantitative trends and patterns identified throughout the detailed analysis. It shows, through a comparative analysis, facts such as the total number of cases with violations against the state and those without violations, the most common rights issues in the Maputo Protocol that have been contested, the nature of these rights and those still to be adjudicated by the Court, the defendant states involved, the types of applicants, the remedies awarded, the reliefs denied, and the duration from case filing to judgment. These elements form the quantitative aspect of the trends and patterns. The qualitative part addresses each of the book’s research questions, presenting findings from all analysed cases. This discussion culminates in the chapter’s final section on the structure of women’s rights jurisprudence in the ECOWAS Court, outlining the Court’s current position and potential future developments. It recommends measures for the Court and its users to further develop its women’s rights jurisprudence.

This introductory chapter provides the background and contextual information to ground the book, including its objectives, significance, and relevance of the subject matter, the guiding research questions to be addressed, the nature of the ECOWAS Court’s human rights mandate, the normative and analytical frameworks used, and the methodology employed in selecting the cases analysed.

Chapter 7 presents a critical and nuanced analysis of Kadiatou Siby v. Mali. This pioneering case addresses state responsibility for discrimination against widows and violations of their rights to housing, property, and dignity. The Siby case is especially notable because it is among the few rulings on widows’ rights by the ECOWAS Court and establishes an original international precedent for widows’ rights in Africa. However, although the applicants invoked some provisions of the Maputo Protocol, the specific provisions explicitly outlining the rights of widows were not included. In addition to examining how much the Court relied on the due diligence principle to hold Mali accountable for the violations, the chapter highlights the implications of neglecting relevant and context-specific provisions of the Maputo Protocol in cases like Siby on the Protocol’s scope and influence. It proposes potential solutions to address this gap.

Chapter 2 examines the ECOWAS Court’s jurisprudence on gender-based discrimination in light of the judgment in Dorothy Njemanze and 3 Ors v. Nigeria. This case is the pioneering decision of the ECOWAS Court that pronounced on the Maputo Protocol and held the Republic of Nigeria responsible for gender-based discrimination against a marginalised group of women – alleged sex workers. The decision significantly influenced the African women’s rights legal framework on holding states accountable for violations of women’s rights. I argue in this chapter how the principle of due diligence made its debut, albeit implicitly, in the Court’s use of the letter and spirit of the Maputo Protocol. The chapter also highlights the ripple effects of the Njemanze decision in other regional courts, such as the African Court, which took judicial notice of the case and expressed its opinion on vagrancy laws across Africa.

This chapter examines the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into due diligence (DD) processes within the Investment Migration (IM) sector, focusing on Citizenship by Investment (CBI) programmes. CBI programmes grant citizenship to qualified individuals in return for investment in a country’s economy and are increasingly recognized as a significant source of foreign direct investment (FDI). However, concerns around misuse—such as money laundering and tax evasion—highlight the urgent need for robust DD frameworks. The chapter introduces a framework that leverages established AI technologies, including machine learning (ML) and Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT), to standardize DD procedures across specific CBI programmes. This framework draws heavily on historical CBI data, which often involves personal information held in private databases. As such, legal safeguards and policies must ensure that access to and processing of this data remain lawful and ethical. These processes must also be cross verified with independent, external data sources to meet DD requirements effectively. A critical component of this AI integration is the development of “legally explainable” AI, enabling transparency for stakeholders regarding how automated decisions and risk profiles are generated. Furthermore, mechanisms for auditing AI decision-making must be established to uphold transparency, accountability, and trust in CBI administration. By embedding AI in DD procedures, CBI programmes can significantly enhance operational integrity, efficiency, and resistance to abuse, ultimately strengthening their global legitimacy and their role in combatting financial crime.

Chapter 3 parallels the Njemanze and the Collectif Cri de Coeur Pour Le Mali v. Republic of Mali cases. While the Njemanze decision was ruled in favour of the women victims, the Collectif decision was not. The applicants in Collectif relied on Njemanze to support their claims against the Republic of Mali. The Court further clarified its jurisprudence and limitations regarding holding states accountable for violations against women. The Collectif case raised important questions about when a state discharges its obligations under the Maputo Protocol to punish acts of violence against women and to implement programmes for the rehabilitation of victims. The chapter shows how the Court’s reasoning largely echoes the principles of the due diligence doctrine, which is why it rightly found Mali not responsible for the victims. However, it also reveals two jurisprudential faults in the Court’s reasoning. One involving the use and application of a decision of the African Court out of context, and another concerning its interpretation of when the due diligence principle applies in relation to healthcare services. It demonstrates how this flawed reasoning conflicts with the operation of the ECOWAS Court’s human rights mandate, especially its rule on local remedies.

Chapter 9 presents a selection of cases that fall under the category of post-Njemanze cases without the Maputo Protocol. These cases are chosen based on two criteria: first, those involving similar subject matter to the post-Njemanze cases with the Maputo Protocol, which were discussed in detail in earlier chapters. The analysis particularly focuses on comparing the Court’s reasoning to identify any notable similarities or differences in jurisprudence when the Maputo Protocol is cited and when it is not. The second criterion includes cases selected for their diversity, specifically involving other groups of intersectional women’s identities not covered in previous chapters, such as women in protest, working women, women in customary marriages, and extradited women. The purpose of examining this second group is to demonstrate how references to the Maputo Protocol could have influenced applicants’ legal arguments. The analysis underscores the comprehensive and distinctive nature of the Maputo Protocol as the Bill of Rights for African women, emphasising its importance in all cases concerning women’s rights in Africa. It also highlights certain gaps within the Protocol.

Chapter 4 compares two domestic violence cases: Mary Sunday v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, and Mrs Sarah Kingsley Odoro v. ECOWAS Commission and 2 Ors. Although the Maputo Protocol safeguards the rights of domestic violence victims within international law, holding states accountable for such violations occurring in the private sphere remains a significant challenge. In Mary Sunday, the ECOWAS Court clarified its stance regarding the types of evidence needed to establish a state’s liability for domestic violence. Meanwhile, in the Sarah Odoro case, the Court reiterated the scope of defendants over which it would have jurisdiction in domestic violence matters. This chapter highlights the potential of the due diligence principle at the individual level to broaden the Court’s perspective on holding states accountable to individual victims, while also considering the implications of such an approach for domestic violence cases in international forums.

The extent of the ECOWAS Court’s intervention in holding states accountable for violating women’s rights to the protection of their person and family is examined in Chapter 6. In Aminata Diantou Diane v. République du Mali, the Court ruled that Mali had infringed upon the rights to protection, a fair trial within a reasonable time, and an adequate remedy for the applicant and her children, but it declined to grant other systemic remedies related to gender-based discrimination. The chapter evaluates the key aspects of the Diane decision, focusing on how the Court’s reasoning aligns with the five Ps of the due diligence principle, while also overlooking the opportunity to hold Mali responsible for gender-based discrimination and to mandate legislative reforms.

Bringing light to AI-related harms is key to redressing them and to enable prevention. Meta-analyses of risks can also bring to light when harms were detected and by whom, leading us to better practices for prevention and detection.

This chapter explores the attitudes and perceptions of fifty-five practitioners engaged in infrastructure-related dispute prevention and resolution in the Asia Pacific region. The aim of the survey and follow-up interview conversations is to provide insights into the dynamics, challenges and lessons learned in engaging with communities to prevent and resolve disputes in the context of infrastructure projects. The principal finding of this chapter, based on survey data and follow-up questions, is that from the perspective of regional practitioners, prior community consultation is considered the most effective approach to preventing infrastructure disputes. This finding is consistent with the results of the data analysis in the prior chapter correlating heightened consultation standards with a reduction in the proportion of project disputes. A number of challenges continue to exist in mitigation efforts with the most challenging being the ‘lack of agreement on shared economic benefits’ and ‘limited communication’. Overall, practitioners advised that most disputes arise because ‘there was no consultation or inadequate consultation with a marginalised part of the community’. The chapter also includes practitioner suggestions on areas for improvement. The findings of this chapter demonstrate the significance of effective prior community consultation and grievance mechanisms for preventing disputes.

This chapter explores developments after standards for pre-project consultation were raised in 2013. The six cases examined in this chapter, funded by multilateral and national development banks operating in the Asia Pacific region after heightened community engagement policies, were introduced underscore a number of key insights. The post-2013 cases broadly demonstrate a number of key improvements including greater rigour in consultation and diligence mechanisms, heightened precision in identifying issues of community concern, higher pre-project diligence and screening standards, ongoing environmental and technical monitoring, the presence of locally trained mediators, skill development for consultation participants, and a longer-term view of community welfare and responsive grievance remedies. Shortcomings persisted in some cases, including instances of duress, lack of information disclosure, fraud, limited access to consultation mechanisms and environmental harm leading to project cessation in two cases when the adverse social impacts were seen to outweigh potential benefits. On the whole, corresponding with more rigorous community consultation and diligence standards, during this phase, the number of stalled/cancelled and litigated case declined by 33%, the percentages of cases brought to court declined by 16%, and the number of cases pursuing party agreement through mediation or negotiation increased by 50% compared with ad-hoc discretionary consultation practices prior to 2013.

Chapter 5 demonstrates that states have accepted obligations of mandatory cooperation with respect to a variety of other transboundary harms, including piracy, terrorism, and at least some cyberattacks.

This chapter examines international obligations imposed on all States to protect and preserve the marine environment in relation to submarine operations. However, the sovereign immunity of military submarines significantly impacts both the applicability and enforcement of international marine environmental law. At present, nuclear powered and nuclear armed submarines pose the greatest environmental risks, and we discuss nuclear liability regimes, the possible relevance of nuclear-free zone treaties, and environmental obligations when decommissioning nuclear submarines. The obligation to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution may also be relevant in the context of sonar being used to detect submarines, as concerns have arisen as to the negative implication for marine mammals. While there have been various legal initiatives to address noise pollution, it is apparent that the consequences for military submarines is slight.