The judicial method of dispute resolution has aroused in Africa countless turnarounds of positions, from rejection to acceptance, from construction to destruction, to allow its transformation. It seems to have recently stabilized in the figure of the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, merging the two existing regional judicial bodies. It is already known to us that the two Tribunals have two main pre-defined functions, one that deals with the resolution of conflicts between States of the continent and the other on the protection of human rights, which are quite different roles. So, in this article, we analyze all impediments of the judicial system of African human rights to answer the question of whether it is best for African human rights to keep the tribunals separate, regardless of the desire to reduce costs or merger is better to ensure more effectively the protection of human rights?

No abstract

In 2001, the International Commission on Intervention and State sovereignty (ICISS) proposed rethinking on sovereignty through the prism of a new concept: the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P). Several years after, its message has been achieved? This is answer to this question that, in the aftermath of the Arab spring, at the end of an intervention that is controversial in Libya and in the face of the Syrian drama, we decided to make an evaluation, by analyzing this doctrine. From details of methodological of the purpose of this article, the review of the legal framework of the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) in international law is based on pre-existing concepts and rules that are sometimes approached such as the international responsibility and criminal responsibility priori conceptualization of the “Responsibility to Protect”, will be the first axis of this study. In the second, axis the responsibility to protect the population rests primarily on the territorial State against war crimes, crimes against humanity, crimes of genocide and ethnic cleansing. It must be stated that the obligation to protect the concerned State, was necessary before the States itself by establishing international legal standards. If the State is not willing to do or unable, the subsidiary protective role is the responsibility of other actors.The reality of major obstacles reduces the effective implementation on the ground of the “Responsibility to Protect”. These obstacles can be linked with the same design of it, just as they may result from external causes that could make inoperative the responsibility to protect in view of the situation, the international community application does not rely on the implementation of the responsibility to protect in some cases that meet, however, all the conditions to act within this framework. In the third axis of this study, it will be also a review of the operational legal framework.The United Nations has adopted several resolutions on the “Responsibility to Protect”, examining not only their support to the doctrine, but also their willingness to authorize the deployment of peacekeeping operations and to adopt resolutions in support of military intervention paragraph. But the Security Council of the United Nations has not always been unanimous about the situations to which the “responsibility to protect” applies. The case of Darfur and the crisis of the Syria, there was something else, they were exemplary cases of the application of the “Responsibility to Protect” inertia, and the different responses by the international community in the face of these crises, will allow us in the Fourth axis of interesting conclusions about the difficulties in the application thereof.

The theory of the Just War initiated by St. Augustine must absolutely seek peace. To avoid this being the case, two phases are defined: Jus ad Bellum; the Jus in Bello. Thus, self-defense as a just cause is a concept often addressed in international law and its explicit recognition in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter has made it even more present. But, from the adoption of the Charter to today, there are many examples of actions or arguments of states based on self-defense that are more or less in phase with each other. The most recent references to the concept of self-defense have developed in a particularly volatile international context since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the consequences that ensued. The relationship between the just war and self-defense raises some questions: can the anti-terrorism war, the preventive war and the war against non-state actors be considered part of the principle of self-defense? What are the criteria for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello considered during the Self-defense? Keywords Just War, Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello, self-defense, terrorism, Preventive war, the war against non-state actors 157 Published by SCHOLINK INC.

<em>The notion of equitable principles is considered in public international law as a subsidiary source of law. However, it is nevertheless an autonomous concept in the law of the sea, and particularly in the law of maritime delimitations. However, can this notion in international litigation of maritime delimitation be defined both in form and in substance? Thus, can one say precisely in which legal category it is classified, and can its content be defined?</em>