 Good morning everybody. Welcome to SOAS online and welcome. Thank you for joining us this morning. The weather looks great and looks very English so it's nice to be doing this online. My name is Professor Emilia Onyema and I'm a professor of international commercial law here at SOAS. I teach and do research in international commercial arbitration and international investment law. And with MSHUD, I also contribute to MSHUD's law and development in Africa module. I do research. My regional focus for my research is Africa, is international commercial arbitration in Africa. So I sort of lead work and research on arbitration in Africa. We do surveys, we do conferences and all of those sorts of things. And so it's great to be here this morning. I can see my colleague Nada who runs our LLMMA program with another colleague. So I'm going to hand back to Nada who would welcome you before I give you our first tester lecture. I was actually just going to introduce Professor Onyema so I will let her continue. But I just want you to know that I'm here if you have any questions. So Emilia please go ahead. Thank you. Thank you very much Nada. Okay great. So what I propose to speak to you about today is just to give you an idea of how we teach and what arbitration is and how we communicate with our students. I'm going to ask you questions. And so please feel free to type in the chat and that's where I'll be looking at. I don't know if you can speak. If you can raise your hand that's perfect. But when I ask you to speak, you have less than 10 seconds and I'll be counting down for you to say what you need to say. So it's better to type in the chat as well because we can't have everybody speaking. We have loads of people on the call. Okay. So we are all aware of what's going on in the world currently. And what I have, the way I've titled the topic of what I want us to unpack and to discuss this morning, I've titled it arbitration, cancellation of Russian vodka and liability. And so the key thing is looking, putting all of this in context of the Russia-Ukraine war. You switch on your news, you're on your phone, even when you don't want to hear about it, you get notifications of what Boris Johnson has said or Zelensky. We didn't know the name of Zelensky's wife, but now we all know where Ukraine is, what's going on. However, the question is, how has the West responded? And the West has responded with imposition of economic sanctions and they've gone way beyond the traditional forms of economic sanctions against state actors. They've also targeted individuals, which is fine. That's state to state and that's okay. But then we now have large stores in the UK, in the US, in Canada and other places, saying hang on, we're not going to sell Russian-made products. And that's where the Russian vodka, for those of you who like a little bit of something to taste. And that's where the Russian vodka idea comes up in the topic. And so we have Russian vodka, we have our stores saying we're not going to stock Russian vodka anymore, we're not going to sell Russian vodka. And remember that these are private entities, they're businesses. And so the question then becomes that, well, okay, what does this mean for those stores who have purchased or who have ordered Russian vodka over time, who are now saying we're not going to sell anymore. And so for the price and for people, society, these companies and entities, it might be good PR for them. And so it's a laudable thing, there is support of Ukraine, it's good price for them. But on the other side of the scale, can they incur contractual liability? And so this leads us into that question of what is a contract? We know your post-grad or wanting to do post-grad studies, so you know that a contract, so bare minimum, is that you have an agreement between parties in which they have made promises to reciprocate promises to each other. And these promises are legally binding on them. And so the state steps in through its laws and courts to uphold those promises that parties have made. So I've talked a little bit, which means that they sell the purchase and the sale of the vodka, Russian vodka, would be underpinned by contract. And it is cross-border because we can see the international nature and the cross-border nature of this, of the sales. So I'm going to ask you a couple of questions you now need to start typing in the chat. So the first question is do you think that these stores may be in breach of the contracts they have with the suppliers of Russian vodkas? So you know what to do, yes. You can say yes in the chart, you can raise your, you can, if you look at, you can say, you know, you can say yes quickly. What do you think? Anybody? Hurry up, my time is running, so I'm trying not to speak too fast. What do we think? So do we think that they may be in breach? Of course the answer is a yes, most likely they would be in breach of their contracts with their suppliers. So my second question to you is do you also think that these brands of vodka, so the Russian brand of vodka, I'm sure you all know that vodka is not produced only in Russia, may have suffered reputational damage. And the question then becomes who would be responsible if there is reputational damage, which might even cost more than the contractual breach, who would, who should be picking up that bill. And so in a commercial transaction, in international commercial transaction, it's a location of risk. We're locating risks, which the parties themselves can negotiate. And so the next question I have for you is do you think that these stores would then have, they may have valid legal defenses for their actions? You remember I said the public is good PR for them, but that is not law. PR is PR, that is a media is media. But legally speaking, do you think that the stores themselves may have illegal defense that they can raise or excuse that they can raise? Can they raise frustration? Can they raise false measure? Can they work? Is there something that they can hold on to to justify their action? All that, all of these questions, just raising these questions, then mean that there is, there will be disputes. Yes, do you agree? It means that there will be disputes. And then the question then becomes, how should we resolve those disputes? In what forum should we resolve those disputes? If you were Morrison's or co-op or your apple, would you want to go to the Russian courts at this time or hopefully when the war is over? Would you want to go to the Russian courts to say hang on, I'm not happy with what my suppliers have done. If you were the Russians, would you want to come to the English courts or go to any courts in the West? I think the simple straightforward answer, I'm not getting people reacting in the chart, except that if I'm not seeing the proper version of the chart, the simple answer is you will not want to. And it's just lack of confidence. You're asking yourself, if you are Abramovich and Russia is doing something and you no longer own Chelsea, I hope there are football people here because we are the ones, all the wonderful middle-aged women support Chelsea because of Mourinho and then he left and we were all left wondering which team should we now be supporting because the good looking man has moved on to somewhere else. And so if you were Abramovich, would you have confidence in those sorts of in the legal system? It's a question of trust. Do you think that being Russian would impact the resolution of your dispute? It's not a question of right or wrong. It's just a question of you having confidence. Okay, what if Russia is sanctioned and they are restricted to import Russian goods? Great, that's a good contribution. Remember, we're saying, okay, what excuse do they have any excuses that they can give? The point is that a dispute arises and the question then becomes where and how do you want to resolve those disputes? This is where arbitration comes in. So arbitration is an alternative to litigation in national courts. It is not an alternative dispute resolution because it is adjudicative in nature in the sense that you still need to prove your case. You have a third party called the arbitrator who is meant to be neutral and they make a decision for you. So a very short description of arbitration, the way I like to describe it is it's private litigation, it's private justice. It's private if you like court system if you wish to put it in that form. And the advantages you have in arbitration is that it's completely neutral. It's not a state's devised mechanism for dispute resolution. The parties get a lot of powers over who determines their dispute, where their dispute should be determined, what law should govern their disputes and how they wish their dispute to be resolved. Which is all well and good because there's a lot of powers given to the parties. But ultimately, the arbitrators are individuals, they're private citizens, they do not have the police powers of the state, they do not have access to police powers of the state, the way national courts that are part of the state have such access. And so we still need the courts because if you get a decision made in your favor, so let's just be a little bit provocative and say okay the Russian suppliers get an award, a decision in their favor that says that Morrison's should pay one million dollars to them, where Morrison's has to be willing to pay. If Morrison's pays, then it's fine. But what if Morrison says just like we have that Daniel Ali have put in the chart to say hang on, but we have a good excuse and we're not going to pay, how can the Russians get Morrison's to pay? They have to go back to the courts because the courts have what we call police powers. It is only a court that can ask the bailiffs to come into your home and take your TV and then sell it so that they can use the money to pay the debts that you owe. That is what arbitration is all about. And we have this wonderful international convention that we call the New York Convention of 1958 that basically makes it practically impossible to properly appeal an arbitration decision where you can challenge the decision on very limited grounds. And we have well over 165 jurisdictions across the world, including Russia and the US and the UK that have signed up to this convention, which makes it easier to enforce decisions made by private individuals like myself. So I sit as an international independent arbitrator. So I get to make decisions against companies and in favor of companies. And I'm just sitting in my little office here in Sowers, but my decisions will be enforced by a national court across the globe. And that is really valuable. And what is the downside in one minute of arbitration has become very expensive. And that's the truth. And because lawyers have gotten involved. Originally, lawyers were not very much involved in arbitration. So he was like, okay, but you know, lawyers, once we get involved in something, it becomes a little bit more technical. We make it a little bit more complicated so that we can charge more money. And it's become a little bit more expensive. And we have research to show that it's really become expensive. And so what we're looking at, so that's the future, what we're looking at is how can we make arbitration a tool for access to justice for small and medium sized enterprises, such that it's not only the big players that have access because they can afford it, but also it's open to small players and small businesses. And how do we also ensure that they arbitrate us as diverse, as representative of the parties that engage in arbitration. And so what I have tried to do in the short few minutes that Nada has given to me to speak is to basically really tell you a story, but to describe to you and to help you to get a sense of what arbitration is and what we do in arbitration. Thank you. So I'm going to stop there, Nada. I'm happy to take questions, I think. Yeah, thank you, Amelia. This was a very informative account of arbitration and it's relevant to today's globalist economy for sure. So Amelia teaches a number of other modules on the international commercial and economic law program. So if you have any questions to Amelia on the topic or otherwise about the program, please go ahead. I think there are some questions in the chat. Nada, do you want me to pick up the questions? So on the substantive presentation, Susumori has said, if Russia is sanctioned and they are restricted to import Russian goods, so that will be a defense. So remember we talked about, we mentioned frustration, force measure, do they have an excuse? So that may, may, may, may be in the operative word, be a form of excuse for the importers. Is the Dubai International Financial Center an arbitration center on an alternative dispute resolution system? And how can DIFCs be structured in a legal uncertain economy to build trust and reputation for investors? The DIFC clearly is an arbitration or has an arbitration center. And the way, one of the things we found out well with a few weeks, months ago, the Dubai leadership had come up with a law that basically broke down all the various centers and combined them into, into one. And those are the sorts of things that create uncertainty in the market. But again, we can't, they're different legal systems and they're different types of governments. And so where you have autocracies and things like that, there would be bound to be shocks in the market, but not all shocks are disadvantageous. It might be possibly, it might be more useful for the Dubai environment. So we're, we're, we're watching the space on the DIFC matter. Do you think if litigation did not follow arbitration awards in a lot of cases, lawyers would not be as involved? Well, lawyers are also involved in arbitration. And the high cost I mentioned of international arbitration, most of it actually goes to pay the lawyers. So who act as counsel in arbitration. And so it really, the idea of lawyers thinking that, well, if there isn't the opportunity to go to court after the award, I think it's frustrating. It's frustrating the whole arbitration process because then it's really not a proper alternative to litigation. Those are the questions that I can see in the so I'm still going to, I think I would stop looking at time and then hand over to Professor Baderin. And but I'm going to, I'm still here so we can take questions later, but keep stuff coming in the chat as well. Prof. Okay, thank you so much. I mean, Amelia for that, I mean, beautiful presentation. I will be following up with another short talk, given a brief overview of the African regional human rights system. My name as you can see on the screen is Michelle Baderin, and Professor of Laws at the School of Law here at SOAS. And I also want to welcome you to SOAS. I mean, what the taster is about is for you to have a taster of what we do, how we teach in the law school here at SOAS, and also the courses that we teach. Now, if you look at our modules on the SOAS website, School of Law website, you'll be able to see that human rights sort of, I mean, cuts across many of the courses that we teach. For example, apart from the main human rights module, you find human rights also reflected. For example, I teach a course, a postgraduate course, a module called Human Rights and Islamic Law. You know, as one of the modules I teach, I also teach pure Islamic law, and I teach on the law and development in Africa course. I do also contribute to the pure human rights course in the past, and I do teach the African regional system. Now, Amelia, I mean, gave his talk of hand. We do this as well, but I want to give you another taste. In some of my modules, I use what I called, I mean, seminar notes or lecture notes. I mean, not for the students to follow. So I want to give you a taste of that for you to be able to see how we do this as well. So I'll share my screen to start with. So you can see now, normally when I do a seminar or lecture notes, this is how it looks like. And as I said, what I'll be speaking about is a brief overview on regional human rights, I mean, systems. Now, today, we have a number of regional human rights systems starting from the European regional system. We have the inter-American human rights system. We have the Arab human rights system, the Arab regional human rights system. Then the ASEAN is also coming up. Even the Muslim majority countries, the OIC, also has its own sort of, I mean, human rights system. Although there's a debate about whether the OIC is a regional organization or not. In my own writings and some others argue that the OIC is actually a super regional organization because it cuts across different geographical regions. Now, we know human rights is quite important today. I mean, I believe you all know that. There's no gain saying the fact. And it's promoted strongly as a universal norm by the United Nations. Therefore, it raises a point, you know, I mean, that in view of the universal nature of the UN human rights system, it becomes sort of, I mean, questionable. What the utility of regional human rights systems is necessary? If, for example, I mean, our intention, we talk about human rights as a universal norm. If we talk about human rights as a universal norm, the UN intended it right from the beginning to be a universal endeavor, a universal movement. You know, if you can call it that. If you look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted in 1948 by the United Nations, it started universal. So you find human rights is intended to be universal. Now, I mean, not long after that, I mean, after the UDHR was adopted in 1948, you find the original institutions, original human rights system starts springing up. That is, for example, from Europe, the European Convention and Human Rights was adopted in 1950, just two years after the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. So usually, I mean, when I try to start, I give a sort of, I mean, short introduction on the utility. What is the utility of regional human rights systems? I want to ask you, I mean, do you think, do you think the regional human rights system has any utility at all? I mean, what usefulness does it add to the universal human rights system of the United Nations? I mean, if you want to, if you have the say on this, you can put in something in the chat. I mean, did you think the original human rights systems are necessary? Or perhaps maybe the UN system, the universal system will have been enough to sort of, I mean, regulate or look after human rights universally. What do you think about that? Does anybody want to throw in something on that? Okay, you might be thinking about it because of time. Okay. I think somebody has, yes, yes they are. They address municipal issues more effectively. Yeah, that's good. I mean, that's, I mean, that's one of the points. And you'll be able to see, I mean, normally, in my seminar lecture notes, I'll put in the relevant materials that students read. I'll put in quotes from the relevant materials for students to be able to see. Now, this quote answers that question. I mean, it's from Christopher Haynes, who is one of the leading experts in the African human rights original system. And he indicates it quite clearly, quoted from his article, although there were initially questions, especially from the UN perspective, with his emphasis on versatility about the wisdom of some regions having their own human rights systems. There was a big debate, you know, I mean, when Europe adopted it, I mean, the European Convention about the fact that why, you know, see, I mean, Haynes indicated that the benefits of having sexism are widely accepted today. So all across, everybody sees it, I mean, something quite, I mean, very good. And he addresses, you know, some of the issues, some of the benefits, as was mentioned by the person who put in the chat, you know, he indicated, I mean, Christoph indicated, countries from a particular region often have a shared interest in the protection of human rights in that part of the world, and so on and so forth. So if you read through this, you'll be able to see some of the benefits. Now, regional organizations are pragmatic. I mean, they are pragmatic to have, and they are necessary means of transforming global norms into local application, because, you know, the UN itself is very far away. The UN cannot be everywhere at the same time, you know, so the regional institutions are closer to home locally than the UN can ever be. And we have similar systems within the municipal, I mean, within domestic laws. You find out that, for example, some countries follow the federal system, you know, it's one single country, but there's the federal system, you have the, I mean, the state system, you have the local government system, which will be closer to the ground in order to ensure that things work on the ground. Now, I mean, eventually, you find out that regionalism actually is reflected in the UN Charter itself. If you look at Chapter 8, Article 5021 of the UN Charter allows regional arrangements, although those regional arrangements are in relation to international peace and security. But then, I mean, over time, human rights have been recognized as one element of ensuring international peace and security in the world. And in 1997, actually General Assembly adopted a Resolution 32127, you know, encouraging those regions that do not have regional human rights institutions to establish one. So you find, if you look at it from that point of view, I mean, the utility of, I mean, regional human rights institutions cannot be doubted. Now, if you look at, I mean, now coming to, after having established that, now look at, I mean, the regional human rights system in a nutshell, the African human rights system in a nutshell. I mean, very briefly, when I do this, I look at it from, I mean, from in perspective, why you want to look at the historical evolution, how the African regional human rights system has evolved. It is important to be able to appreciate this so that you know what has been put in, you know, whether the states are just flying kites or they are putting a lot in and they want result out of it. So looking at the historical evolution gives you this, I mean, perspective. Then we look at the conceptualization. How is human rights conceptualized, particularly from the African regional perspective? Then we look at standard setting, then implementation. Those are the four main areas, if you want to look at any regional system at all. Now, if we look at the historical evolution, I mean, it has been long coming, really. A lot of the time, I mean, when we talk about historical evolution of human rights, you can have what I call the longer history and the shorter history. When we look at the shorter history, we always start with the UN, you know, but if you look at the longer history, I mean, even in relation to, for example, the UK, when we talk about human rights, I mean, when people want to talk about the longer history, they refer to the Magna Carta, you know, the Magna Carta. That was adopted long ago, even before the UN was created, you know. Okay, Bamidele Ajayi, you want to say something, please? Bamidele Ajayi has raised his hand. Do you have something to say? Masood, I think they wrote something in the chat as well. Okay, there's something in the chat, okay. I think they are useful, at least in Europe. It's okay. Yes, I mean, we did mention that. I mean, that's a very good point. Not only in Europe actually, even including Africa, as you see, as we go on, you know. Now, if you look at the longer history of the evolution of the African system, it started quite, and it's similar to the Magna Carta. Just recently, actually, UNESCO, you know, has identified and recognized a particular charter called the Charter of Kuru Kanfaga. They call it the Mandi Charter, which was adopted, you know, after a very brutal war, you know, in Africa, in the Mandi area, I mean, areas that have now, I mean, Mali Guinea now, are evolving to Mali Guinea area and the Mandi area. Now, I mean, if you look at it, it was an oral charter which was adopted after a very, I mean, brutal war in Africa then. And if you look into it, it has not been transcribed, recognized by UNESCO. If you look at the UNESCO website, UNESCO identified this charter as one of the oldest charters on human rights adopted in the 13th century. And a lot have been said about it now. Actually, in 2013, Amseli wrote an article about it, you know, not only in Africa, it is also recognized even in Europe, now particularly in France. And in the article, you know, Amseli, and it brings a new dynamic actually to the evolution of human rights. Because a lot of the time when we talk about human rights, you know, the argument has been made that it is a Western sort of idea imposed on other civilizations similar to Africa. So Amseli indicates that we have to put an end to this false idea according to which democracy and fundamental rights had a sole cradle in the West. In a recent conference organized by Amseli van Hesse, on the history of the UDHR, of which he was one of the authors, he yielded the floor to Suleiman Bashiruddin. The latter recalled that in the Mandi Chanta of the 13th century, in this hunter's oath, which also addressed the entire world, one finds a definition of the rights of the human being which still applies today. So I mean, I told you, look at you, I mean, you can type in, you can Google in this charter, there's a lot of materials on the UNESCO website. So if what one talks about the historical evolution, the longer history of the African regional system can be taken back to the 13th century. Then after that, you know, you find quite, I mean, a lot, even before the UDHR was adopted, you know, there was this in 19, since 1943, actually. And this related to, I mean, the an effort, you know, by the African leaders, particularly during the independence period, during the independence, I mean, fight. There was this after the Second World War, there was this Atlantic Charter, which was signed by the U.S. government president Roosevelt and Churchill in 1941. I mean, arguing for right of self-determination for the colonies, but then they excluded Africa, they excluded African colonies. Now, this was challenged by some of the leaders of independence, including leaders from Ghana, leaders from Nigeria. I mean, when Churchill was asked why Africa, African countries were excluded from the Atlantic Charter, you know, Churchill is famously quoted as saying that the Atlantic Charter did not compel him to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. So they saw Africa as a property, so they don't want to let them go. They didn't want to give them right of self-determination. I mean, due to that, you know, in 1943, eight journalists from West Africa, led by the first president of Nigeria, then Namdi Aziqui, who eventually became the president, they adopted a memorandum, which they called the Atlantic Charter and British West Africa memorandum on post-war reconstruction of the colonies and protector of British West Africa. And they came to London to ask, you know, they use human rights terminologies, asking for human rights for Africa and also right to self-determination. A lot of the time, people don't, I mean, appreciate this. So the concept of human rights actually started in Africa, the language of human rights was being used, you know, by the leaders who were fighting for Africa's independence. Then, even before the UDHR was adopted, then from there, you find, if you look at the, you know, the evolution, you know, then after that, there was, I mean, even though this was denied, British, Britain denied this memorandum, they did not accept this memorandum, you know, in 1961, there was a Congress of African Jewish where the law of Lagos was adopted, talking about the need to protect human rights. Then the OAU was adopted in, Charter was in 1963. Then there were so, I mean, you see all this talk about 10 steps, you know, before, I mean, the African Charter and Human Rights was adopted in 1981. Now, if you look at this all through to 2021, the constitutive act of the African, you know, was adopted, you will see that the African countries have put in a lot into it. So I can argue that they were committed, they were really, really committed to this. Even though a lot of the time, people tend to look at the weakness of the African system rather than looking at its strengths. Now conceptualization of human rights, if you look also at conceptualization, you'll be able to see that, I mean, the African human rights system is very unique in the sense that, you know, it reflects, you know, it is intended to reflect African values and traditions, you know, I mean, human rights are accommodated, but then African values and traditions are inputted into it. And you'll find this in the preambles of almost all instruments on African human rights instruments. I'll give you some quotations from the preamble of the African Charter on human and people's rights of 1981. If you look at the preamble, you know, it talks about the fact that it says, taking into consideration the virtues of their historical tradition and the values of African civilization, which will inspire and characterize their reflection on the concept of human rights. I mean, and you will see these values being reflected actually in the substantive provisions of the Charter. Now look at this, it talks about people's rights, you know, I mean, people's rights is quite a unique concept within the African Charter. It talks about, I mean, performance of duties, you know, they are substantive provisions. It doesn't talk only about rights, it also reflects duties, you know, there's a big debate about rights and duties, I mean, at the universal level. Then, you know, they emphasize right to development because, you know, Africa needs to develop. I mean, right to development has fallen by the wayside, I mean, in the global north, you know, because of the debate about who would be the duty bearer in response to right to development. But in the African Charter, you find that it's part of the conceptualization of human rights. It talks also about, I mean, the duty to achieve the total liberation of Africa, you know, I mean, through human rights and also talks about traditional values attached. So, if you look at not only this, not only the African Charter, if you look at the, I mean, Protocol on Women's Rights, if you look at the Charter on the right and Welfare of the Child, all the preambles will reflect a conceptualization of the norms from an African traditional value perspective. Now, I mean, it's not only unique to Africa. If you look at the European Convention on Human Rights, try this, look at the preamble. You will see that even the European Convention, when it was adopted in 1950, the preamble indicates that they were adopting the Convention based on the common civilization that exists between the European countries. So you find out that, I mean, it's important to really to be able to appreciate this. Now, standard setting, when we talk about standard setting, the conceptualization becomes a real norms to refer to when we have them in instruments, you know, so the African original system has so many human rights instruments. The main ones are these, the African Charter on Human and People's Rights, which was adopted in 1981, went into force in 1986. The African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, you know, the universal one talks about the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The African one talks about the Rights and Welfare of the Child, adopted in 1990, went into force in 1999. Then we have the Protocol on the Rights of Women, adopted in 2003, went into force 2005. There are other instruments because we have a very short time. Now I've indicated the unique characteristics of the African Charter. It combines civil and political rights, economic, social, and cultural rights, and right to development together in one instrument. You wouldn't find any instrument that does this. At the universal level, the different general rights are separated. Then you find the importance of economic, social, and cultural rights, you know. I have indicated, I mean, to indicate that, I mean, the African tradition recognized the importance of economic, social, and cultural rights. I quote from, you know, an African novel written by Chinwachi in 1964, you know. Even before the universal documents were adopted, he was talking about the fact that, you know, a chief was praying and he was praying for the African people, his people. He says, you know, may you live and all your people. I too will live with all my people. But life alone is not enough. May we have the things with which to live it well, for there is a kind of slow and weary life which is worse than death. So what it's talking about is a right to life is not enough. You need economic, social, and cultural rights to make life meaningful. You need right to education. You need right to housing. You need what to make life meaningful, you know. So if you look at, I said, the last three sentences of that prayer, they picked what the concept of economic, social, and cultural rights is all about. So I mean, the African tradition knew about economic, social, and cultural rights even before these instruments were adopted. It also recognizes both individual and people's rights. It emphasizes the concept of individual duties and also special obligations for states, you know. Then the substantive rights are divided into individual rights and people's rights, which is also different from the Inversa one. Permissible limitations, you know, usually they call this, I mean, the clawback clauses. Usually many of the provisions are subject to law. But you find out that, I mean, the African commission and human rights have interpreted that to mean that anywhere you find these so-called clawback clauses, when the rights are subjected to law, you have to interpret it to mean subjected to international law, not to domestic law. So you find out that, I mean, the African commission has tried to move forward in order to enhance that. Now, moving on quickly, I mean, there are no derogation clauses. That's a particular, I mean, a particularism of the African Charter. You can't derogate from any of the provisions even during terms of emergency, you know. So although some rights are omitted, like rights to holidays and rest, rights to, I mean, social security. And I mean, these are also being debated. If you look at the African Charter and the rights and welfare of the child, there's a specific definition of the child. The CRC does not have a specific definition. The conditional rights of the children is very wooly, you know. But the African Charter has a specific definition, you know what you mean by a child. It has the concept of the welfare of the child, parental responsibilities. It also gives children responsibilities. Although there are debates about how do you enforce that against the children, you know, then there's protection against harmful practices, you know. Now implementation, then the unique characteristics of a woman's protocol, you know, be able to see a whole lot of unique rights in there as well. Then implementation. Sorry, Professor Masoud. I think maybe we're running a little bit out of time. Okay, that's fine. I mean, I will stop here. Especially just to provide attendees with the opportunity to ask questions. Okay, that's fine. But if there are no questions, by all means, I'll let you continue. But perhaps maybe we can solicit questions for now and see if anybody has any. Okay. Let's see if there's any points that anyone wants to raise regarding the conceptualization, the historical evolution, and also the standard setting which we've mentioned. I'm looking at the chart here. I mean, this is very interesting. I also want a copy of this for sure. So I'm sure that the students, prospective students will find it interesting as well. But that's fine. I mean, that's good. Ray, I can't see any. Let's see if there's any, I mean, any comments or any questions. I'll be happy to take them. I will send off the, I mean, the overview for anybody who wants to read through. Nothing is coming through. So maybe you can carry on, Professor Masoud. And if anything comes on, I'll just talk to you. Oh, just, I mean, does that make sense? Yeah. Okay. I mean, just about running up actually. I mean, the fourth point is in the implementation. And in the implementation, I mean, human rights are nothing except they are implemented. I mean, and that's the important point. This one implementation is important. And I mean, similar to other regional arrangements, you find out that, I mean, they are treaty bodies, which are not judicial institutions. They are quasi-judicial institutions. For example, you have the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, you know, and also we have the committee of experts on the rights and welfare of the child. So the treaties will normally have an implementational organ to ensure the implementation of the treaties. And if you look within that, you'll be able to see the mandates, you know, the mandates of the African Commission on Human and People's Rights, you know, mandate to promote human and people's rights, through organizing conferences and other things, and to ensure protection, you know. The protection aspect is that the commission has the mandate to receive what it calls communications from individuals whose rights have been violated in respective African states, you know. So and also they have the mandate to interpret all the provisions and they have used this very well, because many of the provisions that are very restrictive, the African Commission has used interpretations to broaden them. One of them is what I mentioned earlier about, I mean, the clawback process that is subjecting the rights to law. The African Commission have indicated that this will be interpreted to mean international law, not domestic law. So they have broadened that scope. You know, they can also perform in order to assign to them by the African head of states and governments. Similarly, the committee on, committee of experts on rights and welfare of the child, you can also see the mandate. Then there are also judicial mechanisms, you know. That's the African Court of Human and People's Rights. You know, this was created in 1998. The protocol was adopted in 1998 and it went into force in 2004. You know, you'll be able to see its mandate. It's only, I mean, it complements the protective mandate of the African Commission. You know, why the African Commission has the sole mandate of promotion. You know, so it shares the mandate of protection with the protecting human rights with the African Court. And you find this jurisdiction also indicated here. You know, it can give advisory opinions. It can also, you know, hear cases and give binding decisions. I mean, and they have really evolved over time. Actually, now the African Court of Human Rights publishes African Court law reports. You know, all its decisions, they publish it as law reports. You know, for you to be able to follow the decisions that they have given. And very, very interesting decisions in many instances. But, you know, evolution, you find out that, I mean, the African Court on Human and People's Rights was eventually combined because there was the African Court of Justice separately, you know. But because of finances, due to the suggestions of Muhammad Gawafi, you find out that, I mean, there was a protocol adopted merging, you know, merging the African Court of Human Rights with the African Court of Justice. You know, so it had two chambers. The court will have a human rights chamber and a general chamber addressing other issues apart from human rights. Then subsequently, you know, there was another protocol that was adopted amending, you know, the African Court of Justice and Human Rights, you know. And then, but it didn't go into force before another protocol was adopted again, you know, creating three chambers whereby, you know, it created, if you look at Article 16 of the last protocol, it created three chambers. You know, they said the court will have three sections. It has a general section, you know. On human and people's rights. Then it has, I mean, a criminal law section. It has added, you know, similar to the International Criminal Court. So you find out that although the statute has not gone into force now, it's still operating as the African Court of Human and People's Rights. But after the last protocol goes into force, it will have three chambers, having a chamber on International Criminal Court to address, I mean, issues of war crimes and things like that in Africa. Similarly, you have sub-regional courts, you know. The Equals Court of Justice now has a jurisdiction for human rights. This African Court has, you know, jurisdiction on human rights. The SADC, you know, South African Development Committee, it was suspended. It was also trying to acquire by itself, you know, by its own interpretation a human rights jurisdiction, you know. But SADC then suspended it. You know, it gave a human rights, I mean, decision against Zimbabwe. Then, I mean, accusing Zimbabwe of violating, I mean, property rights of people who brought cases to the SADC tribunal. So Zimbabwe and Mugabe then complained. So SADC suspended the SADC tribunal. And then they adopted another, I mean, treaty to say that, well, creating another court who will have strictly, you know, a non-human rights, I mean, jurisdiction. So in conclusion, you find out that, I mean, the African Human Rights System is, I mean, very interesting. It has evolved over time. And this is how I do it. In the conclusion, I will also give you quotes relating to, I mean, from reading materials to show what the system is all about, you know. So it has evolved over time. And it has, although it started very weak. But today, I mean, through learning from its mistakes, through the decisions of the Commission, decisions of the courts, you know, the African Human Rights System has really become, I mean, quite strong. So let me stop here. So if you have any comments you want to make, I mean, I'll be happy to take them. Thank you. Dan, do we have any time to take comments or questions? We can, we can spare about two minutes. Two minutes, okay. Sorry. Any come back on that. I do have my own question. I want to know how effective Professor Masoud thinks the Commission is in relation to complaints on human rights in the continent. Well, I mean, over time, as I said, I mean, the Commission started very weak. Because initially, I mean, when it makes decisions, it cannot publish it openly, except it has gone through the African heads of some states and governments. But through its procedural rules, you know, it found a way by which when it sent its reports, the report is a public document, it will attach the decisions to it as part of the report. So people are able to read it. But now, I mean, it has over time, you know, through its rules of procedure, they just amended their rules of procedure into 2020, which actually has expanded, you know, the capacity of the African Commission. They are doing better and doing well now. If you look at their decision, their decisions are better thought out. And I mean, I would say, I mean, they are having a very strong impact, particular in relation to promotion, but also in relation to protection. So do you think they are able to use the, if for example, NGOs are conducting some sort of advocacy campaign, are they able to use the commission now? Because previously, it used to be the case that the gestation period is too long, but also there is this gag on discussing the cases and all this stuff. So I'm not aware of the procedural amendments. If you look at the procedural element of 2020, these are one of the issues that has been addressed. Sure. I mean, you know, there have been a lot of lobbying. The African civil society organizations have become much more stronger in relation to what they do. And therefore they have been identified, I mean, as an important stakeholders. I mean, if you Google, you'll be able to see the new rules of procedural 2020, which is much more expansive now. They try to follow, you know, the European system to try as much as possible to open up a bit more. And their decisions now is being respected in the sense that it has political impact, similar to Europe. You know, African countries want to show that, well, we comply, we comply. And, you know, this is some political value to the States. Very interesting stuff. I think we came to the end of our time here. And we apologize for not having enough time to receive your questions. But you can email me if you would like. And I would forward it to Professor Masroud or Amelia if you want. And I'm just going to write down my email address for you. So if anybody has a question about the program or any of the material that we have discussed here today, please let me know. Thank you, everyone, for your time. And just to quickly promote the two live chat Q&As that we've got coming up on the 13th of April and the 25th of May, there for any general sort of non-subject specific questions that you have about studying at SOAS, this can include things like visas, accommodation, your applications, and more, anything related to this. But thank you, Nadia, for popping your email address into the chat. For anyone who's watching this webinar back and wishes to get in touch, the email for those law specific questions is na52atsoas.ac.uk. General questions and inquiries can be sent through to us at any time, though. And for those, you can email study at soas.ac.uk. Thank you, everyone, for your time today. Thank you. Thank you.