Analysis

While multinational companies at times play a notable role in conflicts and mass atrocity events, there is an ongoing debate on how and where to acknowledge their involvement when countries seek to come to terms with past wars or human rights violations. Should economic crimes and other types of corporate complicity be addressed within the Transitional Justice (‘TJ’) process? And considering that corporate involvement in conflicts is often transnational, what States and (domestic or international) judicial bodies should be involved in providing justice?

There is the potential to create regional or sub-regional frameworks, which through agreements can handle claims against companies within their territories. This may strengthen local regional capacity, alleviate the allegations of complicity of the state and exemplify the cooperative spirit embodied in more recent collaborative African action. It would demonstrate an attempt at African solutions which are not dependent on home states. Nevertheless, it may not be enough to counter the lack of legally binding responsibility grounded in international law, as it would not be able to bring parent companies, who reside outside the African jurisdiction, within its scope.

L'accès à la justice et à un recours effectif est un principe important reconnu par les systèmes juridiques nationaux, régionaux et internationaux. En Afrique du Sud, par exemple, ce principe est consacré par l’article 34 de la Constitution qui affirme le droit de toute personne à ce que sa cause soit entendue publiquement et équitablement devant une cour ou tout autre tribunal ou forum indépendant et impartial. Au plan régional, les différents instruments de protection des droits de l’homme contiennent tous, une disposition relative au droit d’accès à la justice. Dans ce sens, l’article 7 de la charte africaine des droits de l’homme et des peuples affirme le droit pour chaque personne à ce que sa cause soit entendue (Voir aussi l’article 6 CEDH et l’article 8 CADH). Ce principe a aussi été repris par certains textes internationaux récents tels que les Principes directeurs relatifs aux entreprises et aux droits de l’homme (p. 31) ou encore les Objectifs de développent durable (objectif n°16)

Notre propos entend déconstruire le narratif sur la responsabilité des entreprises multinationales porté par les vainqueurs de l’ordre international économique établi depuis la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Nous entendons ainsi mettre en lumière les rapports dominants/dominés, pour ne pas dire les nouveaux rapports coloniaux, déterminant la distribution de la justice dans cet ordre. Il va s’agir plus précisément d’identifier les logiques sous-tendant la justice pour les victimes des multinationales françaises dans les États d’Afrique noire francophone à l’aune du Point de contact national de la France pour les Principes directeurs de l’OCDE à l’intention des entreprises multinationales (ci-après PCN)

This symposium aims to encourage a more systematic and critical scholarly engagement with the delocalization of justice in BHR cases involving harms suffered in African states, and the Global South more broadly. It is our contention that until now, with some notable exceptions, scholarly debates in the BHR sphere have insufficiently focused on the justification for, effectiveness of, and alternatives to this uprooting strategy. Yet, this delocalization lies at the heart of many legal processes and regulatory mechanisms aimed at delivering justice (or corporate accountability) in the Global North for harms that occurred in the Global South. Interrogating this delocalization, and imagining alternative strategies that would enable local populations to gain greater agency through local political and legal processes, should be at the core of scholarship and activism in the BHR field.

Enforcement of intellectual property rights in Africa is not always a straightforward task. Plans crafted with reference only to enforcement in developed countries will not be a perfect fit to the African situation. Still, there are possible solutions to the issue of counterfeiting and piracy in Africa. Protective mechanisms are a reality. Passionate professionals both within the government and among law practitioners are eager to learn and for the current system to evolve into one which is efficient, and which adequately protect the African consumer from the dangers of counterfeiting. Our final word of advice to right holders would therefore be to surround yourself with professionals who know the continent and who will be able to craft the best possible strategy aligned with expectations and budget.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) enforcement in Africa holds the power to influence the extent to which foreign and local entities and individuals will register IPRs within and across African borders. Therefore, the book entitled Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2020), is a timely publication which provides key insights pertaining to IPRs enforcement.

The preparation of a book like Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2020), is a task that is both Herculean as well as Sisyphean. Herculean, because, with nearly 60 separate jurisdictions to cover, the enormity of the task cannot be overstated. Sisyphean, though, due to the impossibility for a book of this nature to be up to date and accurate; even before it is published, laws and situations will likely have changed in one or several jurisdictions. These two factors were clearly on the minds of the authors.

The book, Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2020), comes at a timely moment when the African continent is in a very critical stage of pursuing sustainable economic growth. Intellectual property rights have been prioritised continentally, regionally and at domestic levels as being a key part of this desired growth.

In Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights in Africa (Oxford University Press, 2020), Marius Schneider and Vanessa Ferguson have not only given good exposition on the IP regime in all 54 African countries but have also taught us social studies on the nations of Africa. Some of this information seems far in history but one can blame the authors, as sourcing information and statistics on African countries can be a herculean task. They have done very well in this regard!