2011-NMMU-Research-Report - Research Management - Nelson ...

Mr Abrahams’ area of research covers the
much needed realisation on the African
continent and the Middle East that
protection of fundamental human rights
of victims during armed conflict is pivotal.
Mr Abrahams observes that the Faculty of Law’s mentorship
programme has to a large extent been very helpful in aiding his
research. He has been very fortunate to have had Prof Avinash
Govindjee as his mentor.
He is currently registered for his doctoral studies and the
title of his PhD is: The Meaning and Limits of the Prohibition of
Collective Punishment in International Humanitarian Law and
(possibly) Human Rights Law. It is often the case that, during an
armed conflict soldiers as members of the armed forces, and
dissidents or rebel groups, engage in the practise of collective
punishment. These acts range from house demolitions, military
raids, damage to infrastructure, closures and curfews, and may
include economic sanctions; the list is not a numerus clausus.
Often states that engage in these acts raise the argument that
their conduct amounts to mere countermeasures to already
existing brutal attacks from the opposing party to the conflict.
No doubt that there are strict prohibitions against collective
punishments in international humanitarian law, international
human rights law, and international criminal law. Yet states
continue to engage in the practise of collective punishment, or at
least (arguably) allow rebel groups who might be under that state’s
control, to engage in acts of collective punishment. This leads
to an array of questions: Are there situations where a state may
legitimately engage in collective punishment? Under what circumstances?
Is the prohibition of collective punishment in international
law absolute? Are there any limitations to the prohibition? Do
the international instruments provide a concise definition of the
concept "collective punishment"?
To date, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court does
not include collective punishment as a war crime. It is interesting
to note that the Special Court for Sierra Leone is probably the
only court since Nuremberg that has given consideration to the
concept of collective punishment. Despite their arguably being a
customary prohibition on collective punishment, the question is
whether the Rome Statute needs to be amended to include and list
the crime specifically, or whether underlying acts (under the guise
of collective punishment) are sufficiently addressed by existing
enumerated war crimes.
Monograph: South Africa
and the Law of the Sea
Prof Patrick Vrancken
105
Being at the confluence of the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian Ocean and
the Southern Ocean, South Africa plays a considerable role in the
smooth running of maritime commerce and the diverse efforts to
ensure the sustainable development of the marine environment.
Professor Vrancken’s monograph, South Africa and the Law of the Sea
brings together the many threads of the rich South African marine
law tapestry by covering both the public international law as context
and the details of South African marine law and policy within their
African framework. The result is a tool to foster implementation,
coordination and further research at the domestic level as well as
a platform to facilitate comparative work to strengthen Africa’s
jurisprudence and influence in maritime matters.