The Courts That Said No: From the South African Constitutional Court to the ICC, When International Law Actually Worked
This edition has documented, across fourteen articles, the architecture of failure: vetoed resolutions, voluntary codes nobody enforces, watchlists nobody can contest, treaties whose labour provisions exist to be cited rather than honoured. Not every case ends this way. The Meridian closes the documentation of failure and opens the documentation of reform with the cases where the law actually held -- and with a forensic look, through Mauritius's own published budget, at what it costs a state to fund the institutions that are supposed to make rulings like these mean something at home.
It would be dishonest, after fourteen articles examining the gap between the UDHR's promise and its delivery, to suggest that international and constitutional law never works. It does. Not often enough, not consistently enough, and not without the years of sustained advocacy, litigation, and political pressure that every successful case in this article required before a single binding judgment was issued. But it works often enough that the cases in which it has worked deserve the same forensic attention this edition has given to the cases in which it has not -- because they demonstrate, with evidentiary precision, that the architecture of enforcement this edition has criticised throughout is not inherently incapable of delivering justice. It is selectively deployed, chronically underfunded, and political in ways that determine, case by case, whether it will be allowed to function.
In September 2018, the Constitutional Court of South Africa, in Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development v Prince, ruled unanimously that the prohibition on the private use and cultivation of cannabis by adults in their own homes was unconstitutional, violating the right to privacy guaranteed under Section 14 of the South African Constitution. The Court applied a rigorous proportionality analysis -- the same kind of analysis this edition's Article 2, on the distinction between malum in se and malum prohibitum, argued the global prohibition architecture has consistently failed to apply with honesty -- and concluded that the state had not demonstrated a sufficiently compelling justification for criminalising a private act that caused no demonstrated harm to others.
The ruling did not legalise commercial cannabis sale or public consumption. It did something more specific and, in constitutional terms, more significant: it established that a state cannot criminalise private conduct within a person's own home without meeting a rigorous evidentiary burden of justification, and that decades of prohibition policy, defended by reference to public health concerns the state's own evidence did not substantiate, failed that burden. The case is, among the cannabis prohibition rulings issued anywhere in the world to date, one of the clearest demonstrations that a constitutional court, applying ordinary proportionality analysis with intellectual honesty, will find the prohibition architecture this edition has documented extensively wanting.
This edition's Article 12, on Frontex pushback practices in the Aegean, referenced the European Court of Human Rights' 2012 ruling in Hirsi Jamaa and Others v Italy without fully detailing what the case established. It deserves fuller treatment here, because it is among the clearest demonstrations available of a court applying existing human rights law correctly, against a politically powerful state, in a case directly on point with the violations this edition has since documented continuing more than a decade after the ruling.
The case concerned Italian coast guard interception of a vessel carrying Somali and Eritrean migrants in international waters in 2009, who were summarily returned to Libya without any individual assessment of their asylum claims. The Grand Chamber of the ECtHR ruled, unanimously across seventeen judges, that Italy had violated the prohibition on collective expulsion under Protocol 4 of the European Convention, the prohibition on inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3, given the conditions the returnees faced in Libya, and the right to an effective remedy under Article 13. The ruling established, with binding precedential force across all Council of Europe states, that interception and return without individual assessment is unlawful regardless of whether it occurs within territorial waters or on the high seas.
Hirsi Jamaa is correctly decided law. It has been binding precedent for fourteen years. The Aegean pushbacks this edition documented in Article 12 are not occurring because the law is unclear. They are occurring because the political will to enforce a ruling the law has already delivered does not currently exist in the states whose coast guards continue the practice.
Every successful case in this article shares a structural feature this edition's pattern of failure has lacked: a domestic or regional judicial body with genuine institutional independence, a binding enforcement mechanism within its own jurisdiction, and -- critically -- sustained civil society litigation and advocacy that built the evidentiary record and political pressure necessary to bring the case to a court capable of ruling on it. The South African cannabis case followed years of advocacy by South African civil society organisations. Hirsi Jamaa followed sustained documentation by human rights organisations operating in the Mediterranean. The Colombian abortion ruling followed a multi-year feminist legal campaign that built the constitutional argument case by case.
None of these victories happened because international law's text changed. The UDHR, the European Convention, and the constitutional texts these courts applied had existed, in most cases, for decades before the rulings that vindicated them. What changed was the presence of an institution -- a court -- with genuine independence and binding authority within its jurisdiction, willing to apply the law as written rather than as politically convenient. This is the single variable that, across every case in this article and every failure documented elsewhere in this edition, determines outcome more reliably than any other factor: institutional capacity and independence, not legal text.
This is where the architecture of success and the architecture of failure converge, and nowhere is the convergence more precisely documented than in Mauritius's own published government budget for its National Human Rights Commission -- the domestic institution legally responsible, under Mauritian law, for exactly the kind of independent investigation and enforcement capacity that produced every successful ruling examined above.
The Commission's mandated function, as stated in its own budget documentation, is the protection and promotion of the human rights of the population -- the precise institutional role that, when adequately resourced and genuinely independent, produces rulings like Prince and Hirsi Jamaa. Mauritius's own budget papers for the National Human Rights Commission, covering the 2024/25 to 2027/28 fiscal years, allow a forensic assessment of whether that institutional capacity actually exists.
Two figures in this budget deserve particular attention. The first is the operating expenditure available for the Commission's actual investigative and outreach function, separate from staff salaries: Rs 8.5 million in 2024/25, approximately $190,000, for the entire country's national human rights investigation and public sensitisation capacity. The second is the zero capital expenditure budgeted across every single year of the four-year projection -- meaning no investment in the equipment, infrastructure, or institutional capacity expansion that the Commission's own stated key challenge, explicitly named in its own budget submission, identifies as a problem: limited capacity to conduct investigations and outreach programmes.
The Commission's published budget identifies, in its own key challenges section, an evolving landscape of human rights concerns and a limited capacity to conduct investigations and outreach programmes. Its proposed strategy for addressing the second challenge is not increased domestic funding. It is to strengthen engagement with international human rights organisations to leverage expertise and resources -- an institutional admission that the Commission expects to compensate for its own under-resourcing by drawing on external capacity rather than receiving the budget required to build that capacity domestically.
This is the same structural pattern this edition has documented at the international level throughout: an institution with a genuine human rights mandate, formally established and legally empowered, operating with insufficient resources to exercise that mandate at the scale its own stated challenges require, and proposing reliance on external goodwill rather than binding domestic investment as the solution.
The South African cannabis ruling, the Hirsi Jamaa precedent, and the Colombian abortion decision were each preceded by years of investigation, evidence-gathering, and case-building that required sustained institutional capacity -- capacity that civil society organisations in each jurisdiction were able to mobilise, in part because the broader human rights infrastructure surrounding the courts that eventually ruled was sufficiently resourced to support multi-year litigation campaigns. An institution operating with $190,000 a year in non-staff operating costs, with zero capital investment budgeted across a four-year horizon, is not equipped to build the kind of sustained, evidence-rich case record that produced any of the victories this article has documented.
This is not a criticism unique to Mauritius. It is, on the available evidence, a structural pattern across national human rights institutions in much of the Global South -- bodies formally established, often in direct response to international pressure or as a condition of development assistance, and then funded at a level that ensures they can maintain a functioning office and a public reporting function, but not at a level that permits the kind of independent investigative capacity that distinguishes the courts that said no from the institutions that, by under-resourcing, are quietly positioned to keep saying nothing at all.
The South African Constitutional Court, the European Court of Human Rights in Hirsi Jamaa, and the Colombian Constitutional Court on reproductive rights demonstrate that the architecture of judicial human rights enforcement this edition has criticised throughout is not inherently broken. Given genuine institutional independence, binding authority, and the sustained evidentiary case-building that civil society and properly resourced institutions can provide, courts apply the law as written and produce real, binding, life-changing rulings.
Mauritius's own National Human Rights Commission budget demonstrates, with a precision that requires no inference, what the absence of that resourcing looks like in practice: a mandate to protect and promote human rights, an institutional acknowledgement that it lacks the capacity to fulfil that mandate, zero capital investment across four budget years to address the gap, and a proposed solution that relies on borrowed international expertise rather than the domestic investment that institutional capacity actually requires.
The courts that said no did not say no because international human rights law is uniquely powerful in the jurisdictions where they sit. They said no because someone, over years, built the case that made saying no possible -- and that case-building requires resources that most national human rights institutions across the Global South, Mauritius included on its own published figures, are not currently given. The next chapter of this edition asks what it would take to close that gap. This article has shown, in unusually precise terms, exactly how wide it currently is.
Add comment
Comments