Book review: Canefe N <i>Critical Perspectives on Crimes against Humanity: The Limits of Universal Jurisdiction in the Global South</i> (University of Wales Press 2020)

Abstract

In the current anti-accountability sentiment that has plagued most of Africa, triggered by the nasty politics of selectivity that is primarily motivated by considerations of realpolitik or the interests of specific states, Canefe's book lays bare the fundamental moral, legal and philosophical standpoint that advances the argument that perpetrators of mass atrocities must be held accountable. Unfortunately, the reality is different. She explores the vast (and almost impossible) impediments to attaining such an objective. Recognising the distinct and persuasive voices echoed by scholars from the Global South, the book examines the utilitarian effectiveness of using universal jurisdiction as a means towards this end. The critical views and responses of scholars who belong to TWAIL (an intellectual blog that is hotly and hardly contested by their counterparts from the Global North) expose, debunk and denounce the legitimacy of international law. The book argues that an international legal order that is largely mono-culturalistic, developed from selected principles, values and opinions from the West, cannot and should not be taken as a prototype of the global legal order. Instead, legal pluralism as a distinct feature of a diverse and multicultural world requires that a consensus is obtained: this is crucial if the world seeks to achieve what she calls a "neutralized universalization" of international law.