Carnelian Journal of
LAW & POLITICS
Vol. V No. I - Supplementary
I. Indigenous African Conflict Resolution and Modern International Humanitarian Law:
Convergence, Divergence, and Cultural Integration
A.J. Fatehinse
Indigenous African Conflict Resolution and Modern International Humanitarian Law: Convergence, Divergence, and Cultural Integration
A.J. Fatehinse
Abstract
This Article examines the interplay between pre-colonial African conflict resolution systems and modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Through comparative analysis of indigenous practices—such as the Acholi mato oput ritual in Uganda, Tallensi battlefield protocols in Ghana, and Nupe warfare codes in Nigeria and IHL treaties (Geneva Conventions 1949, Additional Protocols 1977), the Article identifies significant convergences: protection of non-combatants, humane treatment of prisoners, and restorative justice principles. Divergences arise in codification, enforcement, and gender inclusivity, with traditional systems relying on oral customs and elder mediation while IHL emphasizes universal codification and ICC enforcement. The study argues for culturally sensitive IHL implementation via traditional leaders (e.g., Sierra Leonean chiefs collaborating with ICRC), leveraging their authority to enhance compliance in non-international armed conflicts under Common Article 3. Case studies demonstrate that integrating African restorative traditions with IHL's punitive accountability strengthens humanitarian protection in plural legal landscapes.
Keywords:
A.J. Fatehinse
Abstract
This Article examines the interplay between pre-colonial African conflict resolution systems and modern International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Through comparative analysis of indigenous practices—such as the Acholi mato oput ritual in Uganda, Tallensi battlefield protocols in Ghana, and Nupe warfare codes in Nigeria and IHL treaties (Geneva Conventions 1949, Additional Protocols 1977), the Article identifies significant convergences: protection of non-combatants, humane treatment of prisoners, and restorative justice principles. Divergences arise in codification, enforcement, and gender inclusivity, with traditional systems relying on oral customs and elder mediation while IHL emphasizes universal codification and ICC enforcement. The study argues for culturally sensitive IHL implementation via traditional leaders (e.g., Sierra Leonean chiefs collaborating with ICRC), leveraging their authority to enhance compliance in non-international armed conflicts under Common Article 3. Case studies demonstrate that integrating African restorative traditions with IHL's punitive accountability strengthens humanitarian protection in plural legal landscapes.
Keywords: