- Record: found
- Abstract: found
- Article: found
Addressing Colonial Crimes Through Reparations: The Mau Mau, Herero and Nama
Abstract
Britain and Germany had expansive colonial agendas in Africa from the mid to late 1800s, and both the British authorities in Kenya and the German authorities in Namibia were responsible for the commission of state crimes. This article explores reparations for state crimes committed during the colonial period and specifically examines how reparations should be afforded for crimes committed during colonization given the length of time that has passed. The authors focus on the cases of the Mau Mau and the Herero and Nama peoples and discuss present-day litigation and movements that have arisen from the commission of state crimes against these groups. The current framework for reparations is discussed, and a holistic and balanced formula that should be applied for those seeking justice for these state crimes is outlined.
Content
Author and article information
Notes
Ndiku Mutua & Others vs The Foreign and Commonwealth [2011] EWHC (QB) 1913.
Ndiku Mutua & Others vs The Foreign and Commonwealth [2011] EWHC (QB) 1913, para. 156.
Ndiku Mutua & Others vs The Foreign and Commonwealth [2011] EWHC (QB) 1913.
Factory at Chorzow, Germany v. Poland, Judgment, Claim for Indemnity, Merits, Judgment No 13 (1928) PCIJ Series A No 17, ICGJ 255, 13 September 1928.
The Herero People's Reparations Corporation, et al., Plaintiffs v. Deutsche Bank AG, et al., Defendants. Civ No. 01–01868 (CKK), 31 July 2003.
The Herero People's Reparations Corporation, et al., Appellant v. Deutsche Bank, A.G, and Woermann Line, d/b/a Deutsche Afrika-LinienGmblt & Company Appellees, No 03–7110, 11 June 2004.
Hereros v. Deutsche Afrika-LinienGmblt f/k/a/ Weormann Line, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 05-cv-01872), April 2007, page 4.
Hereros v. Deutsche Afrika-LinienGmblt f/k/a/ Weormann Line, On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (D.C. No. 05-cv-01872), April 2007, page 9, Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692, 124 S. Ct. 2739, 159 L.Ed.2d 718 (2004).
Rukoro, et al. v. Federal Republic of Germany, Civ. No. 17–002, Class Action Complaint, January 2017, (para. 1). United States District Court Southern District of New York.
Croatia v. Serbia [2015] International Court of Justice, para. 475, dissenting opinion of Judge Cancado.
Croatia v. Serbia [2015] International Court of Justice, paras 476–477, dissenting opinion of Judge Cancado.
Croatia v. Serbia [2015] International Court of Justice, para. 477, dissenting opinion of Judge Cancado.
Croatia v. Serbia [2015] International Court of Justice, paras 476–477, dissenting opinion of Judge Cancado.
The Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga , Case No. ICC-01/04–01/07–3728, Ordonnance de réparation en vertu de l'article 75 du Statut, 24 March 2017, https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/record.aspx?docNo=ICC-01/04–01/07–3728.
The Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi , Case No. ICC-01/12–01/15–236, Reparations Order, 17 August 2017, https://www.icc-cpi.int/Pages/record.aspx?docNo=ICC-01/12–01/15–236.
It should be noted that reparations may not necessarily be pursued as each situation involving mass atrocities is unique to the people, places and the time in which they occur. See Roht-Arriaza and Mariezcurrena (2006).
International Court of Justice, Republic of Guinea v. Democratic Republic of Congo , 30 November 2010, paras 1–101. Judge Cancado.