The Doctrine of State Immunity and Its Evolution Under International Law: Implications for Human Rights Accountability in Africa

This dissertation theoretically and empirically examines the evolution of the doctrine of state immunity under international law and its implications for human rights accountability in Africa, contributing an original analytical framework for assessing the tension between immunity norms and accountability obligations. State immunity, rooted in sovereign equality and the par in parem non habet imperium principle, traditionally shields states and their organs from civil jurisdiction in foreign courts, yet its application in cases involving grave human rights violations and international crimes has generated significant jurisprudential controversy. Drawing on the ICJ's jurisdictional immunities judgment, the ILC's work on immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction, and a systematic comparative analysis of decisions by UK, German, US, Italian, and South African courts, this research develops a theory of contextual immunity erosion that maps the conditions under which immunity protections are yielding to accountability demands. It applies this theory empirically to the Nigerian context, examining cases involving Nigerian state actors facing foreign civil and criminal proceedings for alleged human rights violations. The dissertation fills a gap in the literature on state immunity in the African context, which has been undertheorised relative to European scholarship. Original contributions include the contextual immunity erosion framework and an African state practice dataset on immunity claims in human rights cases. Findings indicate that the erosion of absolute immunity in human rights contexts is proceeding asymmetrically, with accountability gains concentrated in high-capacity jurisdictions. Keywords: state immunity, human rights, accountability, international law, Africa.