Turning then to the substance, the Court analyzed the Respondent States’ behavior vis-à-vis the readmission of the State in 2017.
Against this background, the African Court considered that the absence of conditional admission does not constitute an international wrongful act that could trigger the Member States’ individual or collective responsibility (para. 314). It indeed interpreted the concept of “assistance” of Article 20-3 of the Charter as leaving a wide margin of action for those States to provide their support to the occupied people. In addition, considering the voting rules under Article 29 of the AU Constitutive Act, the Court affirmed that the States individually or collectively would have not had the power to influence the outcome of the admission decision partly taken by simple majority by the AU Assembly (para. 318).
It therefore concluded to the non-violation of the right to self-determination. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous jurisprudence that no reparation was due in the absence of an international wrongful act.
There are many ways to read the decision. Yet, the outcome is a non-violation conclusion. However, the judgment may also be read as a call for political and diplomatic action for the AU, its members and the UN (para. 323) and a certain modesty of the African Court, pressured by the deep attachment of the States to the non-intervention principle. The cautious approach office 365 database adopted by the African Tribunal to the legal matters at stake is counterbalanced by a bold interpretation of the procedural conditions of the complaint and the overall outcome must be read in light of the current situation of backlash against the Court itself, illustrated by Tanzania, Benin and Côte d’Ivoire withdrawal of direct access of individuals to the Court above mentioned. As pointed out by Apollin Koagne Zouapet (here), these decisions are a “sword of Damoclès […]” for the Court, especially when matters with such an important political dimension are discussed.
The judgment could also be read in a broader international judicial context and in particular, in light with the Front Polisario ‘saga’ before the EU Court of Justice and the progressive development of the content and meaning of the “obligation to secure” (para. 343 of here) the rights of Sahrawi people. This obligation may have multiple dimensions in relation with the external relations of an international organization (European Union) and Morocco (here). The new judgement of the African Court sheds light on the internal dimension of the AU Members’ obligations and raises questions on the existence of an African collective guarantee system in the human rights field.