Even though the editors of this book, Lilian Chenwi and Takele Soboka Bulto, declare that their humble aim is to ‘address, among other things, the question of whether African regional human rights instruments impose extraterritorial obligations on states parties and, if so, the extent and scope of these obligations’, they have edited an excellent and significant collection of essays far beyond their intention. The authors can be excused for their deliberate modesty because many national and thematic articles by a cast of human rights scholars in this book address more than the ‘the nature and extent of extraterritorial human rights obligations recognised by African regional human rights instruments’. In the first chapter of the book, the editors undertake a comparative examination of extraterritoriality in the African human rights system. However, even though the editors critically examine a number of African regional human rights instruments that recognise extraterritorial human rights obligations, their brief discussion of the character of extraterritorial human rights obligations in Africa human rights law as ‘collective’, ‘universal’, ‘accountable’ and ‘secondary’ merit further discussion. Even though a fuller consideration of these themes would have enriched the book, there are other parts of the book that explore these themes. Be that as it may, this chapter is commendable because of the careful manner in which state obligations that give rise to extraterritorial obligations in African regional human rights instruments that are considered. Two of the cases discussed in this chapter concern the jurisprudence of the African Commission on the extraterritorial reach of the African Charter provide an additional basis for the conclusion that extraterritorial human rights obligations exist within the African human rights system. While the evidence of such presence appears thin, the significance of this book is its inspiration towards a better understanding of extraterritoriality in Africa. This chapter would have been enriched by a discussion of the potentials of African regional economic community human rights regimes in recognising extraterritorial human rights obligations. Given the trajectory of human rights development in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the East African Community (ECA) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), it is likely that extraterritorial human rights obligations arising from treaty obligations of member states of these communities would easily be recognised. The decision of the South African Constitutional Court in Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v Fink suggests a deeper analysis of national enforcement of regional judicial decisions against member states. Related to this point is a clarification Frans Viljoen offers in his foreword to the book, which points out the need to distinguish between obligations of African Union (AU)

中文翻译：

---

非洲视角下的域外人权义务

尽管本书的编辑 Lilian Chenwi 和 Takele Soboka Bulto 宣称，他们的卑微目标是“除其他外，解决非洲区域人权文书是否对缔约国施加域外义务的问题，如果是这样，这些义务的程度和范围”，他们编辑了一系列出色而重要的论文，远远超出了他们的意图。作者的刻意谦虚是可以原谅的，因为本书中由一群人权学者撰写的许多国家和专题文章所讨论的不仅仅是“非洲区域人权文书承认的域外人权义务的性质和范围”。在本书的第一章中，编辑们对非洲人权体系中的治外法权进行了比较研究。然而，尽管编辑们批判性地审查了一些承认域外人权义务的非洲区域人权文书，但他们对非洲人权法中域外人权义务的特征的简要讨论是“集体的”、“普遍的”、“负责任的”和“次要”值得进一步讨论。尽管更全面地考虑这些主题会丰富本书，但本书的其他部分也探讨了这些主题。尽管如此，本章还是值得称赞的，因为在审议非洲区域人权文书中引起域外义务的国家义务时，采取了谨慎的态度。本章讨论的两个案例涉及非洲委员会关于《非洲宪章》治外法权范围的判例，为非洲人权体系内存在治外人权义务的结论提供了额外的基础。虽然这种存在的证据似乎很少，但这本书的意义在于它启发人们更好地了解非洲的治外法权。本章本来可以通过讨论非洲区域经济共同体人权制度在承认域外人权义务方面的潜力而充实。鉴于西非国家经济共同体（ECOWAS）、东非共同体（ECA）和南部非洲发展共同体（SADC）的人权发展轨迹，这些社区成员国的条约义务引起的域外人权义务很可能会得到承认。南非宪法法院在津巴布韦共和国政府诉芬克案中的裁决表明，对针对成员国的地区司法裁决的国家执行情况进行了更深入的分析。与这一点相关的是 Frans Viljoen 在他的书的前言中提供的澄清，其中指出需要区分非洲联盟 (AU) 的义务 南非宪法法院在津巴布韦共和国政府诉芬克案中的裁决表明，对针对成员国的地区司法裁决的国家执行情况进行了更深入的分析。与这一点相关的是 Frans Viljoen 在他的书的前言中提供的澄清，其中指出需要区分非洲联盟 (AU) 的义务 南非宪法法院在津巴布韦共和国政府诉芬克案中的裁决表明，对针对成员国的地区司法裁决的国家执行情况进行了更深入的分析。与这一点相关的是 Frans Viljoen 在他的书的前言中提供的澄清，其中指出需要区分非洲联盟 (AU) 的义务