Abstract:
Following a decision of the High Court of Zimbabwe that the SADC
Tribunal is not recognised in the Zimbabwean Constitution as superior to
the national courts in Zimbabwe, there was an outcry in sections of the
media and civil society that the decision had undermined the regional
tribunal. This contribution analyses the ‘offending’ pronouncements in the
High Court decision from an international law perspective. Focusing on the
relationship between international law and Zimbabwean law on the one
hand, and the relationship between proceedings in international tribunals
and national legal proceedings on the other, this contribution critiques the
view that the decision of the Zimbabwe High Court undermines the SADC
Tribunal. Applying the effect of the dualist- monist debate on the
relationship between international law and municipal law, this contribution
argues that the decision in question does not negatively affect Zimbabwe’s
responsibility at international law. However, the contribution concludes that
for the sake of judicial integrity national judges should encourage respect
for the decisions of international tribunals as far as this is possible within the
limits of national constitutions.
