La pratique des opinions séparées au sein de la Cour Africaine des droits de l’Homme et des peuples

Abstract

The article analyses the practice of separate opinions in international courts, particularly the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights. Originating in the Anglo-Saxon tradition, they allow judges to express agreement or disagreement with a decision. Criticised by some, they are said to weaken collegiality, the authority of decisions, and judicial independence. However, they also enhance transparency, the quality of reasoning, understanding for litigants, and the legitimacy of courts. Although not legally binding, they sometimes influence case law and indicate future developments. At the African Court, they play a pedagogical role and help clarify the law despite their limited impact on decisions.

Key-words: Separate opinions; International judges; African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights; Judicial legitimacy; judicial development.