Conflicts Emerging at the Intersection of International Law and Sovereignty of State: Special Reference to Kenya

Conflicts Emerging at the Intersection of International Law and Sovereignty of State: Special Reference to Kenya

Berebere Versity

Department of International Relations, United States International University Africa

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2024.8110262

Received: 14 November 2024; Accepted: 19 November 2024; Published: 23 December 2024

ABSTRACT

The intersection of international law and state sovereignty presents complex challenges, particularly for African countries. As the global legal framework evolves, tensions arise between the principles of national self-determination and the obligations imposed by international treaties and norms. Many African nations, having gained independence relatively recently, are particularly sensitive to perceived infringements on their sovereignty. This often manifests in resistance to international interventions, even when aimed at addressing human rights violations or conflicts. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has been a flashpoint, with some African leaders accusing it of bias and neo-colonialism. Conversely, international law can serve as a tool for African states to assert their rights and interests on the global stage. It provides a framework for addressing transnational issues like climate change, terrorism, and economic development. Regional bodies like the African Union have also developed their own legal mechanisms, attempting to balance continental solidarity with international obligations. The principle of “responsibility to protect” (R2P) further complicates this dynamic. While aimed at preventing atrocities, its application has been controversial, as seen in Libya in 2011. Critics argue that such interventions can be pretexts for regime change, undermining state sovereignty. Ultimately, African countries must navigate a delicate balance between maintaining their independence and engaging productively with the international legal order. This informed research questions including; i) What are the specific areas of conflict of international law and sovereignty of African states? ii) What challenges and tensions emerge in international forums for Kenya in protecting its sovereignty while adhering to international law? and iii) How do Kenya’s stand in protecting her sovereignty in international law compared to other states? iv) What are the implications in Kenya’s stand in protecting her sovereignty in international law? This study employed a qualitative research approach, utilizing a comprehensive literature review to address the research questions. The article concludes that Kenya faces a delicate balance between honoring international obligations and protecting its sovereignty, especially when international standards conflict with cultural norms or regulatory autonomy. By pursuing legal reform, strengthening institutional capacity, and engaging in cooperative regional and international efforts, Kenya can enhance its compliance with global standards while addressing domestic needs.

Key words: Conflicts, International Law, Kenya, Sovereignty, State

INTRODUCTION

The complex relationship between international law and state sovereignty has evolved significantly since the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which established the foundation of the modern state system (Shaw, 2017). This seminal treaty introduced the concept of sovereign states as the primary actors in international relations, marking a departure from the medieval hierarchical order.

The traditional Westphalian model of sovereignty emphasizes states’ exclusive authority within their territories and their independence from external interference. However, as Brownlie (2019) argues, the development of international law has gradually modified this absolute conception of sovereignty. The 20th century, in particular, witnessed significant changes in how sovereignty is understood and exercised within the international legal framework.

After World War II, the establishment of the United Nations in 1945 marked a crucial turning point. The UN Charter codified principles that both protect and limit state sovereignty. While Article 2(1) affirms the “sovereign equality of all its Members,” Article 2(7) prohibits intervention in domestic matters, except for Chapter VII enforcement measures (Kelsen, 2016).

Contemporary international law has further evolved to address global challenges that transcend national boundaries. Human rights law, environmental treaties, and international criminal law have created what Henkin (2015) describes as “consent-based limitations” on state sovereignty. States voluntarily accept these restrictions by entering into treaties and participating in international organizations.

The emergence of global governance mechanisms has led to what some scholars call “pooled sovereignty,” where states share their sovereign powers to address common challenges (Slaughter, 2018). This is particularly evident in regional organizations like the European Union, where member states delegate certain sovereign powers to supranational institutions.

Overview of Kenya’s position in the international legal system

Kenya’s position in the international legal system is anchored in its constitutional framework and international commitments. Article 2(6) of the 2010 Constitution of Kenya explicitly recognizes that international law forms part of Kenyan law, demonstrating the country’s monist approach to international legal obligations (Kabau & Njoroge, 2016).

As a member of the United Nations since 1963, Kenya actively participates in international treaty-making and has ratified numerous international conventions. The country’s engagement with international law is particularly evident in its membership in regional organizations like the East African Community (EAC) and the African Union (AU) (Gathii, 2019).

Kenya’s relationship with the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been complex, highlighting tensions between international justice mechanisms and state sovereignty. Despite initial cooperation, Kenya’s experience with the ICC has influenced its stance on international criminal justice (Mueller, 2018).

In commercial matters, Kenya has strengthened its position by ratifying key trade agreements and investment treaties. The country serves as a regional hub for international arbitration, particularly through the Nairobi Centre for International Arbitration (Muigua, 2017).

Research objectives and significance

This research aimed at fulfilling the following research objectives

1. To identify the specific areas of conflict of international law and sovereignty of African states
2. To examine the challenges and tensions emerge in international forums for Kenya in protecting its sovereignty while adhering to international law
3. To evaluate how Kenya’s stand in protecting her sovereignty in international law compare to other states
4. To analyze the implications in Kenya’s stand in protecting her sovereignty in international law

The significance of fulfilling these research objectives lies in understanding the complex dynamics between international law and African state sovereignty, particularly Kenya’s experience. These questions help identify unique African challenges through revealing specific tensions between African states’ sovereignty and international legal obligations. This also highlights post-colonial considerations in international law application.

Through answering these objectives, one is able to understand Kenya’s Policy Framework. The study examines Kenya’s balancing act between international obligations and national interests. It thus, reveals strategies used to protect sovereignty while maintaining international commitments. For comparative analysis benefits, response to these objectives provides lessons from other states’ experiences as well as helps identify best practices in sovereignty protection. This also stretches into enabling assessment of Kenya’s relative position globally.

In terms of policy implications, a response to these research objectives informs future policy decisions on international engagement. The study will help in identifying areas needing reform or strengthening. The study also contributes to developing more effective approaches to international law while protecting national interests. Thus, understanding these aspects is crucial for policymakers, diplomats, and scholars in developing effective international legal strategies that protect sovereignty while maintaining beneficial international relationships.

METHODOLOGY

The study employed a systematic literature review methodology to comprehensively analyze the relationship between international law and state sovereignty, with a specific focus on Kenya and African states. Following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines (Page et al., 2021), this methodology ensured methodological rigor and transparency throughout the research process.

The data collection process involved a multi-tiered approach utilizing various academic databases. Primary databases including JSTOR, HeinOnline, Westlaw, and LexisNexis were extensively utilized, following Snyder’s (2019) comprehensive research methodology framework. Secondary databases such as Google Scholar and African Journals Online (AJOL) supplemented these sources. Additionally, international organizations’ repositories, particularly UN documents and AU legal documents, provided crucial primary sources for the research (Petticrew & Roberts, 2018).

To ensure comprehensive coverage, the search strategy employed specific keywords and Boolean operators, as recommended by Okoli and Schabram (2020). The time frame focused primarily on literature published between 2010-2023, while also incorporating selected seminal works from 1963 (Kenya’s independence) onwards to provide historical context.

The study implemented strict inclusion and exclusion criteria to maintain quality and relevance, following Boell and Cecez-Kecmanovic’s (2015) systematic review guidelines. Data analysis followed a three-pronged approach aligned with Whittemore and Knafl’s (2017) integrative review methodology, incorporating systematic coding, quality assessment, and synthesis processes.

The research acknowledged several ethical considerations, as outlined by Wager and Wiffen (2021), including proper source attribution, accurate representation of findings, and recognition of potential biases. However, certain limitations were noted, aligning with challenges identified by Moher et al. (2019) in systematic review methodologies.

To maintain research quality, various control measures were implemented, following Khan et al.’s (2018) quality assurance framework. This systematic approach facilitated a nuanced understanding of the complex interplay between international law and state sovereignty in the African context, with particular emphasis on Kenya’s experience and position in the international legal system (Gathii, 2020).

Theoretical Framework

This study was guided by two theories; the concept of State Sovereignty and the International Law Framework.

Concept of State Sovereignty

The traditional Westphalian concept of sovereignty, established in 1648, emphasizes absolute state authority within territorial boundaries (Krasner, 2018). This classical interpretation, as described by Bodin’s theory, presents sovereignty as supreme, perpetual, and indivisible power within a state’s territory (Jackson, 2019). Contemporary understanding of sovereignty has evolved to recognize limitations imposed by international law and human rights obligations (Henkin, 2017).

Sovereignty now encompasses responsibility, as articulated in the “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine, suggesting states must protect their populations and respect international norms (Evans, 2020).

Globalization has transformed sovereignty into what Slaughter (2018) terms “networked sovereignty,” where states share authority through international institutions and agreements. Economic interdependence, transnational challenges, and technological advancement have created what Held (2019) describes as “pooled sovereignty,” where states collectively address global issues while maintaining core sovereign rights.

The relationship between Kenya’s sovereignty and international law reveals a complex set of challenges at the intersection of national independence and global obligations. This conflict manifests in various ways, including transformations in the understanding of sovereignty, legal framework tensions, contemporary challenges, and the practical implications that Kenya faces as it navigates the demands of both internal governance and international engagement.

Kenya, along with many other African nations, grapples with the evolving nature of sovereignty, where traditional notions of absolute national control increasingly conflict with modern international obligations (Jackson, 2019). Traditionally, sovereignty implied complete autonomy in decision-making. However, contemporary global governance demands that states participate in what has been called “networked sovereignty,” a shift that affects Kenya’s independent decision-making capacity on international matters. This transformation reflects a broader trend in which sovereignty is no longer a strictly national affair, especially for states engaged in international systems of cooperation, trade, and security.

Kenya’s constitutional framework must reconcile the sometimes-competing demands of sovereign rights with international obligations. A particular source of friction is the “Responsibility to Protect” (R2P) doctrine, which asserts that the international community can intervene in a state’s affairs to prevent human rights abuses (Evans, 2020. While this doctrine is rooted in the moral imperative to protect human rights, it challenges Kenya’s preference for autonomous governance, as external entities may intervene under R2P in cases that Kenya might otherwise consider internal issues. Balancing such doctrines with national legal frameworks exemplifies the tension between maintaining Kenya’s sovereignty and adhering to international legal standards.

Kenya faces practical challenges in retaining its sovereignty while being an active participant in the global community. Global economic interdependence, for instance, constrains Kenya’s ability to enact fully independent policy decisions, as international financial systems and trade agreements necessitate a degree of compliance with international standards (Slaughter, 2018). Furthermore, Kenya’s membership in regional bodies, such as the East African Community (EAC), means it must adapt its traditional views of sovereignty to align with regional integration goals. This evolving understanding of sovereignty highlights how participation in supranational bodies reshapes Kenya’s domestic and foreign policies, often pushing the country toward shared or “pooled” sovereignty in exchange for economic and strategic benefits.

In practical terms, Kenya must often choose between protecting national interests and meeting international obligations. Global challenges like terrorism, climate change, and trade require Kenya to cooperate with international and regional organizations. Such cooperation leads Kenya to engage in “pooled sovereignty” arrangements, where authority is shared across borders to achieve common goals. However, mechanisms like international criminal justice occasionally create conflicts with Kenya’s assertion of sovereignty, as international courts may claim jurisdiction over cases that Kenya would prefer to handle domestically. These tensions reflect the ongoing challenge for Kenya to preserve its sovereign authority while effectively participating in the international legal system.

In sum, Kenya’s relationship with international law underscores the difficulty of balancing sovereign authority with the responsibilities and pressures of global membership. This dynamic, marked by evolving sovereignty, legal framework tensions, and practical challenges, highlights Kenya’s struggle to maintain national independence while fulfilling its obligations in an interconnected world. As Kenya continues to adapt to these shifting demands, it faces the critical task of navigating its role in a globalized society without compromising its national identity and governance autonomy.

International Law Framework

International law’s intersection with state sovereignty presents complex dynamics, particularly for developing nations like Kenya. This framework encompasses various elements that both protect and limit state sovereignty.

Kenya’s engagement with international law is primarily guided by Article 2(5) and 2(6) of the Constitution of Kenya 2010, which incorporates international law into domestic legal framework (Kabau & Njoroge, 2016). The primary sources, as outlined in Article 38 of the ICJ Statute, include treaties, customary international law, and general principles of law (Shaw, 2019). Kenya’s participation in international treaties demonstrates its commitment to international legal obligations while maintaining sovereign interests (Gathii, 2020).

Kenya’s international obligations stem from various sources, including ratified treaties and customary international law. The Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, to which Kenya is a party, establishes the principle of pacta sunt servanda, requiring states to fulfill their treaty obligations in good faith (Brownlie, 2018). However, tensions emerge when international obligations conflict with domestic priorities, as evidenced in Kenya’s experiences with the International Criminal Court (Mueller, 2017).

The UN Charter enshrines sovereign equality as a fundamental principle of international law. For Kenya, this principle provides theoretical protection against more powerful states while ensuring equal participation in international forums (Anghie, 2019). However, practical challenges emerge in economic and political relationships where power imbalances affect the implementation of this principle (Mutua, 2021).

Kenya’s Legal Framework

The intersection of international law and state sovereignty remains a critical point of tension for many countries, including Kenya. Kenya’s Constitution and legal framework contain specific provisions addressing the relationship between national sovereignty and international law, yet the integration and application of these laws present complex challenges. This essay examines constitutional provisions in Kenya relating to the status of international law in Kenya’s legal system, the treaty ratification process, and mechanisms for implementing international obligations, highlighting the inherent conflicts at this intersection.

The 2010 Kenyan Constitution established a foundational change in the relationship between domestic and international law. Article 2(5) and (6) of the Constitution states that “the general rules of international law shall form part of the law of Kenya” and that “any treaty or convention ratified by Kenya shall form part of the law of Kenya under this Constitution” (Republic of Kenya, 2010). This provision incorporates international law directly into the Kenyan legal framework, meaning that ratified treaties and conventions hold domestic legal weight.

However, challenges arise when specific international obligations conflict with Kenyan law or customs, particularly in areas where sovereignty is perceived to be under threat. The International Criminal Court (ICC) case against Kenyan officials exemplifies such a conflict. While Kenya was a signatory to the Rome Statute, the decision to prosecute Kenyan citizens through an international body sparked national debate about the limits of international law over domestic sovereignty (Murithi, 2013). This tension illustrates the complications that can arise when the direct applicability of international law intersects with national sovereignty and self-determination.

Kenya’s treaty ratification process is explicitly outlined in the Treaty Making and Ratification Act of 2012, which requires parliamentary approval for treaties to be legally binding (Republic of Kenya, 2012). This legislative requirement reflects Kenya’s emphasis on maintaining sovereign control over international agreements, as it ensures that treaty ratification involves both executive action and parliamentary scrutiny.

Despite this constitutional safeguard, the treaty ratification process has led to practical challenges. For instance, some international agreements require expedited or automatic implementation, yet the parliamentary approval process can delay such enforcement, creating tension with Kenya’s international commitments (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). Furthermore, treaty obligations can sometimes be imposed without sufficient consultation with local actors, raising questions about the balance between adhering to international standards and protecting national interests (Okoth, 2015). As Kenya strives to uphold its sovereignty, the legislative checks on treaty ratification exemplify the balancing act required to maintain autonomy while engaging with the global community.

Effective implementation of international law in Kenya requires established mechanisms that translate international obligations into domestic policies. In Kenya, implementing these obligations falls under the jurisdiction of relevant government bodies and agencies tasked with aligning national policies with treaty commitments. For instance, the National Council for Law Reporting, which publishes Kenya Law Reports, is responsible for disseminating legal standards, including those influenced by international treaties (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). Additionally, institutions such as the Judiciary and the Attorney General’s Office play key roles in ensuring that ratified treaties are incorporated into national legal practices.

However, conflicts often emerge during the implementation phase. Certain international obligations may demand regulatory frameworks that challenge Kenya’s existing social or economic practices. For instance, environmental treaties requiring adherence to stringent sustainability practices can strain Kenya’s industrial sector, which depends on more lenient environmental regulations (Mwangi, 2014). Similarly, treaties involving human rights protections may mandate reforms that conflict with traditional customs, presenting another layer of conflict between international standards and national sovereignty (Okoth, 2015). These issues underscore the difficulties Kenya faces in enforcing international commitments while respecting its own socio-political realities.

Kenya’s domestic legal system reflects the complexities of balancing national sovereignty with international obligations, particularly under the Constitution’s 2010 provisions. The Constitution holds supreme authority, followed by national statutes, with international treaties incorporated through Article 2(6) of the Constitution, which states that ratified treaties become part of Kenyan law (Republic of Kenya, 2010). This provision integrates international obligations, but issues can arise when treaty stipulations conflict with constitutional principles, challenging Kenya’s domestic hierarchy of laws (Okoth, 2015).

Kenyan courts play a pivotal role in interpreting and applying international law within the domestic system. Courts refer to international law directly when relevant treaties are ratified and domesticated, yet conflicts surface when international rulings are perceived to undermine Kenya’s sovereignty, as in the contentious International Criminal Court proceedings against Kenyan officials (Murithi, 2013).

The Treaty Making and Ratification Act of 2012 requires parliamentary oversight for treaty adoption, reflecting Kenya’s cautious approach to international commitments (Republic of Kenya, 2012). This legislative framework aims to protect national interests, though delays in parliamentary ratification can complicate timely compliance with international obligations (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Specific Areas of Conflict

The following specific areas of conflict emerging at the intersection of International Law and Sovereignty of Kenya are discussed;

Human Rights Law

Kenya is party to numerous international human rights treaties, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which it integrates through Article 2(6) of the Constitution (Republic of Kenya, 2010). However, fulfilling these commitments often conflicts with traditional norms, challenging universal standards of human rights (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Cultural relativism presents a major challenge, as certain international human rights standards conflict with Kenya’s customary practices. For example, prohibitions on female genital mutilation (FGM) under international conventions confront cultural beliefs in parts of Kenya, raising questions of external imposition over local practices (Mwangi, 2014). Kenya’s human rights obligations face implementation barriers, such as limited resources and infrastructural challenges. Inconsistent enforcement further complicates the adoption of these standards across all regions (Okoth, 2015).

International Criminal Justice

The ICC trials of Kenyan officials after the 2007-2008 post-election violence highlighted these tensions, as international accountability measures faced resistance based on sovereignty claims (Murithi, 2013). Such cases underscore the friction between Kenya’s commitment to human rights and its desire to maintain judicial independence.

Kenya joined the ICC in 2005, demonstrating commitment to international criminal justice (Republic of Kenya, 2005). However, this relationship has since become contentious, especially when ICC interventions appear to infringe on Kenya’s sovereignty, sparking debate over foreign influence in domestic affairs (Murithi, 2013).

The ICC cases against President Uhuru Kenyatta and Deputy President William Ruto for alleged crimes related to the 2007–2008 post-election violence intensified scrutiny of ICC operations in Kenya. These cases were perceived by some as selective and politically motivated, leading to a nationalistic response in defense of Kenya’s judicial independence (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). The ICC’s prosecution of high-ranking officials stirred concerns over Kenya’s sovereignty, as many argued that such cases should be tried domestically. This perceived infringement led to public resistance, with Kenya even considering withdrawing from the ICC (Mwangi, 2014).

In response, some African nations have advocated for ICC reform, suggesting adjustments to respect state sovereignty and prevent perceived bias. These proposals include strengthening regional alternatives, such as the African Court of Justice, to reduce dependence on the ICC (Okoth, 2015).

Trade and Investment Law

Kenya is a party to multiple trade agreements, such as the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and the World Trade Organization (WTO), which aim to facilitate economic growth through liberalized trade. However, these agreements often impose conditions that limit Kenya’s policy choices, challenging its regulatory autonomy (Mwangi, 2014).

Kenya has signed numerous Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) with countries seeking to protect their investors. While these treaties attract foreign direct investment, they also include investor protections that restrict Kenya’s ability to implement policies that could affect foreign businesses, underscoring the tension between investment interests and national sovereignty (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). These international commitments constrain Kenya’s policy space, especially in areas like environmental and public health regulations. BITs often prohibit government interference, which may conflict with national priorities, such as environmental sustainability and social welfare (Okoth, 2015).

Kenya is also subject to international arbitration tribunals, where foreign investors can challenge state regulations. Such tribunals, under entities like the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), sometimes bypass Kenya’s legal system, limiting Kenya’s control over investment disputes (Republic of Kenya, 2012).

Environmental Law

As a signatory to various international environmental agreements, including the Paris Agreement, Kenya is obligated to implement climate actions and sustainable practices. However, these commitments can limit Kenya’s flexibility in resource utilization, especially when international standards conflict with national priorities (Mwangi, 2014).

Kenya asserts its sovereignty over natural resources, yet international agreements may restrict domestic resource policies, particularly in sectors like mining and energy. This tension exemplifies the conflict between international environmental norms and Kenya’s control over its resources (Okoth, 2015).

Despite its commitments, Kenya faces obstacles in enforcing environmental regulations, including limited infrastructure, funding, and technical expertise. These barriers complicate compliance with international obligations, creating a gap between treaty requirements and practical enforcement capabilities (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Kenya strives to balance environmental obligations with economic development, as industrial and infrastructural growth are critical to national progress. International environmental standards sometimes constrain this growth, particularly when regulations restrict projects crucial to job creation and poverty alleviation, illustrating the friction between development needs and environmental stewardship (Republic of Kenya, 2010).

METHODOLOGY

This study employed a qualitative research approach, utilizing a comprehensive literature review to address the research questions. Primary sources included international legal documents, treaties, and Kenya’s constitutional texts. Secondary sources comprise academic journals, books, and reports from international organizations. The analysis focused on identifying specific areas of conflict between international law and state sovereignty, particularly in the African context. Comparative analysis was used to examine Kenya’s stance on sovereignty in international law against other African states. The study also explored the challenges Kenya faces in international forums and the implications of its sovereignty stance. Data was synthesized to provide a nuanced understanding of the tensions and dynamics at play.

Challenges and Tensions

The challenges and tensions in conflicts emerging at the intersection of International Law and Sovereignty of Kenya are presented in the following categories.

Legal Challenges

Legal challenges emerge when international law obligations intersect with state sovereignty, particularly for countries like Kenya, which must navigate conflicting obligations, enforcement mechanisms, and jurisdictional complexities.

First, Kenya’s adherence to various international treaties often creates obligations that conflict with national priorities. For instance, Kenya’s commitments under the World Trade Organization (WTO) mandate certain economic policies that may clash with its obligations under regional trade agreements like the East African Community (EAC), leading to policy tensions (Mwangi, 2014). Similarly, Kenya’s human rights obligations under international conventions sometimes contradict traditional cultural practices, challenging the balance between respecting local customs and upholding international standards (Okoth, 2015).

Secondly, Kenya faces significant challenges in enforcing international obligations domestically, particularly where national and international priorities differ. The Constitution recognizes international law as part of Kenyan law (Republic of Kenya, 2010), yet practical enforcement requires legislative and institutional mechanisms that are often underfunded or lack technical expertise (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). In environmental law, for instance, Kenya’s adherence to global standards on climate change is hampered by inadequate enforcement mechanisms, making it difficult to meet obligations set by treaties like the Paris Agreement (Mwangi, 2014).

In terms of jurisdiction, conflicts also arise when international institutions claim authority over issues traditionally within Kenya’s domestic jurisdiction. The International Criminal Court’s (ICC) involvement in post-election violence cases sparked controversy in Kenya, as many felt that Kenya’s national courts should have handled the cases (Murithi, 2013). Jurisdictional overlap between international and national courts poses challenges to Kenya’s sovereignty, with external judicial oversight often perceived as infringing upon Kenya’s right to self-governance.

These legal challenges highlight the friction between international obligations and Kenya’s sovereign interests, as the state seeks to balance compliance with global standards while protecting its autonomy and cultural values in a rapidly globalizing legal landscape.

Political Challenges

Domestic political pressures significantly influence how states navigate the intersection of international law and sovereignty. Governments must balance internal political demands with international legal obligations (Kaarbo, 2015). For instance, populist movements often prioritize national sovereignty over international commitments, leading to conflicts with international law. This tension is evident in debates over immigration policies, where domestic pressures to control borders clash with international human rights obligations.

Regional dynamics also play a crucial role in shaping the interaction between international law and state sovereignty. Regional organizations, such as the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU), create frameworks that member states must adhere to, sometimes at the expense of national sovereignty (Schiff & Winters, 1998). The EU’s legal system, for example, has primacy over national laws, which can lead to tensions when member states feel their sovereignty is undermined. Similarly, regional trade agreements can impose constraints on national policies, creating a complex interplay between regional integration and state sovereignty.

On the international stage, the relationship between international law and state sovereignty is often contentious. States may use international law to justify actions that serve their interests, while simultaneously resisting legal constraints that limit their sovereignty (Nasu, 2024). The principle of non-intervention, for example, is a cornerstone of international law, but it can be challenged by states seeking to intervene in the affairs of others under the guise of humanitarian reasons. This dynamic is evident in conflicts where powerful states exert influence over weaker states, often leading to accusations of neocolonialism and violations of sovereignty.

Institutional Challenges

Institutional challenges in Kenya complicate the country’s ability to fulfill international obligations while safeguarding sovereignty. These challenges include capacity constraints, resource limitations, and coordination issues, which impact Kenya’s compliance with international standards and its ability to protect national interests.

Kenya’s institutions often lack the capacity to effectively implement and monitor compliance with international obligations. This limitation is evident in sectors like environmental law, where global commitments, such as those under the Paris Agreement, require specialized knowledge and technical skills that are often lacking in Kenyan agencies (Mwangi, 2014). Additionally, the judiciary’s limited capacity to interpret complex international laws impedes effective application within domestic courts, thus weakening enforcement and creating gaps between international agreements and national practice (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Resource constraints further hinder Kenya’s ability to uphold its international commitments. Funding shortages in regulatory bodies prevent adequate oversight, and financial limitations make it challenging to establish the necessary infrastructure for environmental and human rights protections (Okoth, 2015). Limited resources mean that international law obligations are often sidelined in favor of immediate national priorities, especially in economic sectors where compliance requires substantial financial investment.

Coordination between various Kenyan institutions, including government ministries, regulatory agencies, and the judiciary, is essential for fulfilling international obligations but remains a significant challenge. The absence of streamlined inter-agency cooperation results in fragmented enforcement and duplicative efforts, particularly in sectors like trade and environmental protection, where overlapping jurisdictions lead to inefficiencies and policy inconsistencies (Republic of Kenya, 2012). Coordination challenges are further exacerbated by conflicting interests within government agencies, with some prioritizing sovereignty and others advocating for compliance with international standards.

These institutional challenges underscore the complexities Kenya faces at the intersection of international law and sovereignty, highlighting the need for stronger capacities, increased resources, and improved inter-agency coordination to fulfill international obligations effectively without compromising national sovereignty.

Comparative Analysis

This section presents the findings in two categories; Regional Perspective and International Perspective.

Regional Perspective

The East African Community (EAC) emphasizes regional integration while grappling with sovereignty issues, particularly concerning member states’ compliance with international law. The EAC Treaty enshrines principles of good governance and human rights but encounters tension when national interests conflict with regional mandates. For instance, the EAC’s response to the political crisis in Burundi highlighted the limits of its influence, as member states hesitated to infringe on Burundi’s sovereignty despite human rights violations (Mugisha, 2019). This illustrates the challenge of balancing regional cooperation with respect for state sovereignty.

The African Union (AU) operates under the principle of “non-indifference,” allowing intervention in member states to prevent atrocities. This approach, as seen in the AU’s actions in Libya and South Sudan, raises questions about sovereignty. Critics argue that the AU often faces challenges in enforcing decisions, with states resisting external intervention. The AU’s reliance on international law principles, such as the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), further complicates the balance between collective security and state sovereignty (Adetola, 2020). The AU’s efforts reflect a tension between upholding human rights and respecting national sovereignty.

Comparatively, states in East Africa exhibit diverse practices in reconciling international law and sovereignty. For example, Uganda has often prioritized national security over compliance with international human rights norms, especially in its counter-terrorism efforts (Muwanguzi, 2021). In contrast, Kenya has occasionally embraced international legal obligations, notably in its response to refugee crises. However, both countries demonstrate that national interests can often supersede international commitments, highlighting a broader regional pattern where state sovereignty often trumps compliance with international law.

International Perspective

Many developing nations face similar challenges to Kenya in balancing international law obligations with state sovereignty, particularly in areas like environmental protection, trade, and human rights. Examining these issues in a comparative context reveals best practices and lessons that could inform Kenya’s approach.
Countries such as India, Brazil, and South Africa encounter significant tensions between upholding international commitments and maintaining autonomy in domestic policy. For instance, Brazil faces challenges in enforcing environmental treaties while managing its sovereign interests in the Amazon rainforest, where global environmental standards often clash with national economic goals (Sands, 2016). India, similarly, has struggled to align human rights treaties with domestic laws influenced by cultural traditions, leading to resistance against perceived external pressures to conform to global norms (Kothari, 2017).

One best practice is adopting flexible frameworks that allow for phased implementation, tailored to national capacities. South Africa has developed a legal system that prioritizes domestic context in treaty incorporation, allowing for international commitments to be adapted gradually, which minimizes conflicts with local governance structures (Smith, 2018). Another effective practice seen in countries like Indonesia involves multi-stakeholder dialogues, including civil society and business sectors, to build consensus and ease the integration of international standards within the local legal framework (Bali, 2019).

The experience of other developing countries demonstrates the importance of strong institutional frameworks that are adaptable yet respect sovereignty. Kenya could benefit from South Africa’s approach of conditional treaty ratification, which ensures international agreements align with constitutional requirements and national interests (Kameri-Mbote, 2013). Additionally, establishing resource-efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, as implemented in Brazil, could mitigate the financial and administrative burden of compliance with international obligations, thus reducing friction between national priorities and international law requirements.

Implications and Impacts

The implications and impacts in conflicts emerging at the intersection of International Law and Sovereignty of Kenya are presented in the following subsections.

Legal Implications

The intersection of international law and state sovereignty has significant implications for the development of jurisprudence. Courts and tribunals increasingly grapple with cases that challenge traditional notions of sovereignty, particularly in matters of human rights and humanitarian law. For instance, the International Criminal Court (ICC) has asserted jurisdiction over states that have ratified the Rome Statute, even in instances where state sovereignty is invoked as a defense (Bassiouni, 2016). This development indicates a shift towards a more integrated legal framework where international obligations can supersede domestic laws, leading to evolving legal interpretations regarding the limits of state sovereignty.

As international law continues to expand, legal reform is necessary to reconcile state sovereignty with global norms. Many states, particularly in the Global South, struggle with implementing international treaties due to domestic legal frameworks that prioritize sovereignty (Alvarez, 2017). Reform initiatives must focus on harmonizing national laws with international obligations, ensuring that states can meet their commitments without infringing on their sovereignty. For example, enhancing domestic mechanisms for human rights protection can help address conflicts that arise when international norms are perceived as encroaching on state authority (Hafner-Burton, 2013).

Institutional adaptations are essential for addressing the challenges posed by the intersection of international law and state sovereignty. International organizations, such as the United Nations, must evolve to better support member states in implementing international law without undermining their sovereignty. This includes fostering collaborative frameworks that respect state autonomy while promoting compliance with international standards (Kofi Annan, 2002). By creating platforms for dialogue and cooperation, institutions can facilitate a more nuanced approach that balances sovereignty with the need for accountability and global governance.

Political Implications

Kenya’s engagement with international law significantly shapes its international relations, often creating tensions between its sovereignty and global expectations. The country’s cooperation with the International Criminal Court (ICC), particularly during the trials of prominent political figures accused of crimes against humanity, illustrates this dynamic. While Kenya initially supported ICC involvement, it later sought to withdraw from the court, citing concerns over national sovereignty and perceived bias (Ochieng, 2017). This shift reflects broader political implications, where adherence to international law can impact diplomatic relations, particularly with Western nations that prioritize human rights.

In the context of regional cooperation, Kenya’s approach to international law influences its role within the East African Community (EAC) and the African Union (AU). Kenya has often positioned itself as a leader in advocating for regional integration and adherence to international norms, yet its sovereignty concerns can complicate collective actions. For instance, Kenya’s reluctance to fully support AU interventions in member states reflects a tension between national interests and regional commitments (Mugisha, 2019). This dilemma can hinder effective regional cooperation, as states may prioritize sovereignty over collaborative frameworks necessary for addressing transnational challenges like security and migration.

Domestically, the intersection of international law and sovereignty shapes governance practices in Kenya. The Constitution of Kenya (2010) incorporates international human rights standards, yet implementation remains uneven, often due to political pressures and local governance structures. The government’s response to international critiques of human rights practices, such as those from NGOs and foreign governments, illustrates the complexities of balancing national sovereignty with accountability (Kibera, 2020). This ongoing tension can lead to political instability, as citizen expectations for adherence to international norms clash with government actions perceived as violating those norms.

Social Implications

Public perception in Kenya regarding international law and sovereignty is deeply influenced by the nation’s complex historical and political context. The trials of Kenyan leaders at the International Criminal Court (ICC) significantly impacted public opinion, with many viewing the ICC as an instrument of Western imperialism that undermines national sovereignty (Ochieng, 2017). This perception has led to skepticism about the legitimacy of international legal interventions, with a segment of the population believing that sovereignty should take precedence over international obligations. Consequently, such views can polarize society, fostering distrust in both government institutions and international bodies.

Access to justice in Kenya is intricately linked to the intersection of international law and national sovereignty. While Kenya’s Constitution mandates the protection of human rights, implementation remains inconsistent, particularly in marginalized communities. The reluctance to engage fully with international legal standards often exacerbates existing inequalities in the justice system (Kibera, 2020). For example, the reluctance to adhere to international human rights norms can result in limited resources for local courts, leading to delays and inequities in access to justice for vulnerable populations.

The protection of human rights in Kenya is challenged by tensions between national sovereignty and international law. Although the Constitution enshrines fundamental rights, the government’s selective engagement with international norms can undermine these protections. Reports of extrajudicial killings and arbitrary detentions highlight the gap between legal frameworks and actual practices (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Civil society organizations often advocate for stronger adherence to international human rights standards, but their efforts are frequently met with resistance from authorities who prioritize sovereignty over accountability.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and discussions in this article, recommendations are categorized in the following subsections.

Legal Reforms

Explicit Recognition of International Obligations

Amend Article 2(6) of the Constitution to provide clearer guidelines on how international treaties can be integrated with local customs. This amendment could include a clause recognizing cultural contexts while emphasizing the supremacy of human rights norms, allowing for limited exceptions only when there is a clear and justifiable reason (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Enforcement Mechanisms

Introduce amendments that establish specific mechanisms for the enforcement of international human rights treaties within Kenyan law. This can include creating a legal framework that mandates regular reporting and review of compliance by relevant government bodies, ensuring accountability (Okoth, 2015).

Revising Human Rights Legislation

Update existing human rights laws to align them more closely with international standards. This includes enacting comprehensive laws that explicitly outlaw practices like female genital mutilation (FGM), while also providing educational programs to address cultural beliefs and promote understanding of human rights (Mwangi, 2014).

Regulating Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs)

Review and revise BITs to ensure that they protect national interests without compromising Kenya’s ability to implement environmental and public health regulations. This can involve introducing clauses that prioritize domestic policy objectives over investor protections when public interest is at stake (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Strengthening Environmental Laws

Enhance environmental legislation to incorporate international standards while allowing for flexibility in local resource management. This includes creating provisions that ensure compliance with international environmental agreements without stifling economic development (Mwangi, 2014).

Capacity Building for Institutions

Invest in training programs and resources for governmental and judicial institutions to improve their capacity to interpret and apply international laws effectively. This can involve partnerships with international legal organizations to provide technical assistance (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Inter-agency Coordination Framework

Establish a framework for improved coordination among various ministries and regulatory agencies. This could involve creating a centralized agency tasked with overseeing the implementation of international obligations, ensuring cohesive policy-making and enforcement across sectors (Okoth, 2015).

Funding and Resource Allocation

Advocate for increased funding to regulatory bodies tasked with upholding international standards, particularly in human rights and environmental protection. A dedicated budget for compliance with international treaties would facilitate better oversight and implementation (Mwangi, 2014).

By implementing these reforms, Kenya can better navigate the complexities at the intersection of international law and sovereignty, fostering a legal environment that upholds both national interests and international commitments.

Policy Changes

Prioritize Sovereignty in International Agreements

Kenya should adopt a foreign policy that emphasizes national sovereignty in international treaties and agreements. This includes negotiating clauses that protect Kenya’s right to prioritize domestic laws and cultural practices when international norms conflict with local customs. Engaging in multilateral forums to advocate for reforms in institutions like the ICC can help shift the focus towards respecting state sovereignty (Mwangi, 2014).

Strengthen Regional Cooperation

Develop stronger ties with regional organizations, such as the African Union, to create frameworks that respect national sovereignty while promoting accountability and justice. By advocating for the African Court of Justice as a primary venue for international crimes, Kenya can reduce reliance on the ICC, thus reinforcing its judicial independence (Okoth, 2015).

Integrate Human Rights Norms with Cultural Contexts

Revise domestic policies to harmonize human rights obligations with cultural practices, particularly regarding issues like FGM. This can involve community engagement initiatives that educate on human rights while respecting local customs, thereby fostering a more inclusive approach to law and policy (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Align Trade Policies with National Interests

Reassess trade agreements, such as BITs and those under the WTO, to ensure they align with Kenya’s developmental goals. This includes inserting provisions that allow for government intervention when public interest is at stake, such as environmental protection and public health, to maintain regulatory autonomy (Mwangi, 2014).

Enhance Institutional Capacity

Invest in capacity-building programs for governmental and judicial institutions to ensure effective implementation of international obligations. This can include training personnel in international law and providing resources for the development of local legal frameworks that reflect both international commitments and national priorities (Okoth, 2015).

Establish Coordinated Frameworks

Create inter-agency task forces to streamline compliance with international obligations across various sectors, such as trade, human rights, and environmental protection. These task forces should focus on coordinating efforts, sharing resources, and developing unified strategies that address overlapping jurisdictions and policy inconsistencies (Kameri-Mbote, 2013).

Resource Allocation and Funding

Advocate for increased funding for regulatory bodies responsible for enforcing human rights and environmental laws. Developing a dedicated budget for compliance with international treaties would enable better oversight and implementation, ensuring that Kenya can meet its obligations without compromising its sovereignty (Mwangi, 2014).

If these policy changes are adopted, Kenya can effectively navigate the complexities at the intersection of international law and sovereignty, promoting a legal environment that respects both its national interests and global commitments.

Institutional Reforms

Establish Specialized Training Programs

Develop targeted training initiatives for government officials, judiciary members, and law enforcement personnel focused on international law, human rights, and environmental regulations. Collaborations with international organizations can provide expertise and resources for these programs to ensure a comprehensive understanding of both domestic and international obligations.

Create Knowledge Sharing Platforms

Implement mechanisms for knowledge exchange among various stakeholders, including civil society organizations, academic institutions, and government agencies. These platforms can facilitate the sharing of best practices, research findings, and case studies that illustrate successful compliance with international standards.

Enhance Judicial Capacity

Invest in the judiciary by providing training on interpreting and applying international law within the Kenyan context. This could involve workshops, seminars, and partnerships with legal experts to strengthen the judiciary’s ability to navigate complex international legal frameworks effectively.

Inter-Agency Coordination Committees

Establish inter-agency committees tasked with overseeing the implementation of international obligations. These committees should include representatives from relevant ministries (e.g., Foreign Affairs, Justice, Environment, and Trade) and regulatory bodies to ensure comprehensive and unified approaches to compliance.

Develop Integrated Compliance Frameworks

Create integrated frameworks that align international commitments with national policies. This should involve mapping out existing treaties and agreements to identify overlaps and conflicts, leading to streamlined policies that address both international obligations and local priorities.

Regular Monitoring and Evaluation

Implement a systematic monitoring and evaluation mechanism to assess the effectiveness of inter-agency collaboration and compliance with international obligations. Regular reports should be generated to identify areas needing improvement and ensure accountability among agencies.

Increase Funding for Regulatory Bodies

Advocate for enhanced budget allocations for agencies responsible for enforcing international law and human rights protections. This should include dedicated funds for capacity-building initiatives, infrastructure improvements, and the recruitment of specialized personnel.

Public-Private Partnerships

Explore partnerships with the private sector to leverage resources for compliance efforts. This could include joint initiatives to fund training programs, develop technological solutions for monitoring compliance, or enhance public awareness campaigns about human rights and environmental laws.

Resource Mobilization Strategies

Develop strategies to mobilize additional resources from international donors, NGOs, and development partners. By demonstrating a commitment to fulfilling international obligations, Kenya can attract funding and technical assistance to support capacity-building and enforcement initiatives.

Having these institutional reforms in Kenya can enhance its capacity to fulfill international obligations while safeguarding its sovereignty, fostering a more effective and coordinated approach to navigating the complexities of international law.

Future Perspectives

One significant conflict arises from human rights law, where international commitments clash with traditional practices, such as the prohibition of female genital mutilation (FGM). This cultural relativism challenges Kenya’s ability to harmonize its legal obligations with local customs. Additionally, Kenya’s engagement with the International Criminal Court (ICC) underscores tensions between international accountability and national sovereignty, particularly following politically charged trials that sparked debates over judicial independence.

Evolving international standards further complicate these dynamics. Trade agreements like the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) and Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) impose conditions that can restrict Kenya’s regulatory autonomy, particularly in areas of public health and environmental protection. These obligations may conflict with national priorities, limiting Kenya’s ability to address local issues effectively.

Finally, the changing global landscape introduces new pressures, such as populist movements prioritizing national sovereignty over international commitments. This shift challenges Kenya to balance its legal obligations with domestic demands, illustrating the complexities of navigating sovereignty in an increasingly interconnected world. As these trends evolve, Kenya must adapt its approach to international law to maintain its sovereignty while fulfilling global obligations.

Opportunities

The study findings presents some opportunities for Kenya. Firstly, legal development is essential as Kenya seeks to reconcile international human rights obligations with local customs. This process encourages the adaptation of laws that respect cultural values while promoting universal human rights standards. By engaging in dialogue about these conflicts, Kenya can develop legal frameworks that are both culturally sensitive and compliant with international treaties, enhancing its commitment to human rights.

Secondly, institutional strengthening is critical for effective compliance with international obligations. By investing in capacity building for regulatory bodies and enhancing technical expertise within government agencies, Kenya can improve its ability to implement and enforce international laws. This includes fostering better inter-agency coordination to streamline efforts across different sectors, such as trade and environmental management.

Lastly, international cooperation offers significant potential for Kenya. Collaborative efforts with other nations and regional bodies, such as the African Union, can lead to shared resources and knowledge. This cooperation can also foster reform within international institutions, such as the ICC, ensuring that they respect national sovereignty while promoting accountability. Overall, these opportunities can empower Kenya to navigate its complex legal landscape while safeguarding its sovereignty.

CONCLUSION

This article examined conflicts at the intersection of international law and Kenyan sovereignty across four key areas: human rights, international criminal justice, trade and investment, and environmental law. Kenya’s international human rights commitments, particularly under treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, often clash with traditional practices, such as female genital mutilation, challenging universal standards with cultural relativism. In international criminal justice, the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) prosecution of Kenyan leaders for post-election violence exposed sovereignty concerns, with domestic calls for judicial independence. Trade and investment agreements, like the African Continental Free Trade Area and various Bilateral Investment Treaties, create economic benefits yet impose limitations on Kenya’s regulatory autonomy, particularly impacting environmental and public health policies. In environmental law, Kenya’s obligations under the Paris Agreement and other treaties limit resource utilization, balancing economic development with environmental standards.

The article further highlighted legal, political, and institutional challenges. Legal challenges arise from jurisdictional overlap and enforcement constraints, while political challenges stem from nationalist pressures resisting international influence. Institutional limitations, such as resource constraints and coordination issues, impair Kenya’s ability to meet international standards. These tensions underscore the balancing act Kenya faces in fulfilling global obligations while safeguarding sovereignty.

To navigate the complexities of international law and sovereignty, the article recommends a multi-faceted approach. Legal reforms should explicitly recognize international obligations, establish enforcement mechanisms, revise human rights legislation, and regulate bilateral investment treaties. Additionally, policy changes must prioritize sovereignty in international agreements, strengthen regional cooperation, integrate human rights norms with cultural contexts, and align trade policies with national interests. Institutional reforms are necessary to establish specialized training programs, create knowledge-sharing platforms, enhance judicial capacity, and develop integrated compliance frameworks. These combined efforts will enhance Kenya’s capacity to fulfill international obligations while safeguarding national interests.

In conclusion, Kenya faces a delicate balance between honoring international obligations and protecting its sovereignty, especially when international standards conflict with cultural norms or regulatory autonomy. By pursuing legal reform, strengthening institutional capacity, and engaging in cooperative regional and international efforts, Kenya can enhance its compliance with global standards while addressing domestic needs. These strategies provide a pathway for Kenya to uphold sovereignty while fostering international collaboration and accountability.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Adetola, O. (2020). The African Union’s Non-Indifference Principle: Implications for State Sovereignty. African Journal of International Law, 6(2), 45-62.
2. Anghie, A. (2019). Imperialism, Sovereignty and the Making of International Law. Cambridge University Press.
3. Ansah, J. W. (2013). The Political Dynamics of Regional Integration in Africa: The Subjective Side. Global Advanced Research Journal of Social Science.
4. Bartels, L. M., Daxecker, U. E., Hyde, S. D., Lindberg, S. I., & Nooruddin, I. (2023). Global Challenges to Democracy? Perspectives on Democratic Backsliding. International Studies Review.
5. Boell, S. K., & Cecez-Kecmanovic, D. (2015). On being ‘systematic’ in literature reviews. Journal of Information Technology, 30(2), 161-173.
6. Brownlie, I. (2018). Principles of Public International Law (9th ed.). Oxford University Press.
7. Brownlie, I. (2019). Principles of Public International Law. Oxford University Press. Henkin, L. (2015). International Law: Politics and Values. Springer. Kelsen, H. (2016). The Law of the United Nations. Lawbook Exchange. Shaw, M. N. (2017). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Slaughter, A. M. (2018). A New World Order. Princeton University Press.
8. Center for Security Studies (CSS), ETH Zurich (2018). “The Problem with Sovereignty: The Modern State’s Collision with the International Legal Order.” ETH Zurich.
9. De Melo, J., & Tsikata, Y. (2014). Regional Integration in Africa: Challenges and Prospects. Oxford Academic.
10. Evans, G. (2020). The Responsibility to Protect: From Words to Deeds. Global Governance, 26(1), 11-29.
11. Gathii, J. T. (2019). African Regional Trade Agreements as Legal Regimes. Cambridge University Press.
12. Gathii, J. T. (2020). The Promise of International Law: A Third World View. American University International Law Review, 36(3), 377-442.
13. Held, D. (2019). Democracy and the Global Order. Stanford University Press.
14. Heller, H. (2019). The Sovereignty of the State and the Problem of International Law. Oxford Academic.
15. Henkin, L. (2017). International Law: Politics and Values. Springer.
16. Human Rights Watch. (2021). World Report 2021: Events of 2020. Human Rights Watch.
17. Jackson, R. (2019). Sovereignty: Evolution of an Idea. Polity Press.
18. Joshua J. Kassner (2021). “Explicating the Tension Between State Sovereignty and the New Challenges Facing the International Community.” SpringerLink.
19. Kaarbo, J. (2015). Foreign Policy Analysis Perspective on the Domestic Politics Turn in IR Theory. International Studies Review.
20. Kabau, T., & Njoroge, C. (2016). The Application of International Law in Kenya Under the 2010 Constitution. Africa Nazarene Law Journal, 4(1).
21. Kamau, P. M. (2015). Kenya’s Compliance with International Environmental Law: Sovereignty versus Sustainability. Environmental Policy and Law, Vol. 45, No. 3, 201-217.
22. Kameri-Mbote, P. (2013). International law and policy: The challenges for Kenya. Nairobi: East African Law Publishers.
23. Kassner, J. J. (2021). Explicating the Tension Between State Sovereignty and the New Challenges Facing the International Community. SpringerLink.
24. Kerubo, A. W. (2018). The Role of International Law in the Kenyan Judiciary: A Critical Appraisal. Kenya Law Review, Vol. 9, 112-128.
25. Khan, K. S., et al. (2018). Five steps to conducting a systematic review. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 111(3), 98-103.
26. Kibera, F. (2020). Human Rights and Governance in Kenya: The Constitutional Dilemma. Journal of East African Studies, 14(3), 345-362.
27. Koop, C., Reh, C., & Bressanelli, E. (2022). Agenda-setting under pressure: Does domestic politics influence the European Commission? European Journal of Political Research.
28. Krasner, S. D. (2018). Sovereignty: Organized Hypocrisy. Princeton University Press.
29. Maogoto, J. N. (2015). “The International Criminal Court and Kenya: Issues of National Sovereignty, International Relations, and Prosecutorial Policy.” *African Journal of Legal Studies*, 8(1-2), 147-180.
30. Moher, D., et al. (2019). PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration. BMJ Open, 372(160).
31. Mueller, S. D. (2017). Kenya and the International Criminal Court. Oxford University Press.
32. Mueller, S. D. (2018). Kenya and the International Criminal Court. Oxford Press.
33. Mugisha, E. (2019). Sovereignty and Regional Integration: The Case of the East African Community. Journal of African Law, 63(1), 102-120.
34. Muigua, K. (2017). Alternative Dispute Resolution and Access to Justice in Kenya. Glenwood Publishers.
35. Murithi, T. (2013). The African Union and the International Criminal Court: An embattled relationship? African Journal on Conflict Resolution, 13(1), 27–55.
36. Murungi, L. N. (2017). “Revisiting the Role of Sub-Regional Courts in the Protection of Human Rights in Africa.” *African Human Rights Law Journal*, 17(1), 266-289.
37. Mutua, M. (2016). “Africa and the Rule of Law.” *International Journal on Human Rights*, 23(1), 159-173.
38. Mutua, M. (2021). Africa and International Law: From Colonialism to Globalization. Routledge.
39. Muwanguzi, J. (2021). Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights in Uganda: A Sovereignty Dilemma. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 13(3), 367-385.
40. Mwangi, W. (2014). Environmental and regulatory challenges in developing countries: Kenya’s compliance landscape. Nairobi: University of Nairobi Press.
41. Nasu, H. (2024). Hybrid Threats and Grey Zone Conflict Symposium – Challenges in the Twilight of International Law. Lieber Institute West Point.
42. Ochieng, J. (2017). Kenya’s ICC Dilemma: A Case of Sovereignty versus International Law. The East African Journal of Peace and Human Rights, 23(2), 245-260.
43. Ojwang, J. B. (2016). Sovereignty and International Obligations: Kenya’s Experience with the ICC. Journal of African Law, Vol. 60, No. 2, 245-259.
44. Okoli, C., & Schabram, K. (2020). A Guide to Conducting a Systematic Literature Review. Studies in Systems, Decision and Control, 308, 201-231.
45. Okoth, P. (2015). The dilemma of implementing human rights obligations in Kenya. Nairobi: Kenya Legal Resource Foundation.
46. Ong’wen, R. W. (2020). Kenya and the International Criminal Justice System: Between Global Accountability and National Sovereignty. Global Governance Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, 85-102.
47. Page, M. J., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372(71).
48. Petticrew, M., & Roberts, H. (2018). Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. John Wiley & Sons.
49. Piyali Basu (2023). “State Sovereignty and Stability: Conflicting and Converging Principles.” The Palgrave Encyclopedia of Global Security Studies.
50. Republic of Kenya. (2010). The Constitution of Kenya, 2010. Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting.
51. Republic of Kenya. (2012). Kenya’s institutional framework for implementing international obligations. Nairobi: National Council for Law Reporting.
52. Rogier Bartels (2018). “The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and the Notion of State Sovereignty.” SSRN.
53. Schiff, M., & Winters, L. A. (1998). Dynamics and Politics in Regional Integration Arrangements: An Introduction. The World Bank Economic Review.
54. Shaw, M. N. (2019). International Law (8th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
55. Slaughter, A. M. (2018). The Chessboard and the Web: Strategies of Connection in a Networked World. Yale University Press.
56. Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
57. Wager, E., & Wiffen, P. J. (2021). Ethical issues in preparing and publishing systematic reviews. Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 14(1), 1-7.
58. Whittemore, R., & Knafl, K. (2017). The integrative review: Updated methodology. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 52(5), 546-553.