Article Per Year (5 Year)
p-Index From 2021 - 2026
0.751
P-Index
This Author published in this journals
All Journal Dialektika kontemporer Pinisi Journal of Social Science
Njong, Cleverty Afu
Unknown Affiliation
Social Sciences Other

Published : 4 Documents Claim Missing Document
Claim Missing Document
Check
Articles

Found 4 Documents
Search

 1 
An Appraisal of the Role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in Dispute Resolution Otu, Mike; Mabiebu, Miebaka; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Etiowo, Obaseopuwhoi Mbang
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 12, No 1 (2024)
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) is a unique international organisation, particularly in the dispute resolution spectrum. Its uniqueness stems from the mere fact that it is not a court in the true sense of the word. Interestingly, this unique international organisation has played a vital role in dispute resolution, particularly in international arbitration, and has not relented for over a hundred (100) years. Despite its role, it is regrettably unfortunate that the PCA remains an unsung hero. Adopting an expository method of research, this article gives us an insight into the role of the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the resolution of disputes. 
The Trump Doctrine of Preemptive Extraterritorial Force: Targeted Killing Promises Against Nigerian Jihadists and the Crisis of International Legal Order Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Agube, Ntamy
Jurnal Ilmu Sosiologi Dialektika Kontemporer Vol 13, No 2 (2025): Juli – December 2025
Publisher : dialektika kontemporer

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar

Abstract

The January 2026 public declaration by the U.S. President Donald Trump vowing to order lethal strikes against Islamic State-affiliated jihadist factions in Nigeria represents a critical inflection point in the normative architecture governing the use of force. This paper conducts an extensive doctrinal and policy analysis of such a declaration, situating it within the broader “Trump Doctrine” of unilateral, preemptive military action that challenges the United Nations Charter’s foundational framework. The paper posits that promises of extraterritorial force against non-state actors (NSAs) in the territory of a consenting but weak sovereign state like Nigeria create a complex tripartite legal nexus involving: the jus ad bellum limits of self-defense against NSAs (the “unwilling or unable” test), the jus in bello principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in a counterterrorism context, and the emerging jus ad vim debate on the law of armed conflict short of war. Through a case study of Nigeria’s counterinsurgency against ISWAP and Boko Haram, analyzing the state’s capacity, territorial control, and ambiguous consent” the paper interrogates whether such U.S. action would constitute lawful collective self-defense, a violation of sovereignty, or an unlawful intervention. It further examines the dangerous precedent set by public, politically instrumental declarations of force, which risk eroding diplomatic channels, undermining host-state legitimacy, and legitimizing a global practice of “adversarial airstrike diplomacy.” The paper concludes that while the 2001 AUMF provides a contested domestic U.S. legal basis, the international legal permissibility hinges on a fact-specific assessment of Nigeria’s effective control and explicit consent, a threshold currently unmet in large parts of the Lake Chad Basin. Ultimately, the declaration epitomizes a trend toward the normalization of unilateral counterterrorism strikes, posing a systemic threat to the Article 2(4) prohibition and accelerating the fragmentation of international law into a hierarchy where powerful states dictate the rules of cross-border violence. 
The Illicit Commodification of Deportation: The Trump Administration’s “Third-Country Prisoner Transfer” Policy as a Violation of Jus Cogens Norms and the Law of State Responsibility Nabiebu, Miebaka; Eja, Alobo Eni; Ipuole, Roland; Njong, Cleverty Afu
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 2 (2025): September
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i2.51008

Abstract

This paper examines the Trump administration’s initiative to deport non-citizen prisoners to third countries through bilateral agreements as a fundamental challenge to international legal order. We argue this policy of “strategic exile” constituted an internationally wrongful act that engaged United States state responsibility by violating peremptory norms (jus cogens) and established principles of international law. The analysis demonstrates how the policy violated the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of nationality and the right to a nationality, breached the absolute principle of non-refoulement, and contravened customary rules governing lawful expulsion. By seeking to transfer individuals to states with which they lacked genuine legal bonds, the United States attempted to create conditions of de facto statelessness while exposing individuals to foreseeable risks of persecution and indefinite detention. The paper further examines how recipient states could bear shared responsibility under the International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility for aiding in these violations. This case represents a dangerous precedent for the erosion of fundamental human rights protections through bilateral coercion, demanding a robust international response to affirm that state sovereignty cannot legitimate the unilateral severance of an individual’s legal bond to the international community of states.
The Legal Vacuum of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems: From Meaningful Human Control to Algorithmic Accountability in the Age of AI Warfare Nabiebu, Miebaka; Ekpo, Mokutima; Njong, Cleverty Afu; Anukanti, Vivien
Pinisi Journal of Social Science Vol 4, No 1 (2025): May
Publisher : Universitas Negeri Makassar

Show Abstract | Download Original | Original Source | Check in Google Scholar | DOI: 10.26858/pjss.v4i1.61759

Abstract

The rapid and opaque development of Lethal Autonomous Weapons Systems (LAWS) has created a profound crisis in the foundational frameworks of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This paper argues that the current diplomatic discourse within the United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, centered on the nebulous concept of “Meaningful Human Control,” is insufficient and strategically stalled. It posits that the advent of sophisticated artificial intelligence driven targeting, as seen in contemporary conflicts, necessitates a fundamental shift in the legal paradigm. The analysis contends that IHL's core principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution in attack cannot be authentically complied with by opaque algorithms whose decision making processes are inscrutable and whose parameters may be shaped by biased data sets. The paper examines how the deployment of LAWS fractures the chain of legal accountability, creating a responsibility gap where no human can be held legally responsible for an unlawful algorithmic kill decision. Moving beyond critique, the paper proposes a new regulatory framework based on Algorithmic Accountability. This framework demands legally binding prohibitions on autonomy in critical functions, mandatory human rights impact assessments, transparent algorithmic auditing, and the establishment of an international registry for military artificial intelligence systems. This research aims to break the diplomatic impasse by providing a concrete, legally rigorous pathway to govern the weaponization of artificial intelligence before its integration erodes the very essence of humanitarian law.
Co-Authors Agube, Ntamy Anukanti, Vivien Eja, Alobo Eni Ekpo, Mokutima Etiowo, Obaseopuwhoi Mbang Ipuole, Roland Mabiebu, Miebaka Nabiebu, Miebaka Otu, Mike