(2018) 2 African Human Rights Yearbook 127 At first blush, it might appear as if AU law has had the greatest success in influencing the adjudication of cases in Uganda, since it appears to have been referred to more frequently (31 times) than EAC law (15 times) and EU law (25 times). This initial assessment must, however, be tempered by two immediate observations. In the first place, as Uganda is obviously not a member of the EU, the frequency of citation, of EU law by Ugandan courts is disproportionately high relative to the reference to AU law. Secondly, given the only relatively recent re-establishment of the EAC, and the much longer uninterrupted existence of the AU (and its predecessor the OAU), the citation of AU law would be expected to be much higher compared to that of the newer EAC. In addition, if one is to further analyse the disaggregated data contained in the preceding individual tables, the challenges of AU law in terms of its judicial reception in Uganda become even more apparent. In the first place, the majority of citations of AU law have arisen from references to the African Charter (12 times) and the African Children’s Charter (8 times). In the latter case, these have mainly been very passing mentions – often a single, apparently pro forma, reference to the ‘best interests of the child’-principle usually in the context of guardianship and adoption cases. Indeed, if the references to the African Children’s Charter were to be discounted, AU law would fall to second place after EU, in terms of frequency of citations. Secondly, the influence of AU jurisprudence is relatively weak as compared to that from the EU and the EAC. For instance, decisions of the African Commission on Human Rights have only been cited 3 times, while Ugandan courts are yet to cite any decisions of the African Court or the African Children’s Rights Committee. On the other hand, EU jurisprudence has been considered a total of 10 times (5 times for the European Court of Human Rights and 5 times for the European Court of Justice), while EACJ jurisprudence has been referenced 10 times. Thirdly, with the exception of one reference – to the AU Convention on Preventing and Combating of Corruption – the reception of AU law in the Ugandan judicial system has almost exclusively related to human rights law. By contrast, EU law and EAC law appear to have influenced not just human rights law but a broader variety of the legal landscape, including commercial and civil litigation. On the whole, therefore, AU law appears to have had a disproportionately weak impact in the Ugandan legal system, relative to its longevity, reach and potential. A number of factors might account for this trend. In the first place, as a general matter, international law’s reception in national courts may depend on the nature of the obligation in question, that is to say, whether it primarily seeks to influence domestic action or action on the international plane.251 As Tzanakopoulos has noted: … the ‘directionality’ of the international obligations assumed by states … has consequences for the position of domestic courts. What is meant by ‘directionality’ 251 A Tzanakopoulos ‘Domestic courts as the “natural judge” of international law: a change in physiognomy’ in J Crawford and S Nouwen (eds) (2011) Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law 155-168.