Binding corporate human rights obligations: A few observations from the South African legal framework

2016 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 349-356
Author(s):  
Lise SMIT
Author(s):  
John C Mubangizi

This article focuses on xenophobia in the South African labour market and the effect it can and does have on foreign employees. In contrast to current scholarship that portrays xenophobia in South Africa as a consequence of anti-immigrant sentiments and stereotypes that stem from social, political, economic and cultural misconceptions, this paper argues that the causes of xenophobia are much more complex than that. In addition to those misconceptions, it is argued, xenophobia in South Africa may well have its genesis in the pre-1994 apartheid and colonialism era which sought to impose segregation and instill hatred between and among black people. The main argument in the paper, however, is that the South African legal framework and its implementation do not go far enough in addressing the problem of xenophobia in the workplace. As a result, the rights of foreign employees are negatively impacted and not sufficiently protected. To underscore this point, the paper undertakes a discussion on the legal framework and the pertinent human rights implications of xenophobia in the South African labour market before making some recommendations on what can be done to protect the rights of foreign employees better and reduce or prevent xenophobic attacks against them.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Andre Mangu

After several decades of apartheid rule, which denied human rights to the majority of the population on the ground of race and came to be regarded as a crime against humanity, South Africa adopted its first democratic Constitution in the early 1990s. The 1996 Constitution, which succeeded the 1993 interim Constitution, is considered one of the most progressive in the world. In its founding provisions, it states that South Africa is a democratic state founded on human dignity, the achievement of equality, the advancement of human rights and freedoms. The Constitution enshrines fundamental human rights in a justiciable Bill of Rights as a cornerstone of democracy. Unfortunately, in the eyes of a number of politicians, officials and lay-persons, the rights in the Bill of Rights accrue to South African citizens only. Xenophobia, which has been rampant since the end of apartheid, seems to support the idea that foreigners should not enjoy these rights. Foreign nationals have often been accused of posing a threat to South African citizens with regard to employment opportunities. In light of the South African legislation and jurisprudence, this article affirms the position of the South African labour law that foreign nationals are indeed protected by the Constitution and entitled to rights in the Bill of Rights, including the rights to work and fair labour practices.


2013 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Auwais Rafudeen

This paper examines a South African debate on legislating Muslim marriages in the light of anthropologist Talal Asad’s critique developed in his Formations of the Secular (2003). It probes aspects of the debate under four Asadian themes: (1) the historicity of the secular, secularism, and secularization; (2) the place of power and the new articulations of discourses it creates; (3) the state as the arm of that power; and (4) the interconnections (or dislocations) among law, ethics, and the organic environment (habitus). I argue that Asad illumines the debate in the following ways: (1) by providing a deeper historical and philosophical appreciation of its terms of reference, given that the proposed legislation will be subject to South Africa’s secular Bill of Rights and constitution; (2) by requiring us to examine and interrogate the genealogies of such particular hegemonic discourses as human rights, which some participants appear to present as ahistorical and privileged; and (3) by showing, through the concept of habitus, why this debate needs to go beyond its present piecemeal legal nature and develop an appreciation of the organic linkages among the Shari‘ah, morality, community, and self. Yet inevitable nuances are produced when applying Asad’s ideas to the South African context.


Author(s):  
N Gabru

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right.  The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy.  The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.


Author(s):  
Vinesh Basdeo

The deprivation of the proceeds of crime has been a feature of criminal law for many years. The original rationale for the confiscation of criminal assets at international level was the fight against organised crime, a feature of society described by the European Court of Human Rights as a "scourge" so that the draconian powers which are a feature of confiscation regimes around the world have been approved in circumstances which otherwise might have caused governments considerable difficulties before the international human rights tribunals.[1] The primary objective of this article is to determine if the asset forfeiture measures employed in the South African criminal justice system are in need of any reform and/or augmentation in accordance with the "spirit, purport and object" of the South African Constitution.[2] This article attempts to answer three questions. Firstly, why is criminal asset forfeiture important to law enforcement? Secondly, in which circumstances can property be forfeited and what types of property are subject to forfeiture? Thirdly, how is forfeiture accomplished, and what are its constitutional ramifications? 


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document