Mike Campbell (Pvt) Ltd et al v The Republic of Zimbabwe: Zimbabwe's Land Reform Programme Held in Breach of the SADC Treaty

2009 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gino J Naldi

AbstractIn its first judgment the South African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal had to determine whether Zimbabwe's controversial programme of land redistribution for resettlement purposes was compatible with the SADC Treaty. The tribunal provided one of the few avenues of redress for farmers deprived of their property without compensation. It held that the land reform programme breached the treaty on the grounds that the property owners had been denied access to the domestic courts, that the applicants had been victims of racial discrimination, and that the state had failed to pay compensation for the lands compulsorily acquired. While the tribunal appears to have reached the right conclusions, its reasoning could have been more persuasive. Of wider significance is the fact that the tribunal has established itself as a forum that can provide relief for human rights violations. Its finding that human rights are justiciable under the treaty is notable.

Author(s):  
Anél Terblanche ◽  
Gerrit Pienaar

Various South African government reports list food security as a development priority. Despite this prioritisation and despite the fact that South Africa is currently food self-sufficient, ongoing food shortages remain a daily reality for approximately 35 percent of the South African population. The government's commitment to food security to date of writing this contribution manifests in related policies, strategies, programmes and sectoral legislation with the focus on food production, distribution, safety and assistance. A paradigm shift in the international food security debate was encouraged during 2009, namely to base food security initiatives on the right to sufficient food. During a 2011 visit to South Africa, the Special Rapporteur for the Right to Food of the United Nations, accordingly confirmed that a human rights-based approach to food security is necessary in the South African legal and policy framework in order to address the huge disparities in terms of food security (especially concerning geography, gender and race). A human rights-based approach to food security will add dimensions of dignity, transparency, accountability, participation and empowerment to food security initiatives. The achievement of food security is further seen as the realisation of existing rights, notably the right of access to sufficient food. The right of access to sufficient food, as entrenched in section 27(1)(b) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 will accordingly play a central role within a human rights-based approach to food security. Section 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 qualifies section 27(1)(b) by requiring the state to take reasonable legislative and other measures, within its available resources, to achieve the progressive realisation of each of the section 27(1) rights. The South African government's commitment to food security, as already mentioned, currently manifests in related policies, strategies and programmes, which initiatives will qualify as other measures as referred to in section 27(2) mentioned above. This contribution, however, aims to elucidate the constitutional duty to take reasonable legislative measures as required by section 27(2) within the wider context of food security. This contribution is more specifically confined to the ways in which a human rights-based approach to food security can be accommodated in a proposed framework law as a national legislative measures. Several underlying and foundational themes are addressed in this contribution, amongst others: (a) the relationship between food security and the right of access to sufficient food; (b) food security as a developmental goal; and (c) the increasing trend to apply a human rights-based approach to development initiatives in general, but also to food security.


2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (1) ◽  
pp. 2-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
EVADNÉ GRANT

In the joined cases of Bhe v. Magistrate Khayelitsha and Others; Shibi v. Sithole and Others; South African Human Rights Commission and Another v. President of the Republic of South Africa and Another (2005(1) B.C.L.R. 1 (CC)), the South African Constitutional Court held unanimously that the male primogeniture rule according men rights to inheritance not enjoyed by women enshrined in the South African Customary Law of Succession violated the right to equality guaranteed under section 9 of the South African Constitution. On one level, the decision can be seen as a triumph for the universality of human rights norms. On another level, however, the case raises difficult questions about the relationship between human rights and culture. The aim of this paper is to assess the judgment critically in the context of the ongoing debate about the application of international human rights standards in different cultural settings.


Author(s):  
ES Nwauche

The impartiality of judges often expressed in the Latin maxim nemo iudex in propria causa interpreted to mean that no man should be a judge in his own cause together with the right of fair hearing make up the right to natural justice. This principle is recognized by a number of provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 165 (4) provides that the organs of state shall through legislative and other measures assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Furthermore, section 34 of the same Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute resolved by the application of law by a court or, where appropriate another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1988, applicable in England since 2000 provides that: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." The independence of courts and impartiality of judges are closely related in that they operate to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice.This article advocates a return to the use of the manifest justice principle enshrined as the proper contextfor the application of the tests of "reasonable apprehension of bias" adopted by South African courtsand "real possibility of bias" adopted by English courtsin the consideration of allegation of apparent bias. This paper argues that the tests are differentand that while the English test is a move of English courts from the real danger/likelihoodtest in consonance with an overwhelming global jurisprudence the South African test is a move away from this global jurisprudence and arguably back to the real danger/likelihood test. This paper also argues that the reasonable apprehension test as applied by the minority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing)is a more acceptable interpretation of the reasonable apprehension test than the test laid down in President of the Republic of South Africa v South Africa Rugby Football Union (2) and its interpretation by the majority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing). More importantly there is an examination of cases where the tests have been applied which hopefully shows that there are considerable problems and inconsistency in their application and argue that the manifest justice principle provides the proper context for the tests to be properly applied.


2016 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-31
Author(s):  
Manala Shadrack Maake

This theoretical paper seeks to make an empirical contribution to the Land Reform discourses. The paper argues that the pace of land redistribution in South Africa is undeniably slow and limits livelihood choices of relatively most intended beneficiaries of land reform programme. The primacy and success of the programme within rural development ought to measured and assessed through ways in which the land reform programmes conforms to and improve the livelihoods, ambitions and goals of the intended beneficiaries without compromising agricultural production and the economy. In addition, paper highlights the slow pace of land reform programme and its implications on socio-economic transformation of South Africa. Subsequently, the paper concludes through demonstrating the need for a radical approach towards land reform without disrupting agricultural production and further to secure support and coordination of spheres of government. The democratic government in South Africa inherited a country which characterized by extreme racial imbalances epitomized through social relations of land and spatial distortions. Non-white South Africans are still feeling the effects of colonial and apartheid legal enactments which sought to segregate ownership of resources on the basis of race in particular. Thus, successive democratic governments have the specific mandate to re-design and improve land reform policies which are targeted to reverse colonially fueled spatial distortions. South Africa’s overall Land Reform programme consists of three key elements and namely are; land redistribution, tenure reform and land restitution. Concomitantly, spatial proponents and researchers have denounced and embraced land reform ideology and its status quo in South Africa. The criticisms overlapped towards both beneficiaries and state due to factors like poor post-settlement support, lack of skills, lack of capital, infighting over land claims and land management.


2014 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 358-376
Author(s):  
Marcel Brus

This article focuses on the possibilities for victims of international crimes to obtain reparation in a foreign domestic court. The chances of success for such claims are small under traditional international law. The article questions whether the development of human rights and humanitarian ethics as a core element of international law (referred to as ius humanitatis) is having an impact on traditional obstacles to making such claims. Two elements are considered: the relevance of changing societal attitudes to the ‘rights’ of victims of such crimes and their possible effect on the interpretation and application of existing law, and whether in present-day international law humanitarian concerns have led to limiting obstacles that are still based on sovereignty, notably regarding the universality principle, prescription, and state immunity. The general conclusion is that on all these points much remains to be done.


Temida ◽  
2012 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 99-114 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasa Rajic

This paper discusses the normative framework of regulating the right to protection of personal data relating to biomedical treatment procedures of patients as human rights. The subjects of analysis are the European Convention, the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine and the relevant provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia. The right to protection of personal data in the field of biomedicine is analyzed comparatively in terms of the content of this right and in terms of basis for limiting this right. The analysis is carried out to find answers to the question if the constitutional framework is consistent in terms of exercising this right, taking into account the constitutional provision on the direct application of human rights guaranteed by international treaties and other provisions that determine the status of international sources of law in our legal system.


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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 72-91
Author(s):  
I Gusti Bagus Hengki

This scientific paper is expected to find out how the existence of the death penalty is viewed from the aspect of Civil Human Rights in the perspective of the right to life and whether the existence of the death penalty is contrary to the ideology of the Pancasila State and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia and the Human Rights Law with a normative research methodology with using a statutory approach. From the results of the discussion that the existence of the death penalty in terms of the Civil Human Rights aspect in the perspective of the right to life still needs to be maintained, because it does not conflict with the ideology of the Pancasila State and the 1945 Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, the Human Rights Law, UDHR and ICCPR, as well as religion. in Indonesia, as long as it is not carried out arbitrarily, in accordance with the provisions of the legislation. This needs to be done because to provide protection for individual perpetrators and victims against acts of revenge, emotional, uncontrollable, vigilante, so that it does not guarantee that the death penalty is abolished. Indeed, there are parties who are pro and contra about the death penalty by both underpinning Pancasila, all of which is to make Pancasila a "Justification".   Tulisan ilmiah ini diharapkan dapat mengetahui bagaimana eksistensi  hukuman mati  ditinjau dari aspek  HAM Sipil dalam perspektif hak untuk hidup  dan apakah eksistensi  hukuman mati bertentangan dengan  ideologi Negara Pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945 serta  Undang-Undang HAM dengan metodologi penelitian normatif dengan menggunakan jenis pendekatan perundang-undangan (statute Approach). Dari hasil pembahasan bahwa eksistensi hukuman mati ditinjau dari aspek HAM Sipil dalam perspektif Hak untuk hidup  masih perlu dipertahankan, karena tidak bertentangan dengan ideologi Negara Pancasila dan Undang-Undang Dasar Negara Republik Indonesia Tahun 1945, Undang-Undang HAM, UDHR dan ICCPR, maupun agama yang ada di Indonesia, asal dilaksanakan  tidak sewenang-wenang, sesuai dengan ketentuan peraturan perundang-undangan. Hal ini perlu diadakan  karena untuk memberikan perlindungan terhadap individu pelaku dan korban terhadap tindakan balas dendam, emosional, tidak terkendali, main hakim sendiri, sehingga tidak menjamin bahwa kalau hukuman pidana mati ditiadakan.  Memang ada pihak yang pro dan kontra tentang hukuman mati dengan sama-sama mendasari Pancasila, semuanya itu untuk menjadikan Pancasila sebagai “Justification“.


2007 ◽  
Vol 79 (9) ◽  
pp. 311-333
Author(s):  
Maja Omeragić-Pantić ◽  
Biljana Vujičić ◽  
Bojan Tubić ◽  
Rodoljub Etinski

Constitution and procedural laws explicitly guarantee right to a trial in a reasonable time. The procedural laws have been changed and some new solutions, which have to enable a trial in a reasonable time, were adopted. The Decision on establishing of national strategy of judicature reform was adopted, in order to make the judicature more efficient. However, the inquiries show that there are still some significant disadvantages which affect the right to a trial in a reasonable time. Despite the new legislative solutions, adopted in order to accelerate the trials, some of these solutions are not completely sufficient or their implementation in practice is not entirely adequate. The Decision on establishing of national strategy of judicature reform sets up the right analysis of the current status, as well as "therapy for the healing" of judicature. However, it seems that current measures are not in accordance with this therapy. Technical modernization of the courts is very slow and personal capacities, on the level of the associates, is declining instead of getting stronger. The biggest disadvantage of the present legal system, regarding the right to a trial in a reasonable time is the absence of the efficient legal remedies with which the party could accelerate the judicial procedure, respectively with which it could give damages caused by the breach of this right. This paper shows how strict are the criteria of the European court of human rights in Strasbourg related to it and that the existing legal remedies in our legal system are not sufficient to meet these demands. The confirmation of this conclusion came from Strasbourg, when this paper was already written, in the judgment V.A.M. v. Serbia of March 13, 2007.


Obiter ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Botha

In South African Human Rights Commission v Qwelane (hereinafter “Qwelane”) the constitutionality of the threshold test for the hate speech prohibition in section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 (hereinafter the “Equality Act”) was challenged. Although the court had no difficulty in finding that the publication in question fell squarely within the parameters of hate speech, the judgment is both incoherent and flawed. The court’s conjunctive interpretation of the section 10(1) requirements for hate speech also differs from the disjunctive interpretation given to the same provision in Herselman v Geleba (ECD (unreported) 2011-09-01 Case No 231/09 hereinafter “Herselman”) by the Eastern Cape High Court. The consequence is a “fragmented jurisprudence” which impacts on legal certainty, and which is especially dangerous when the legislation in question is critical to the achievement of the constitutional mandate (Daniels v Campbell NO 2004 (5) SA 331 (CC) par 104 hereinafter “Daniels”).This note demonstrates that the Qwelane court misapplied a number of key principles. These include: the court’s mandate in terms of section 39(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (hereinafter the “Constitution”); the need to strike an appropriate balance between competing rights in the constitutional framework; the importance of definitional certainty for a hate speech threshold test; the meaning to be ascribed to the terms “hate”, “hurt” and “harm” in the context of hate speech legislation; and the role of international law when interpreting legislation intended to give effect to international obligations.The consequence of these errors for hate speech regulation in South Africa is profound.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document