scholarly journals The Obligation to Provide Free Basic Education in South Africa: An International Law Perspective

Author(s):  
Lorette Arendse

In South Africa many learners are denied the right to basic education because of the levying of school fees and other educational charges, in spite of the international obligation imposed on government to provide free primary education. This article examines the exact nature and extent of this obligation by exploring the concept of "free" basic education. The applicable international instruments and their interpretation as well as the significance of the right to education as a central, facilitative right are examined in order to establish the content of the right to basic education and the legal obligations that ensue. Against this background, the implications of the South African Constitutional Court's approach to the realisation of socio-economic rights and the possibility of  the establishment of a core minimum obligation are analysed. It is argued that learners in South Africa may come from different socio-economic backgrounds but as learners in the same public school domain and as equal bearers of their constitutional right to basic education all of them are entitled to the same type and quality of free basic education.

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 60-89
Author(s):  
Justice Alfred Mavedzenge

Although the realisation of the full scope of each socio-economic right is meant to be achieved progressively, Kenya and South Africa have an international obligation to immediately provide vulnerable persons with access to the minimum core of each of these rights. As revealed (again) by the COVID-19 pandemic, the two states are in violation of this obligation as millions of people in both countries are living in abject poverty, without access to the bare necessities. Attempts to enforce the government’s minimum core obligations have failed at least three times in South Africa, and the Court of Appeal in Kenya has hesitated to enforce these obligations. Relying on the doctrinal review of jurisprudence from both countries and international law, this article proposes that, in order to enforce the minimum core obligations without violating the separation of powers doctrine, the judiciary must be perceived to have a primary role and a secondary role. The primary role of the court must be to enforce meaningful engagement between the state and the rights bearers in determining the quantitative aspects of the minimum core content of each right. Once the state has developed this core content, the court can review its reasonableness by measuring it against the qualitative minimum standards imposed by the right. In circumstances of urgent need, where the state has failed to develop a reasonable quantitative minimum core content and rights bearers are in danger of suffering irreparable harm, the court should invoke its secondary role which entails setting the quantitative minimum core content to be provided by the state as a temporary measure.


Author(s):  
Gerrit Ferreira

In an earlier  judgment[1] on the right to education delivered by the South African Constitutional Court (the Constitutional Court), the principal focus was on the restriction of access to education through the implementation of the language policy of the school. Language, however, is only one barrier preventing access to education in South Africa. Learners countrywide are denied the right to basic education because of the levying of school fees and other educational charges.[2] This practice is prevalent in spite of the international obligation imposed on the South African government to provide free primary education. This article examines the exact nature of this obligation by exploring the concept of "free" basic education. *      Lorette Arendse, Lecturer, Department of Legal History, Coparative Law and Legal Philosophy                                                 University of Pretoria. E-mail: [email protected][1]     Head of Department: Mpumalanga Department of Education v Hoërskool Ermelo 2010 2 SA 415 (CC).[2]     Centre for Applied Legal Studies and Social Surveys Africa National Survey.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-152
Author(s):  
Busiso Helard Moyo ◽  
Anne Marie Thompson Thow

Despite South Africa’s celebrated constitutional commitments that have expanded and deepened South Africa’s commitment to realise socio-economic rights, limited progress in implementing right to food policies stands to compromise the country’s developmental path. If not a deliberate policy choice, the persistence of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms is a deep policy failure.  Food system transformation in South Africa requires addressing wider issues of who controls the food supply, thus influencing the food chain and the food choices of the individual and communities. This paper examines three global rights-based paradigms – ‘food justice’, ‘food security’ and ‘food sovereignty’ – that inform activism on the right to food globally and their relevance to food system change in South Africa; for both fulfilling the right to food and addressing all forms of malnutrition. We conclude that the emerging concept of food sovereignty has important yet largely unexplored possibilities for democratically managing food systems for better health outcomes.


2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nathan John Cooper

AbstractDespite a constitutional right to water, challenges remain for access to sufficient water in South Africa. This article considers the degree to which current legal provisions perpetuate approaches that are antithetical to genuinely eco-socio-sustainable water access. Water in South Africa has largely been re-cast as a commodity, exposed to market rules, proving problematic for many and giving rise to various responses, including litigation. In the seminal case of Mazibuko, the Constitutional Court failed to provide robust protection to the right to water, providing impetus for the formation of “commons” strategies for water allocation. Indeed, “commoning” is beginning to represent not only an emerging conceptual strand in urban resource allocation, but also a dynamic, contemporary, eco-sensitive, socio-cultural phenomenon, driving innovative, interactive and inclusive forms of planning and social engagement. Against the backdrop of unequal water access, commoning offers glimpses of an empowering and enfranchising subaltern paradigm.


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.


Obiter ◽  
2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Glynis van der Walt

The article traces the historical development of the legal concept of adoption from early civilization to present day South African law. The requirements and consequences of the practice of adoption changed with time, and with the waning of the popularity thereof, adoption as a legal concept was unknown in Roman-Dutch law – the common law of South Africa .During the early 1900‟s increasing numbers of informal “adoptions” taking place in South Africa led to the promulgation of the Adoption of Children Act 25 of 1923. Where conducive to the welfare of the child, adoption was permitted. However, the political ideology of the time in South Africa had a major influence on adoption as a legal institution, with the consequence that the considerations of the welfare of the child were superseded by the ideology of racial segregation. Post constitutional democracy led to the securing and protecting of basic human rights, not least of all within the private context of ”family”. Ratification of international instruments which made provision for adoption, together with the dawning of the constitutional era in South Africa saw the child as the bearer of his or her own rights. In terms of our Constitution, every child was guaranteed the right to family care or parental care or appropriate alternative care. The article focuses on the development and evolution of adoption to its present-day status.


2020 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 356-386
Author(s):  
Ali Mohamed Aldabbas ◽  
Kamal Jamal Alawamleh ◽  
Worud Jamal Awamleh

Abstract This study examines the extent to which Jordan is committed to principles of compulsory and free basic education, by analyzing legislation in light of constitutional and international standards regarding the right to education. Methodology includes quantitative assessment of these principles using a questionnaire distributed to students and their teachers in a number of public schools in three Jordanian governorates. Three focus group sessions composed of students and their teachers were held. The study suggests that, whilst the Jordanian Constitution has explicitly adopted such principles, Jordanian law yet includes provisions that diminish providing free basic education to all children of compulsory age and that mitigate the number of students who drop out of school. This study proposes amending the title of Chapter II of the Constitution and Article 20 to ensure that all children living in Jordan enjoy the right to education.


2004 ◽  
Vol 32 (2) ◽  
pp. 243-259 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerhard Erasmus

Socio-economic rights are those human rights that aim to secure for all members of a particular society a basic quality of life in terms of food, water, shelter, education, health care and housing. They differ from traditional civil and political rights such as the right to equality, personal liberty, property, free speech and association. These “traditional human rights” are now found in most democratic constitutions and are, as a rule, enshrined in a Bill of Rights; which is that part of the Constitution that is normally enforced through mechanisms such as judicial review. The victims of the violation of such rights have a legal remedy. Individual freedom is a primary value underpinning civil and political rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document