The extent to which review for unreasonableness is meaningfully incorporated in the promotion of Administrative Justice Act no. 3 of 2000
- Authors: Bednar, Jeannine
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Administrative law Administrative law -- South Africa Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa Law reform -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3707 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1006515
- Description: Prior to the current constitutional dispensation, the development of South African administrative law was restricted by the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Even in that comparatively 'hostile' environment, review for unreasonableness developed as an aspect of judicial review, and was applied as a check on the exercise of administrative power in certain circumstances. The principle of proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness also developed during this period. With the advent of the new Constitutional dispensation, the framework within which administrative law in South Africa operates became one governed by Constitutional Supremacy. The Rights to Just Administrative Action, including a right to reasonable administrative action, were entrenched in the Constitution. Review for unreasonableness is an important aspect of administrative law in the present Constitutional dispensation as the mechanism for protecting the Constitutional right to reasonable administrative action. Proportionality is an important principle underlying the Bill of Rights as a whole, and it is an important aspect of the right to reasonable administrative action, and of review for unreasonableness. In early 2000, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 ("the PAJA"), was passed by Parliament in fulfillment of the Constitutional requirement to pass legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights to Just Administrative Action. This thesis examines whether or not review for unreasonableness, and proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness, have been meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA, and if they have not been, what potential remedies there might be. This is done by examining the basis of judicial review both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; defining unreasonableness, and proportionality; examining the content of the right to administrative action which is "justifiable in relation to the reasons given" in section 24(d) of the Interim Constitution and the right to reasonable administrative action in terms of section 33(1) of the Final Constitution; examining the application of review for unreasonableness and proportionality by the Courts both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; examining the content of judicial review incorporated in the PAJA and the drafting history of section 6(2) of the PAJA which relates to review for unreasonableness; drawing conclusions regarding whether or not review for unreasonableness and proportionality were meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA; and finally making recommendations with regard to review for unreasonableness and proportionality in light of the provisions of the PAJA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Bednar, Jeannine
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Administrative law Administrative law -- South Africa Judicial review of administrative acts -- South Africa Law reform -- South Africa
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3707 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1006515
- Description: Prior to the current constitutional dispensation, the development of South African administrative law was restricted by the doctrine of Parliamentary Sovereignty. Even in that comparatively 'hostile' environment, review for unreasonableness developed as an aspect of judicial review, and was applied as a check on the exercise of administrative power in certain circumstances. The principle of proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness also developed during this period. With the advent of the new Constitutional dispensation, the framework within which administrative law in South Africa operates became one governed by Constitutional Supremacy. The Rights to Just Administrative Action, including a right to reasonable administrative action, were entrenched in the Constitution. Review for unreasonableness is an important aspect of administrative law in the present Constitutional dispensation as the mechanism for protecting the Constitutional right to reasonable administrative action. Proportionality is an important principle underlying the Bill of Rights as a whole, and it is an important aspect of the right to reasonable administrative action, and of review for unreasonableness. In early 2000, the Promotion of Administrative Justice Act No. 3 of 2000 ("the PAJA"), was passed by Parliament in fulfillment of the Constitutional requirement to pass legislation to give effect to the constitutional rights to Just Administrative Action. This thesis examines whether or not review for unreasonableness, and proportionality as an aspect of review for unreasonableness, have been meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA, and if they have not been, what potential remedies there might be. This is done by examining the basis of judicial review both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; defining unreasonableness, and proportionality; examining the content of the right to administrative action which is "justifiable in relation to the reasons given" in section 24(d) of the Interim Constitution and the right to reasonable administrative action in terms of section 33(1) of the Final Constitution; examining the application of review for unreasonableness and proportionality by the Courts both before and under the current constitutional dispensation; examining the content of judicial review incorporated in the PAJA and the drafting history of section 6(2) of the PAJA which relates to review for unreasonableness; drawing conclusions regarding whether or not review for unreasonableness and proportionality were meaningfully incorporated in the PAJA; and finally making recommendations with regard to review for unreasonableness and proportionality in light of the provisions of the PAJA.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
Discrimination against people with mental health problems in the workplace : a comparative analysis
- Authors: Lake, Rosalind
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Employees -- Mental health People with disabilities -- Employment -- South Africa People with disabilities -- Employment -- Great Britain People with disabilities -- Employment -- Australia Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Australia Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Great Britain People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- South Africa People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- Australia People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- Great Britain
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3705 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1005712
- Description: For a long time the rights of disabled persons have been ignored worldwide. A major obstacle faced by disabled persons is discrimination in the workplace. Due to the development of a social approach to disability and the efforts of the Disability Rights Movement, legislation has been passed throughout the world to improve this dire situation. The thesis considers the efficacy of some of these statutes. It is concluded that stigma and negative stereotypes remain a constant hurdle in overcoming discrimination. The forthcoming UN Disability Convention is demonstrative of the recognition of the importance of the needs and rights of disabled people. The convention proposes some innovative measures to overcome stigma and stereotyping. Mental health problems constitute one of the leading causes of disability. The thesis explores how people with mental health problems fit within the concept of people with disabilities and whether they are included in anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action measures. Special attention is given to statutory definitions of disability, the different forms of discrimination and the concept of reasonable accommodation. A comparative approach is taken to analyse how South Africa's disability law measures up against that of Britain and Australia in terms of its substantive provisions and enforcement thereof. In considering the South African position American and Canadian jurisprudence is consulted in order to aid in interpretation. It is concluded that although South Africa has a comparatively good legislative framework, it is held back by an overly restrictive and medically focused definition of disability. As a result many individuals with mental health difficulties, desirous of obtaining and retaining employment may be excluded from protection against discrimination in the workplace. It is argued that it will be necessary either to amend the Employment Equity Act or for the courts to adhere strictly to the concept of substantive equality in order to ensure that the rights and dignity of people with mental health difficulties are adequately protected.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Lake, Rosalind
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: Employees -- Mental health People with disabilities -- Employment -- South Africa People with disabilities -- Employment -- Great Britain People with disabilities -- Employment -- Australia Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- South Africa Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Australia Discrimination in employment -- Law and legislation -- Great Britain People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- South Africa People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- Australia People with disabilities -- Legal status, laws, etc. -- Great Britain
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3705 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1005712
- Description: For a long time the rights of disabled persons have been ignored worldwide. A major obstacle faced by disabled persons is discrimination in the workplace. Due to the development of a social approach to disability and the efforts of the Disability Rights Movement, legislation has been passed throughout the world to improve this dire situation. The thesis considers the efficacy of some of these statutes. It is concluded that stigma and negative stereotypes remain a constant hurdle in overcoming discrimination. The forthcoming UN Disability Convention is demonstrative of the recognition of the importance of the needs and rights of disabled people. The convention proposes some innovative measures to overcome stigma and stereotyping. Mental health problems constitute one of the leading causes of disability. The thesis explores how people with mental health problems fit within the concept of people with disabilities and whether they are included in anti-discrimination legislation and affirmative action measures. Special attention is given to statutory definitions of disability, the different forms of discrimination and the concept of reasonable accommodation. A comparative approach is taken to analyse how South Africa's disability law measures up against that of Britain and Australia in terms of its substantive provisions and enforcement thereof. In considering the South African position American and Canadian jurisprudence is consulted in order to aid in interpretation. It is concluded that although South Africa has a comparatively good legislative framework, it is held back by an overly restrictive and medically focused definition of disability. As a result many individuals with mental health difficulties, desirous of obtaining and retaining employment may be excluded from protection against discrimination in the workplace. It is argued that it will be necessary either to amend the Employment Equity Act or for the courts to adhere strictly to the concept of substantive equality in order to ensure that the rights and dignity of people with mental health difficulties are adequately protected.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
South Africa and the International Criminal Court: investigating the link between complimentarity and implementation
- Authors: Kulundu, Kenneth Wanyama
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: International Criminal Court , International criminal courts , International crimes , International law -- South Africa , South Africa -- Law and legislation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3679 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003194 , International Criminal Court , International criminal courts , International crimes , International law -- South Africa , South Africa -- Law and legislation
- Description: Complementarity, the organizing principle of the International Criminal Court (ICC), is a largely untested concept in terms of its ability to instigate State compliance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC made its debut at a time when States were routinely accused of non-compliance with international law, particularly international criminal law. Due to perennial concerns over the protection of State sovereignty, an ingenious system of allocation of competencies between States and the ICC was evolved. This is embodied by the principle of complementarity. At the heart of complementarity is an arrangement by which States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC are regarded as the prime fora for the prosecution of crimes of grave concern to the international community. In the event of inaction, however, the ICC is mandated to wrest specific cases from the jurisdiction of national courts and try them. In effect, a carrot-and-stick mechanism has been built into the Rome Statute to induce States to comply with the Statute. This thesis examines the principle of complementarity from a theoretical perspective, bearing in mind contemporary international law structures and institutions. A better understanding of the theoretical assumptions of complementarity, it is suggested, will foster a more effective application of the tenets of the Rome Statute within the municipal system. The thesis argues that complementarity is a catalyst for implementation of the Rome Statute only to the extent to which it alters or re-defines well established and encumbering procedures and norms within the municipal system. In this regard, although South Africa’s status of constitutional democracy may be reason to expect that the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute will be observed, that very fact may increase the inclination to preserve the “baseline of conduct” rather than be swayed by the Rome Statute. An illustrative excursion into South African rules and norms is undertaken, after which the argument is advanced that not much change has been effected to the South African legal landscape through implementation of the Rome Statute. The sole exception to this is the issue of prosecutorial discretion. On this, the South African legislature has uniquely crafted a mechanism for ensuring accountability, presumably with a view to ensuring that South Africa is always able to prosecute the crimes concerned. However, the thesis cautions against complacency, arguing that the tension between national law and international obligations may yet play itself out, owing to insufficient attention to the role of national courts in giving effect to the Rome Statute. The act of implementation may be a response to stimuli such as the perceived need to avoid civil liability for international crimes, or the general inertia of implementing human rights instruments. Therefore, the carrot-and-stick mechanism may be lacking in the compulsive qualities it is presumed to have. Through an exploratory survey of South African law, the thesis illustrates that prosecutorial accountability is the major factor in determining whether a State has fully complied with is obligations under the Rome Statute. However, it also points out that the way courts of law apply the new norms in municipal systems in the future will be crucial.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- Authors: Kulundu, Kenneth Wanyama
- Date: 2006
- Subjects: International Criminal Court , International criminal courts , International crimes , International law -- South Africa , South Africa -- Law and legislation
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: vital:3679 , http://hdl.handle.net/10962/d1003194 , International Criminal Court , International criminal courts , International crimes , International law -- South Africa , South Africa -- Law and legislation
- Description: Complementarity, the organizing principle of the International Criminal Court (ICC), is a largely untested concept in terms of its ability to instigate State compliance with the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC made its debut at a time when States were routinely accused of non-compliance with international law, particularly international criminal law. Due to perennial concerns over the protection of State sovereignty, an ingenious system of allocation of competencies between States and the ICC was evolved. This is embodied by the principle of complementarity. At the heart of complementarity is an arrangement by which States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC are regarded as the prime fora for the prosecution of crimes of grave concern to the international community. In the event of inaction, however, the ICC is mandated to wrest specific cases from the jurisdiction of national courts and try them. In effect, a carrot-and-stick mechanism has been built into the Rome Statute to induce States to comply with the Statute. This thesis examines the principle of complementarity from a theoretical perspective, bearing in mind contemporary international law structures and institutions. A better understanding of the theoretical assumptions of complementarity, it is suggested, will foster a more effective application of the tenets of the Rome Statute within the municipal system. The thesis argues that complementarity is a catalyst for implementation of the Rome Statute only to the extent to which it alters or re-defines well established and encumbering procedures and norms within the municipal system. In this regard, although South Africa’s status of constitutional democracy may be reason to expect that the obligations imposed by the Rome Statute will be observed, that very fact may increase the inclination to preserve the “baseline of conduct” rather than be swayed by the Rome Statute. An illustrative excursion into South African rules and norms is undertaken, after which the argument is advanced that not much change has been effected to the South African legal landscape through implementation of the Rome Statute. The sole exception to this is the issue of prosecutorial discretion. On this, the South African legislature has uniquely crafted a mechanism for ensuring accountability, presumably with a view to ensuring that South Africa is always able to prosecute the crimes concerned. However, the thesis cautions against complacency, arguing that the tension between national law and international obligations may yet play itself out, owing to insufficient attention to the role of national courts in giving effect to the Rome Statute. The act of implementation may be a response to stimuli such as the perceived need to avoid civil liability for international crimes, or the general inertia of implementing human rights instruments. Therefore, the carrot-and-stick mechanism may be lacking in the compulsive qualities it is presumed to have. Through an exploratory survey of South African law, the thesis illustrates that prosecutorial accountability is the major factor in determining whether a State has fully complied with is obligations under the Rome Statute. However, it also points out that the way courts of law apply the new norms in municipal systems in the future will be crucial.
- Full Text:
- Date Issued: 2006
- «
- ‹
- 1
- ›
- »