Some worry has been expressed in human rights circles that the human rights archetype has for some time now, disproportionately preoccupied itself with the culture of rights and claims at the expense of individuals? duties and responsibilities. A claim is made that while rights are individualistic, self-seeking, unworldly, self-indulgent and anti-social, individual duties and responsibilities are collective, social, humane, nuanced and associated with correct traditional and social behaviour and human values. The language of rights has dominated the texts of bills of rights in constitutions, and international instruments, and many view this rhetoric as unproblematic. Others, however, consider the currency of that language as overlooking, with dire consequences to human society, the concept of duty as the missing link of human dignity. There have, accordingly, been calls for a renewed focus on individual duties and responsibilities in the human rights discourse. The question is whether focussing on individual responsibility is necessary to counterbalance what is viewed by some as a bias towards rights. Efforts to raise international consciousness of what is regarded as the limitation of a purely rights-based approach to human rights has been spearheaded by, among others, faith based organisations. These have advocated not only a more visible recognition of individual duties and responsibilities generally, but an international declaration of human responsibilities as a ?common standard for all people and all nations.? The calls being made are premised on, first, a view that a device in the form of an international declaration ? a set of international rules ? should be developed to change the current human rights architecture. This code of ethical obligations is necessary to guide and change individual behaviour. Second, a belief that greater emphasis should be laid on individual duty responsibility to supplement existing international human rights norms and standards, and finally, that human rights principles alone are inadequate for modern societies to regulate themselves well. With particular reference to perspectives from the African Charter based human rights system, this project interrogates these concerns regarding duties with a view to ascertaining whether there is justification in them. Using as a reference point the concept of duties in the African Charter and to a small extent that in the African Children's Charter, which represents the older ii and more established part of the African human rights system, the project concludes that although individuals? duties are important and deserve greater attention, there is no convincing case for the calls that are being made in this regard. / Thesis (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2017. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

Doctor Legum - LLD / In Africa generally, orphaned and vulnerable children are traditionally cared for by their relatives or close family friends; this is an abiding practice even in contemporary times. This was historically considered to be a moral obligation binding on different relatives in different ways or at differing levels. In the face of the increasing complexities and changing demographics in African societies, high levels of poverty and socioeconomic inequalities as well as the incidence of HIV and AIDS, among others, the traditional family continues to undergo structural changes and experience various challenges which make child rearing responsibilities difficult to cope with especially in the context of loss of parental care. Nonetheless, the extended family system still bears the greatest burden in caring for such children, despite the obligation of governments to provide alternative care for children without parental care. The care of children who have become deprived of parental care by other relatives/family members or family friends is generally described as kinship care. This study seeks to examine kinship care against the background of international children’s rights law as encapsulated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations Guidelines on the Alternative Care of Children and the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, among others. Thus, this research seeks answers to a number of related research questions such as: Does the international children’s rights framework recognise or provide for kinship care as a measure of alternative care for children deprived of a family environment? What is the history and practice of kinship care in Africa and what are the challenges confronting kinship care in contemporary African societies? What is the relationship between kinship care and the child protection system? And what forms of support are available for kinship care at both the international and national levels? Four main themes are considered in separate chapters of the thesis as follows: the contextual and historical background to kinship care in Africa; the international and regional legal framework on the right to alternative care; the conceptualisation of kinship care as alternative care; and the law and practice of kinship care in selected domestic jurisdictions. South Africa and Namibia are the main focus of this study in the chapter on the status of kinship care at the domestic level. This is mainly because both countries have made some progress in the attempts at (legally) providing for kinship care and addressing some of its attendant challenges, with a particular emphasis on the provision of support for kinship care.