Spelling suggestions: "subject:"breach off peaks"" "subject:"breach oof peaks""
1 |
Die arrestasiebevoegdheid van die private persoon (ingevolge aa 42 en 49 van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977) met spesiale verwysing na die oewerbewoner en Martinus 1990 (2) SASV 568 (A) en ander verwante sakeFowler, Henriette 01 1900 (has links)
Text in Afrikaans / Die private persoon het sekere bevoegdhede betreffende die
arrestasie en die gebruik van geweld tydens arrestasie van
lede van die publiek wat misdade pleeg/gepleeg het. Hierdie
bevoegdheid spruit uit sowel die gemenereg as die wettereg.
Kragtens die Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproseswet word hierdie
bevoegdhede gereel deur aa 42 en 49.
Oewerbewoners as eienaars van grand is geregtig op die
onverstoorde gebruik en genot van hulle eiendom.
Daarteenoor is kanovaarders ook daarop geregtig om op
openbare ri vi ere vir wedvaarte te oefen. Di t is egter
belangrik om vas te stel of die portage van kano's op die
oewer insidenteel is tot die reg om op die rivier te vaar.
Ewewig moet bewerkstellig word tussen die botsende belange.
Die Waterwet 54 van 1956 behoort gewysig en vereenvoudig te
word, aangesien Suid-Afrika nie slegs op die RomeinsHollandse
reg kan staatmaak nie - ons waterprobleme staan
direk teenoor die van die Nederlande. / The private person has certain powers regarding the arrest
and the use of force to effect the arrest of members of the
public who have committed/are committing offences. These
powers are derived from either common law or statutory law.
In terms of the South African Criminal Procedure Act these
powers are regulated by ss 42 and 49.
Riparian owners are entitled to the undisturbed use and
enjoyment of their property. On the other hand, canoeists
are also entitled to practise on public rivers. It is
important, however, to ascertain whether portage of canoes
on the river bank is incidental to the right of canoeing on
the river.
A balance should be struck between these conflicting
interests. The Water Act 54 of 1956 should be amended and
simplified, since South Africa cannot rely on Roman Dutch
law alone - our water problems are the complete opposite of
those in the Netherlands. / Criminal & Procedural Law / LL.M. (Straf- en Strafprosesreg)
|
2 |
Die arrestasiebevoegdheid van die private persoon (ingevolge aa 42 en 49 van die Strafproseswet 51 van 1977) met spesiale verwysing na die oewerbewoner en Martinus 1990 (2) SASV 568 (A) en ander verwante sakeFowler, Henriette 01 1900 (has links)
Text in Afrikaans / Die private persoon het sekere bevoegdhede betreffende die
arrestasie en die gebruik van geweld tydens arrestasie van
lede van die publiek wat misdade pleeg/gepleeg het. Hierdie
bevoegdheid spruit uit sowel die gemenereg as die wettereg.
Kragtens die Suid-Afrikaanse Strafproseswet word hierdie
bevoegdhede gereel deur aa 42 en 49.
Oewerbewoners as eienaars van grand is geregtig op die
onverstoorde gebruik en genot van hulle eiendom.
Daarteenoor is kanovaarders ook daarop geregtig om op
openbare ri vi ere vir wedvaarte te oefen. Di t is egter
belangrik om vas te stel of die portage van kano's op die
oewer insidenteel is tot die reg om op die rivier te vaar.
Ewewig moet bewerkstellig word tussen die botsende belange.
Die Waterwet 54 van 1956 behoort gewysig en vereenvoudig te
word, aangesien Suid-Afrika nie slegs op die RomeinsHollandse
reg kan staatmaak nie - ons waterprobleme staan
direk teenoor die van die Nederlande. / The private person has certain powers regarding the arrest
and the use of force to effect the arrest of members of the
public who have committed/are committing offences. These
powers are derived from either common law or statutory law.
In terms of the South African Criminal Procedure Act these
powers are regulated by ss 42 and 49.
Riparian owners are entitled to the undisturbed use and
enjoyment of their property. On the other hand, canoeists
are also entitled to practise on public rivers. It is
important, however, to ascertain whether portage of canoes
on the river bank is incidental to the right of canoeing on
the river.
A balance should be struck between these conflicting
interests. The Water Act 54 of 1956 should be amended and
simplified, since South Africa cannot rely on Roman Dutch
law alone - our water problems are the complete opposite of
those in the Netherlands. / Criminal and Procedural Law / LL.M. (Straf- en Strafprosesreg)
|
3 |
Le crime d'agression : recherches sur l'originalité d'un crime à la croisée du droit international pénal et du droit international du maintien de la paix / The crime aggression : Researching the originality of a crime at the crossroads of the International criminal law and the International peacekeepingMetangmo, Véronique Michèle 30 January 2012 (has links)
La criminalisation de l’agression et l’établissement de la compétence de la Cour pénale internationale sur ce crime obligent à donner une définition de ce crime, de même qu’à déterminer les conditions dans lesquelles la Cour exercera sa compétence sur ce crime. Cette tâche n’est cependant pas aisée en raison de la « nature particulière » du crime d’agression. Le problème majeur qui se pose est celui de la difficulté à définir et à encadrer le crime d’agression tout en respectant les règles cardinales du droit international pénal d’un côté et les exigences du droit de la Charte ou du droit international du maintien de la paix de l’autre côté.En raison de la nature juridique de l’agression et plus précisément du positionnement atypique qui caractérise le crime d’agression, crime à la croisée du droit international du maintien de la paix et du droit international pénal, sans oublier le fait que ce crime vise exclusivement les personnes « effectivement en mesure de contrôler ou de diriger l’action politique ou militaire d’un État », le régime juridique du crime d’agression va être assez particulier, ceci en comparaison de celui des autres crimes internationaux contenus dans le Statut de Rome. / The criminalization of aggression and the establishment of the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over this crime make it necessary to provide a definition for this crime, and to determine the conditions under which the Court shall exercise its jurisdiction over this crime. However, this task is not an easy one given the ‘’particular nature’’ of the crime of aggression. The major challenge we are faced with lies in the difficulty to define and circumscribe the crime of aggression while abiding by the cardinal rules of international criminal law on the one hand, and the requirements of the law of the Charter or the law of the international Peacekeeping on the other. Due to the legal nature of the aggression, more precisely the atypical positioning characteristic of the crime of aggression, a crime which is halfway between the law of the international peacekeeping and the international criminal law, not forgetting the fact that this crime targets exclusively individuals who are ‘’ actually able to control or lead the political or military action of a State,’’ the legal regime of the crime of aggression is going to be fairly peculiar, in comparison with that of the other international crimes provided for by the Rome Statute
|
Page generated in 0.0673 seconds