No description available.

No description available.

yes / There have been many praises as well as criticisms against both the UN Convention on the rights of the child and the African Charter on the rights and welfare of the child. However, many writers are of the view that the African charter was an unnecessary duplication of the convention. This paper outlines some of the differences and similarities between the UN convention on the rights of the child, and the African children’s charter. The paper traces the development of children’s right treaties internationally and on the African continent, and argues that the adoption of the African children’s charter is in tandem with the United Nation’s call for regional arrangements for the protection and promotion of human rights, therefore not an unnecessary duplication of the UN convention.

The introduction of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has affected many elements of the constitutional system in Canada. This dissertation explores the Charter's relationship with liberal constitutionalism and Canadian federalism, and considers whether judicial review on Charter grounds has seen a progression, or a regression, from parliamentary to constitutional to judicial supremacy. Further, this dissertation considers whether Charter review has reduced provincial autonomy by imposing national values in provincial areas of jurisdiction when Charter review nullifies provincial statutes. Through a complex process referred to as the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism, this study argues that a changed Charter jurisprudence by the Supreme Court of Canada and a changed policy process within the administrative state at the federal level have reduced the negative implications of Charter review for liberal constitutionalism and Canadian federalism. To advance this argument, the concept of Charter activism is introduced to demonstrate that the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism is the product of the shifting equilibrium within two distinct elements that comprise Charter activism---judicial activism and bureaucratic activism. This study pursues three themes to demonstrate that the decline of judicial activism and the emergence of bureaucratic activism now converge at a point within Charter politics that facilitate the rebalancing of liberal constitutionalism and ensure that Charter review advances constitutional and not judicial supremacy. The first theme investigates the Supreme Court of Canada as a policy actor during Charter review, and analyzes Charter decisions between 1982 and 1997. The second theme considers the impact of Charter review on Canadian federalism and whether the Charter has centralized Canadian federalism and reduced provincial autonomy. The final theme investigates bureaucratic activism and the changes within the policy process at the fe

This work considers the legal impediments to farming in an urban environment with a particular focus on the municipal bylaws that prohibit the keeping of hens in Saskatoon. The jurisdictional competency of Saskatoon to prohibit the keeping of urban hens is challenged under both municipal law and constitutional law, and more broadly, under the general premise that liberty interests should often prevail where a bylaw is arbitrary, misinformed, and restricts the pursuit of truth and human flourishing. Saskatoon’s urban hen prohibition is argued to be premised more on a form of moral reasoning that unnecessarily distinguishes between rural and urban environments, and less, if at all, on empirical evidence. Urban agriculture is often undertaken to address the environmental and social shortfalls of the global food system, such as the system’s connection with climate change, animal welfare issues, and challenges associated with the distribution of food. Moreover, urban agriculture is a means of protecting the rights of producers and consumers, as articulated by the food sovereignty movement. In this work, a claimant’s desire to advance food rights (including food sovereignty) through the keeping of urban hens is argued to engage the guarantee to freedom of expression and freedom of conscience under Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This work explores the possibility of protecting the manifestation of social and environmental action through the guarantee to freedom of conscience. This work develops a cursory test for determining where a claimant’s guarantee to freedom of conscience is violated, drawing on the well established protection of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.

The African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights is turning 30 since its adoption. The Charter is also soon turning to its 20 in Mauritius since ratification. The Charter indeed has been hailed for its unique normative content and aspired to be a beacon of human rights in the Continent which has attracted the attention of academicians as well as experts in the field of human rights. The Charter has undoubtedly affected domestic systems through the promotional and protective mandates exercised by the African Commission. How much the Charter has actually influenced domestic human rights practices however, has not yet formed much of the available literature. More so, Mauritius being a party to the Charter for nearly two decades has not enjoyed the attention of writers on the African Charter. Not much is known as to the interactions of Mauritius with the African system which calls for investigation of how much the Charter has influenced the domestic system for two decades long. Beyond formidable normative content, the success of a human rights system depends on the impact it exerts on domestic systems through shaping the behaviours, actions and practice of domestic institutions. Such reflection is therefore, important to gauge the impact of the African Charter and profile its future towards success. This study attempts to enlighten the impact of the African Charter in Mauritius by embarking on examination of the practices of domestic institutions and actors offering unexploited area to ponder critically. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2011. / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/ / nf2012 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

No description available.

The courts in Canada have often been cast, by both courts and legal scholars, as 'umpires' or 'arbiters' of the federal-provincial division of powers - umpires or arbiters that have the exclusive, or at least decisive, authority to clarify and enforce, and resolve disputes about, 'who does what' in the federal system. However, the image conveyed by these metaphors underestimates the role that the federal and provincial political branches play in the federal system, by working out their own solutions, in the intergovernmental arena, both directly and indirectly, where questions and disputes arise about how jurisdiction is and should be allocated. The image conveyed by the umpire or arbiter metaphors also sits uncomfortably with the facilitative role that the Supreme Court of Canada has carved out for itself in its recent division of powers decisions, a role that casts the courts as facilitators of these instances of intergovernmental dialogue. This doctoral dissertation challenges, and moves beyond, the umpire and arbiter metaphors. It examines the political safeguards available to the provinces in Canada to prevent, or limit, perceived federal encroachments on provincial jurisdiction, in the process highlighting the role that the political branches play in Canada in working out their own allocations of jurisdiction, outside of the courts. It describes, and critically evaluates, the facilitative role carved out by the Court in its recent division of powers decisions, identifying various reasons to be skeptical of a facilitative role that casts the courts as facilitators of intergovernmental dialogue. Finally, and with an eye to future research, it briefly outlines an alternative facilitative role that focuses on facilitating deliberation about the division of powers implications of particular initiatives, arguing that it would be premature to dismiss facilitative approaches to judicial review altogether.

No description available.

Universities have traditionally stood as bastions of academic freedom and forums for open discourse and free expression. In recent years, however, this role has been questioned in instances where university administrators have, either directly or complicity, denied students the opportunity to express certain viewpoints they deem “controversial”. This research paper explores whether a university, or its delegates, should be allowed to deny students access to campus facilities and resources solely on the basis of ideological viewpoint. The relevance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, statutory human rights provisions, and common law doctrines to the student-university relationship are explored in turn. It is argued that, notwithstanding the fact that universities may be “private” actors to whom the Charter does not directly apply, they are institutions invested with a public interest, and as such ought to be subject to special duties of non-discrimination.