This study was encouraged by the fact that the theoretical terrain of ethics in public administration and management posits that, despite the existence of a code of conduct that regulates the conduct of municipal functionaries and councillors at local government sphere, the ethics in practice in general are still illusive. All this revolves around the main guiding research objective for this study which was to examine the reception of a code of conduct by municipal functionaries and councillors at the Capricorn District Municipality in the Limpopo Province. In exploring the main question of this study, the researcher developed an understanding of the concept ethics in Public Administration by selecting ethics theories namely: consequentialism, deontology and virtue theories. From the lesson learnt, it is evident that throwing around charges about which theory is truly ethical and which one should be followed or should guide municipal functionaries and councillors in making policy decisions is pointless. There is no ethical system which appeals to all people, or even to the same person in different situations. It is undoubtedly the case that consequentialists, deontologists and those who stand by virtue theories can each be sincere in believing their system embodies goodness and morality. The formulation of the Code of Conduct for the South African local government indicates the commitment of the South African government to enhancing ethical conduct. This Code contains a uniform set of ethical guidelines and applications for use throughout local government. It is also clear that the Code of Conduct has been drafted so as to be as clear as possible, but a detailed standard of conduct and disciplinary measures are not provided. This is a great challenge as it poses concerns about the accountability of municipal functionaries and councillors, and about how disciplinary measures on unethical conduct of politicians and officials should be handled. Chapter 3 forms an understanding of how culture, religion and language have ethical significance for community and tradition particularly when municipal functionaries and councillors make decisions. The promotion of an appropriate local government culture posits that, in order for a municipal manager and a mayor to make better decisions, they must take the need to understand the diversity of the local government into consideration. The most important point to be drawn from chapter 4 is that, besides legal instructions, the nature and influence of human behaviour through leadership and ethics infrastructure such as appointing an ethics officer and using whistle blowing as a system to enhance ethical conduct is important. In outlining the statutory and regulatory framework that directs public officials and politicians’ ethical conduct in South Africa, it was identified that South Africa is highly conscious of differences between individuals; therefore it is unlikely that legislation and current initiatives will suffice to enforce ethical behaviour among public officials, councillors and municipal functionaries. Another finding of this study is that the only official document available as the Code of Conduct for local government can be found in the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 in Schedule 1 and 2, and also in the Local Government Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 in Schedule 5. This finding is an indicative that South African local government does not have an official Code of Conduct as a separate document for ethical conduct. Following this finding, the recommendation is therefore that a separate document should be designed, formulated and emphasised. / Public Administration and Management / D. Litt. et Phil. (Public Administration)

La recrudescence des conflits internes dans le contexte post-guerre froide a permis de propulser à l’avant-plan la préoccupation pour les individus. Alors que la paix et la sécurité internationales ont historiquement constitué les piliers du système institutionnel international, une porte s’ouvrait pour rendre effectif un régime de protection des droits de l’homme par-delà les frontières. Pour les humanistes, l’intervention humanitaire représentait un mal nécessaire pour pallier aux souffrances humaines souvent causées par des divergences ethniques et religieuses. Pourtant, cette pratique est encore souvent perçue comme une forme de néo-colonialisme et entre en contradiction avec les plus hautes normes régissant les relations internationales, soit les principes de souveraineté des États et de non-intervention. La problématique du présent mémoire s’inscrit précisément dans cette polémique entre la préséance des droits de l’État et la prédilection pour les droits humains universels, deux fins antinomiques que la Commission internationales pour l’intervention et la souveraineté des États (CIISE) a tenté de concilier en élaborant son concept de responsabilité de protéger. Notre mémoire s’inscrit dans le champ de la science politique en études internationales mais s’articule surtout autour des notions et enjeux propres à la philosophie politique, plus précisément à l’éthique des relations internationales. Le travail se veut une réflexion critique et théorique des conclusions du rapport La responsabilité de protéger, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le critère de la juste cause et, dans une moindre mesure, celui d’autorité appropriée. Notre lecture des conditions de la CIISE à la justification morale du déclenchement d’une intervention humanitaire – critères issues de la doctrine de la guerre juste relativement au jus ad bellum – révèle une position mitoyenne entre une conception progressiste cosmopolitique et une vision conservatrice d’un ordre international composé d’États souverains. D’une part, la commission se dissocie du droit international en faisant valoir un devoir éthique d’outrepasser les frontières dans le but de mettre un terme aux violations massives des droits de l’homme et, d’autre part, elle craint les ingérences à outrance, comme en font foi l’établissement d’un seuil de la juste cause relativement élevé et la désignation d’une autorité multilatérale à titre de légitimateur de l’intervention. Ce travail dialectique vise premièrement à présenter et situer les recommandations de la CIISE dans la tradition de la guerre juste. Ensuite, il s’agit de relever les prémisses philosophiques tacites dans le rapport de la CIISE qui sous-tendent le choix de préserver une règle de non-intervention ferme de laquelle la dérogation n’est exigée qu’en des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous identifions trois arguments allant en ce sens : la reconnaissance du relativisme moral et culturel; la nécessité de respecter l’autonomie et l’indépendance des communautés politiques en raison d’une conception communautarienne de la légitimité de l’État, des réquisits de la tolérance et des avantages d’une responsabilité assignée; enfin, l’appréhension d’un bouleversement de l’ordre international sur la base de postulats du réalisme classique. Pour finir, nous nuançons chacune de ces thèses en souscrivant à un mode de raisonnement cosmopolitique et conséquentialiste. Notre adhésion au discours individualiste normatif nous amène à inclure dans la juste cause de la CIISE les violations systématiques des droits individuels fondamentaux et à cautionner l’intervention conduite par une coalition ou un État individuel, pourvu qu’elle produise les effets bénéfiques désirés en termes humanitaires. / The increasing number of internal conflicts in the Post-Cold War era propelled to the foreground the concern for individuals. Though international peace and security historically constituted the pillars of the world institutional system, the opportunity arose to establish an effective and cross-boundary human rights protection regime. According to humanists, humanitarian intervention was the necessary evil to bring an end to the human sufferings caused by ethnic and religious differences. Nevertheless, this kind of interference is still nowadays perceived as a neo-colonialist action and goes against the highest international relations norms, namely the state sovereignty and the non-intervention principles. This thesis’ issue lies within the controversy between states’ rights and universal human rights, which are two conflicting ends the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) tried to reconcile along with elaborating its responsibility to protect concept. The field of this paper is political science in international studies, but the focus is above all on political philosophy notions and stakes, particularly on ethics of international relations. The goal is to build a critical and theoretical thinking about the Responsibility to Protect conclusions, particularly regarding the just cause and appropriate authority criteria. In accordance with our interpretation of the ICISS moral justification conditions for humanitarian intervention – criteria derived from the just war theory’s concern for jus ad bellum – the commission’s stance is split into a progressive cosmopolitan view and a more conservative one that promotes a world order constituted by sovereign states. On one hand the commission separates itself from international law, putting forward an ethical duty to stop the massive human rights violations beyond borders. At the same time it is afraid of excessive interferences, as shown by the establishment of a relatively high just cause threshold and the appointment of a multilateral body in charge of legitimizing the intervention. This dialectical paper’s first objective is to describe and place the ICISS recommendations into the just war tradition. Then, the purpose is to sum up the tacit philosophical premises of the ICISS report in relation to its choice to preserve a firm non-intervention norm from which no derogation is permitted, except in case of exceptional circumstances. From that we identify three arguments: the acceptance of moral and cultural relativism; the requirement of respecting political communities’ autonomy and independence on account of a communitarian conception of state sovereignty, the prerequisites for tolerance and the assigned responsibility advantages; finally, the fear of an international order disruption on the basis of classical realism postulates. Ultimately, we challenge each one of these ideas adopting a cosmopolitan and consequentialist reasoning. Adhering to the normative individualist discourse, we propose to broaden the ICISS just cause so that it includes systematic fundamental human rights violations and to support coalition or individual state intervention, insofar as it produces the desired humanitarian benefits.

No description available.

La recrudescence des conflits internes dans le contexte post-guerre froide a permis de propulser à l’avant-plan la préoccupation pour les individus. Alors que la paix et la sécurité internationales ont historiquement constitué les piliers du système institutionnel international, une porte s’ouvrait pour rendre effectif un régime de protection des droits de l’homme par-delà les frontières. Pour les humanistes, l’intervention humanitaire représentait un mal nécessaire pour pallier aux souffrances humaines souvent causées par des divergences ethniques et religieuses. Pourtant, cette pratique est encore souvent perçue comme une forme de néo-colonialisme et entre en contradiction avec les plus hautes normes régissant les relations internationales, soit les principes de souveraineté des États et de non-intervention. La problématique du présent mémoire s’inscrit précisément dans cette polémique entre la préséance des droits de l’État et la prédilection pour les droits humains universels, deux fins antinomiques que la Commission internationales pour l’intervention et la souveraineté des États (CIISE) a tenté de concilier en élaborant son concept de responsabilité de protéger. Notre mémoire s’inscrit dans le champ de la science politique en études internationales mais s’articule surtout autour des notions et enjeux propres à la philosophie politique, plus précisément à l’éthique des relations internationales. Le travail se veut une réflexion critique et théorique des conclusions du rapport La responsabilité de protéger, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le critère de la juste cause et, dans une moindre mesure, celui d’autorité appropriée. Notre lecture des conditions de la CIISE à la justification morale du déclenchement d’une intervention humanitaire – critères issues de la doctrine de la guerre juste relativement au jus ad bellum – révèle une position mitoyenne entre une conception progressiste cosmopolitique et une vision conservatrice d’un ordre international composé d’États souverains. D’une part, la commission se dissocie du droit international en faisant valoir un devoir éthique d’outrepasser les frontières dans le but de mettre un terme aux violations massives des droits de l’homme et, d’autre part, elle craint les ingérences à outrance, comme en font foi l’établissement d’un seuil de la juste cause relativement élevé et la désignation d’une autorité multilatérale à titre de légitimateur de l’intervention. Ce travail dialectique vise premièrement à présenter et situer les recommandations de la CIISE dans la tradition de la guerre juste. Ensuite, il s’agit de relever les prémisses philosophiques tacites dans le rapport de la CIISE qui sous-tendent le choix de préserver une règle de non-intervention ferme de laquelle la dérogation n’est exigée qu’en des circonstances exceptionnelles. Nous identifions trois arguments allant en ce sens : la reconnaissance du relativisme moral et culturel; la nécessité de respecter l’autonomie et l’indépendance des communautés politiques en raison d’une conception communautarienne de la légitimité de l’État, des réquisits de la tolérance et des avantages d’une responsabilité assignée; enfin, l’appréhension d’un bouleversement de l’ordre international sur la base de postulats du réalisme classique. Pour finir, nous nuançons chacune de ces thèses en souscrivant à un mode de raisonnement cosmopolitique et conséquentialiste. Notre adhésion au discours individualiste normatif nous amène à inclure dans la juste cause de la CIISE les violations systématiques des droits individuels fondamentaux et à cautionner l’intervention conduite par une coalition ou un État individuel, pourvu qu’elle produise les effets bénéfiques désirés en termes humanitaires. / The increasing number of internal conflicts in the Post-Cold War era propelled to the foreground the concern for individuals. Though international peace and security historically constituted the pillars of the world institutional system, the opportunity arose to establish an effective and cross-boundary human rights protection regime. According to humanists, humanitarian intervention was the necessary evil to bring an end to the human sufferings caused by ethnic and religious differences. Nevertheless, this kind of interference is still nowadays perceived as a neo-colonialist action and goes against the highest international relations norms, namely the state sovereignty and the non-intervention principles. This thesis’ issue lies within the controversy between states’ rights and universal human rights, which are two conflicting ends the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) tried to reconcile along with elaborating its responsibility to protect concept. The field of this paper is political science in international studies, but the focus is above all on political philosophy notions and stakes, particularly on ethics of international relations. The goal is to build a critical and theoretical thinking about the Responsibility to Protect conclusions, particularly regarding the just cause and appropriate authority criteria. In accordance with our interpretation of the ICISS moral justification conditions for humanitarian intervention – criteria derived from the just war theory’s concern for jus ad bellum – the commission’s stance is split into a progressive cosmopolitan view and a more conservative one that promotes a world order constituted by sovereign states. On one hand the commission separates itself from international law, putting forward an ethical duty to stop the massive human rights violations beyond borders. At the same time it is afraid of excessive interferences, as shown by the establishment of a relatively high just cause threshold and the appointment of a multilateral body in charge of legitimizing the intervention. This dialectical paper’s first objective is to describe and place the ICISS recommendations into the just war tradition. Then, the purpose is to sum up the tacit philosophical premises of the ICISS report in relation to its choice to preserve a firm non-intervention norm from which no derogation is permitted, except in case of exceptional circumstances. From that we identify three arguments: the acceptance of moral and cultural relativism; the requirement of respecting political communities’ autonomy and independence on account of a communitarian conception of state sovereignty, the prerequisites for tolerance and the assigned responsibility advantages; finally, the fear of an international order disruption on the basis of classical realism postulates. Ultimately, we challenge each one of these ideas adopting a cosmopolitan and consequentialist reasoning. Adhering to the normative individualist discourse, we propose to broaden the ICISS just cause so that it includes systematic fundamental human rights violations and to support coalition or individual state intervention, insofar as it produces the desired humanitarian benefits.

This study was encouraged by the fact that the theoretical terrain of ethics in public administration and management posits that, despite the existence of a code of conduct that regulates the conduct of municipal functionaries and councillors at local government sphere, the ethics in practice in general are still illusive. All this revolves around the main guiding research objective for this study which was to examine the reception of a code of conduct by municipal functionaries and councillors at the Capricorn District Municipality in the Limpopo Province. In exploring the main question of this study, the researcher developed an understanding of the concept ethics in Public Administration by selecting ethics theories namely: consequentialism, deontology and virtue theories. From the lesson learnt, it is evident that throwing around charges about which theory is truly ethical and which one should be followed or should guide municipal functionaries and councillors in making policy decisions is pointless. There is no ethical system which appeals to all people, or even to the same person in different situations. It is undoubtedly the case that consequentialists, deontologists and those who stand by virtue theories can each be sincere in believing their system embodies goodness and morality. The formulation of the Code of Conduct for the South African local government indicates the commitment of the South African government to enhancing ethical conduct. This Code contains a uniform set of ethical guidelines and applications for use throughout local government. It is also clear that the Code of Conduct has been drafted so as to be as clear as possible, but a detailed standard of conduct and disciplinary measures are not provided. This is a great challenge as it poses concerns about the accountability of municipal functionaries and councillors, and about how disciplinary measures on unethical conduct of politicians and officials should be handled. Chapter 3 forms an understanding of how culture, religion and language have ethical significance for community and tradition particularly when municipal functionaries and councillors make decisions. The promotion of an appropriate local government culture posits that, in order for a municipal manager and a mayor to make better decisions, they must take the need to understand the diversity of the local government into consideration. The most important point to be drawn from chapter 4 is that, besides legal instructions, the nature and influence of human behaviour through leadership and ethics infrastructure such as appointing an ethics officer and using whistle blowing as a system to enhance ethical conduct is important. In outlining the statutory and regulatory framework that directs public officials and politicians’ ethical conduct in South Africa, it was identified that South Africa is highly conscious of differences between individuals; therefore it is unlikely that legislation and current initiatives will suffice to enforce ethical behaviour among public officials, councillors and municipal functionaries. Another finding of this study is that the only official document available as the Code of Conduct for local government can be found in the Local Government Municipal Systems Act 32 of 2000 in Schedule 1 and 2, and also in the Local Government Municipal Structures Act 117 of 1998 in Schedule 5. This finding is an indicative that South African local government does not have an official Code of Conduct as a separate document for ethical conduct. Following this finding, the recommendation is therefore that a separate document should be designed, formulated and emphasised. / Public Administration and Management / D. Litt. et Phil. (Public Administration)