LL.D. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

Faculty of Humanities School of Humanities and Social Sciences 0200487m peter.mcinnes@health.gov.za / This dissertation looks at the attitudes, actions and opinions towards law, rights and political mobilisation, and in particular South Africa’s Bill of Rights, of a small band of activists associated with the Soweto Electricity Crisis Committee (SECC). It provides a snapshot of attitudes towards the Bill of Rights prevalent at the birth of a small organisation, which since 2000 has been active and at times successful in guaranteeing affordable electricity in South Africa’s largest township - Soweto. The SECC emerged as a real force in Johannesburg’s political life in the first half of 2001 as a result of the disconnection of up to 20,000 households per month by the state owned electricity utility, ESKOM. In response to these cut-offs Sowetans required urgent and appropriate forms of political action that would both provide immediate relief in terms of reconnecting disconnected households to the grid, wiping off unpayable electricity account arrears and, over the longer term, mitigating or transforming the policies that led to the cut-offs. This study explores to what extent the Bill of Rights enhanced grass roots political mobilisation. The study describes the potential mechanism through which rights discourse promotes community mobilization and provide some preliminary comments on the appropriateness of legal mobilization for political ends. This focus on electricity enabled understanding of how a community based organisation strategised social mobilisation when a particular demand, in this case an essential service - electricity - is not explicitly included in the South African Bill of Rights. Specifically it allowed the study of strategies adopted to prosecute similar demands surrounding access to water, which was explicitly included in the Constitution. In this case the SECC strategy was to deliberately obscure the boundaries between the two services. Rights talk was adopted by the SECC to serve political ends. The need of Sowetans for reliable, consistent and affordable supplies of electricity was transformed and demanded as of right by the SECC. Such a characterisation had obvious advantages to the SECC activists trying to build a movement that could challenge Eskom’s and the municipal government’s credit control policies. Rights talk provided a catalyst to engage interest in the campaign. On attracting an audience by ‘rights talk’ the allegation that service disconnection denied ‘fundamental human rights’ tapped into already existing feelings of hurt and humiliation. Rights talk legitimated peoples private feelings of pain and humiliation. The evolving sense of outrage as a result of this denial was then directed (hopefully) towards involvement in protests and meetings. The themes present in the writings of critical legal theorists on rights are explored. This study found that the key tenets of critical legal theory’s critique of rights such as the malleability and indeterminacy of legal discourse to suit your own ends; the tilt within the legal system to already powerful interests within South African society; and the risks of constitutional litigation to the democratic character of the struggle were all present in the minds of activists. Yet ultimately legal strategies were of ongoing interest to SECC activists because of the undeniable potential leverage they provided to promote social mobilisation and allow for real changes in harmful government policies through the assistance of the courts. These potential uses outweighed the identified attendant risks of a constitutional litigation strategy. This study concludes that rights can form an important component of the progressive activists arsenal of weapons against liberal capitalism. This is both understandable in a short-term strategic sense (as implied above in the SECC’s use of rights) as well as a more complex longer-term project of building a better society.

A body of critical legal scholarship argues that, by the time they have completed their studies, students who enter legal education holding social ideals and intending to use their legal education to achieve social change, have become cynical about the ability of the law to do so and no longer possess such ideals. This is explained by critical scholars to be the result of a process of ideological indoctrination, aimed at ensuring that graduates uphold the narrow and conservative interests of the legal profession and capitalist society, being exercised by law schools acting as adjuncts of the legal profession, and exercised upon the passive body of the law student. By using Foucault’s work on knowledge, power, and the subject to interrogate the assumptions upon which this narrative is based, this thesis intends to suggest a way of thinking differently to the approach taken by many critical legal scholars. It then uses an analytics of government (based on Foucault’s notion of ‘governmentality’) to consider the construction of the legal identity differently. It examines the ways in which the governance of the legal identity is rationalised, programmed, and implemented, in three Queensland law schools. It also looks at the way that five prescriptive texts to ‘surviving’ law school suggest students establish and practise a relation to themselves in order to construct their own legal identities. Overall, this analysis shows that governance is not simply conducted in the profession’s interests, but occurs due to a complex arrangement of different practices, which can lead to the construction of skilled legal professional identities as well as ethical lawyer-citizens that hold an interest in justice. The implications of such an analytics provide the basis for original ways of understanding legal education, and legal education scholarship.

This thesis engages and scrutinizes critiques of rights developed in Critical Legal Studies scholarship and critical international law theory, specifically as formulated in the works of prominent and influential legal theorists Duncan Kennedy and Martti Koskenniemi, and draws on them to grapple with the changes that Swedish refugee and asylum policy went through during the fall/winter of 2015 and 2016. During this period, a series of drastic and far-reaching restrictions were enacted. Despite this, the Swedish government could still, albeit under immense criticism, claim a status for their policies as respecting human rights and adhering to the principles of international law. Against this background, the purpose of this study is to examine anew, using works of Kennedy and Koskenniemi, the relationship between the concept of human rights on the one hand and politics on the other, and how this relationship can be observed to have been (re)negotiated during the policy shift in Sweden. The thesis also raises the question of whether any general or uniform assessment of rights discourse is available in the works of the chosen theorists, and if so, of what this consists. The results show that the indeterminacy and contingency of rights frameworks, which is pointed to by both theorists, provides a suitable perspective from which to view the flexibility of the discourse, but this perspective is also seen as partially inadequate and in need of being supplemented with an account of what, or who, effects actual policy outcomes and thus determines the social meaning and contents of human rights. The theoretical tools developed by Koskenniemi help explain how the structural biases of the deciding institutions, the Swedish government and the EU, contribute to the re-definition of the content of refugee rights. Further, it is argued that both theorists have some difficulty in expounding in any clear and unambiguous way just what consequences their critiques might have for how rights discourses can and should be approached. An engagement with asylum and refugee rights from a critical legal theory perspective was thus shown as offering both problems and possibilities.

No description available.

In this dissertation I argue for the need to develop a Metis Critical Legal Theory, or “MetCrit”, a theory that is particular to the cultures, issues and concerns of Metis people. Suggestions towards the development of MetCrit are proposed in light of the difficulties of Metis rights claimants in British Columbia following creation of the “historic community connection” test in R v Powley, the leading case on the constitutional protection of Metis rights in Canada. Misconceptions about BC Metis history and about Metis communities generally have resulted in legal decisions that hold there are no historic Metis communities in BC, and thus no communities capable of meeting the Powley test. The BC situation reveals that Powley, as it is currently interpreted, cannot adequately deal with the realities of Metis history or with Metis conceptions of community, and that the community connection test itself is flawed. MetCrit is proposed as a possible lens through which to examine BC Metis rights cases in light of the historiography of the Metis of BC, and through which to critique the Powley court’s attempt to concretize Metis community identities. I suggest that MetCrit could provide spectrums of space for avoiding some of the dualities that are reflected in Canadian legal and historical accounts of Metis people and communities. / Graduate / 2020-04-19

A more conservative supreme court will likely have the chance to overrule Roe v. Wade. Many states have passed heartbeat laws that will probably be taken all the way to the supreme court, these cases will ask the supreme court to affirm fetal personhood, giving fetuses a constitutionally recognized right to due process and making abortion illegal. In this thesis, I will defend an expansion of protections for pregnant peoples through a socialized right to abortion.

No description available.

Dominant theories of aboriginal rights articulate the relation between rights and identity in terms of a logic which treats identity as an irreducible good and rights as the instrumental means of its protection. However, identity claims and legal claims emerge in our use of language. Identity and the institutions in which identities are expressed and experienced are constituted in speech. A close analysis reveals the degree to which law and identity are a systemic imbrication of normative claims characterized by an innate indeterminacy. This indeterminacy renders all rights and identity claims contingent on their reception and validation by others.

Peace bonds are a legal tool of governance dating back to 13th c. England. In Canada, a significant change in the application of peace bonds took place in the mid-1990s, shifting their purpose from governing minor disputes between individuals to allowing for persons who have not been charged with a crime to be governed as if they had. Given the legal test for a peace bond has always been the determination of ‘reasonable fear’, the advent of these ‘specialized’ peace bonds suggests that the object of reasonable fear has changed. Despite their lengthy history, peace bonds have limited coverage in academic literature, a weakness compounded by a predominant doctrinal approach based in a liberal framework. The central inquiry of this thesis moves beyond this predominant perspective of ‘peace bonds as crime prevention’ by developing a governmental criminology, which deepens our understanding of the role of specialized peace bond law in contemporary society. Specifically, governmental criminology takes a Foucaultian critical legal studies approach, which acknowledges legal pluralism and sets out the historical context required for analysis. Ultimately, by unearthing underlying social, economic, and political power relations it is possible to critique the accompanying modes of calculation of fear and risk, thus challenging the regimes of practices that make specialized peace bonds possible. Specialized peace bonds merely manage the consequences of a criminal justice system limited by social, political, and economic circumstances, in a broader biopolitical project of integrating risky populations.