The thesis investigates the extent to which cross-border taking of evidence in civil and com-mercial matters in relation to Switzerland, South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda is allowed. Such evidence-taking is not only governed by the domestic law of the state seeking evidence abroad and that of the state where the relevant means of proof are located, but also by public international law, and more specifically by the concept of sovereignty. The ad-missibility of the cross-border taking of evidence under public international law depends on whether or not evidence-gathering in civil litigation is regarded as a judicial act, which violates sovereignty when performed on foreign territory, or as a purely private act. In the first case, the evidentiary material has to be obtained through channels of international judicial assistance. Such assistance can either be rendered based on the basis of an international treaty, or through courtoisie internationale. No international judicial assistance is necessary in cases of a so-called “transfer of foreign evidence”, provided no compulsion is applied which infringes the sovereignty of the foreign state. The thesis analyses the taking of evidence abroad based on the Hague Evidence Convention, and the Hague Procedure Convention. It further expounds how evidence located in Switzer-land, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda can be obtained for the benefit of civil proceed-ings pending abroad in the absence of any relevant international treaty. The thesis also exam-ines under what conditions a litigant in civil proceedings in the aforementioned countries may request evidence to be taken on foreign soil. The position of cross-border taking of evidence in civil and commercial matters in the said countries is assessed, and suggestions are made on how such status quo may be improved. The thesis makes an attempt to establish the basic prin-ciples for a convention on evidence-taking in civil and commercial matters between South Af-rica, Botswana, Namibia, Nigeria, and Uganda. The development of such principles, however, is only possible once the similarities and differences in the procedure for the taking of evidence and the means of proof in the relevant laws of the aforesaid countries have been identified. / Public, Constitutional, and International / LL.D.

Within the context of recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments the recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders is unique. By reason of the fact that custody orders are always modifiable "in the best interests of the child" they cannot be regarded as final orders and are thus not capable of recognition and enforcement on the same basis as final orders. The failure of courts to afford foreign custody orders recognition and enforcement in the normal course has created the potential for a person deprived of the custody of a child to remove the child from the jurisdiction of a court rendering a custody order to another jurisdiction within which he or she may seek a new, more favourable order. This potential for behaviour in contempt of an existing order has been exploited by numerous parents who feel aggrieved by custody orders. The problem of parental child snatching has escalated to such a degree that the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was drawn up to introduce uniform measures amongst member states to address this problem. Despite being a meaningful step in the fight against international child abduction the Hague Convention does not fully resolve the problem. For this reason other measures have been suggested to supplement the Convention. The different approaches taken in South Africa, the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States of America to recognition and enforcement of foreign custody orders and the measures to overcome the problem of international child abduction are examined and a comparative methodology applied to the design of a model approach for South Africa. The object of this model is to permit the South African courts to address the international child abduction problem without falling prey to any of the pitfalls experienced elsewhere in the legal systems examined. / Law / LL.D.

LL.M. (International Commercial Law) / This essay seeks to look at the role of express submission to jurisdictjon under the Brussels I Regulation,lthe Brussels I (recast) Regulation2 and the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements.3 The express submission to jurisdiction under the three instruments mentioned in the previous sentence refers to the situation in which parties to an international commercial contract include in their contract a court of their choice to govern any disputes that may arise between them. This designated court may or may not be situated in a country that is a member of the three instruments mentioned above. The purpose of this thesis is to determine what will occur when the court chosen is from a country that is not a member of either of the three instruments mentioned. We will first look at express submission and the role it plays in determining which court has jurisdiction. This section on express submission will provide the definition of express submission in the context of a contract which incorporates a choice-of-forum agreement between the parties who are engaged in an international commercial transaction. The thesis will view the role of submission in a common-law and civil-law country in light of express submission by contract. Finally, a distinction will be made between an exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. A brief discussion ofthe Brussels Convention4 (The Convention) will be provided in order to present the fact that the Convention only applies when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assoned thejurisdiction to a court of a country which is a member of the Convention. The Convention would not apply when a choice-of-forum agreement in a contract has assigned jurisdiction to the court of a country which is not a member to the Convention. ln order to determine whether the position has changed since the enactment of the Brussels I Regulation (Regulation) with regard to choice-of-forum agreements that designate jurisdiction to the court of a country in a nonmember state of the Regulation, provisions relating to express submission clauses will be discussed. A further discussion will be provided to ascertain whether the enactment of the Council Regulation (EC) No 4412001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement ofjudgments in civil and commercial matters.

Les règles de droit international privé applicables aux obligations alimentaires présentent trois caractéristiques principales. Primo, elles sont de source principalement internationale. Outre quelques règles de droit commun subsistantes, elles proviennent de six conventions de La Haye, d’un règlement européen, d’une convention adoptée sous l’égide des Nations-Unies et de conventions bilatérales et multilatérales. Secundo, elles s’insèrent au sein du mouvement contemporain de spécialisation de la discipline, ce qui implique un démantèlement des grandes catégories juridiques composant le statut personnel. Tertio, au carrefour de plusieurs intérêts, elles sont d’une particulière complexité. L’étude des obligations alimentaires à caractère international nous permet alors dedresser un bilan critique du droit international privé contemporain de la famille produit de manière désorganisée par la Conférence de La Haye et l’Union européenne. Bien évidemment, l’internationalisation des sources a permis des avancées certaines des méthodes du droit international privé. Parallèlement, elle a profondémentmétamorphosé la discipline en l’orientant vers la satisfaction d’intérêts politiques propres aux producteurs de normes au détriment de ses objectifs traditionnels. Prenant acte de ces observations, nous proposons un renouvellement du mode de production normative. L’amélioration des règles critiquables passe forcément par une réorganisation des rôles de l’État, de l’Union européenne et de la Conférence de La Haye dans l’élaboration du droit international privé. / The rules of Private International Law which could be applied to the maintenance obligations have three main characteristics. First of all, they are mainly from an International source. Some of the rules of International Law come from six Hague Conventions, an European regulation, a convention adopted under the United Nations’auspices, bilateral and multilateral conventions. Secondly, they take part in the discipline specialization through the contemporary movement which conclude the abolition of the main legal categories making up the personal status. Thirdly, they have a particular complexity being at the crossroad of several interests. The study of the maintenance obligations at an international scale allows us to critically asses the contemporary private international family law produced in the disorganized manner by the Hague Conference and the European Union. To be clarify it more, the internationalization of its sources allowed clear advance in the private international law methods. At the same time, it has changed the discipline fundamentally by focusing on the satisfaction of the norm setters’ political interests at the expense of its traditional goal. Taking note of these observations, we propose a renewal of the norms’ production method. Indeed, the questionable rules necessarily improve through the reorganization of the roles of the state, the European Union and the Hague Conference in the development of the private international law.