For many people their ease of access to a private home toilet means that when and where they go to relieve themselves is rarely a deliberation in their minds. In South Africa's rural and peri-urban spaces there are many poor people for whom this is not the case. For these people the inadequacy of their access to sanitation compromises their health, safety and ability to live a dignified life. Without an explicit right included in the Constitution, litigating on access to sanitation poses a formidable legal challenge. However, a critical analysis of South Africa's socio-economic and administrative law jurisprudence reveals that a fundamental right of access to sanitation is not exactly necessary. Outlining South Africa's vast network of service delivery legislation and policy, this thesis submits that there is a principled basis in our law to enforce a right of access to sanitation. It illustrates that this legal basis extends beyond merely protecting a person's existing access to sanitation, but includes positive duties imposed on the state to provide certain services as well.

Prior to the advent of the Constitution and constitutional democracy land policies of the apartheid state secured resource ownership and control of land exclusively for the white minority, whilst dispossessing large communities of black, coloured and Asian people and banishing them to designated "native reserves". Shortly before the transition to democracy liberation groups together with the old apartheid regime, sought to negotiate on land policies which not only constitutionalized property rights but which also constitutionalized a priority to land reform in order to redress the injustices of the past. This paper examines whether the law, as captured in s 25 of the bill of rights, stood in the way of government inn unfolding a progressive programme of land reform. As a contribution to the debate surrounding issues on the appropriateness of the expropriation of land as a means of accelerating the pace of land reform, this papers offers a critical lens through which the state's current land reform policies are evaluated against the Constitution's transformative agenda of facilitating for an equitable system of land rights that provide development opportunities for black and coloured South Africans. Through an analysis of constitutional jurisprudence-including academic literature and legislation- this paper aims to investigate whether section 25 by reason of a lacking of sufficient expropriation and redistribution, as mechanisms for accelerating land reform, is anti-transformation. By deconstructing section 25 (the property clause) my paper offers insight into the controversial and rebuttable presumption that it is in fact not the Constitution but the state, that is responsible for frustrating and impeding the pace of transformation via constitutionally permissible land reform.

South Africa has a history of human rights atrocities that have created an urgency to attend to the previously marginalised and vulnerable groups of society. The Constitution of the state as well as other international treaties have created provisions that entrench the commitment to protect the child. This has been done through the inclusion of the 'best interests of the child' principle in the instruments. This study examines the development of the 'best interests' of the child. Furthermore, it analyses how and why the principle developed in the international and national context. The purpose is to come to the findings that the newly introduced Children's Act has created a better scope of protection than the previous common law precedent. The leading component of the study is criticising the method of the application of the 'best interests' of the child principle in South Africa. The author will specifically focus of section 7 of the Children's Act and prove why the courts should be applying this provision in child-related cases.

Includes bibliographical references. / Transnational land acquisitions (TLA) are promoted by international development agencies such as the World Bank as part of a ‘win-win’ process whereby profitable investment stimulates much needed agricultural and rural development in low-income countries.4 However, there has been widespread opposition to TLA from international and national NGOs, UN agencies, rural peoples associations and other groups, who question the developmental benefits of TLA on a number of grounds, the most common of which is the threat they pose to food and tenure security.5 Though exact numbers are not available, due in large part to the secrecy in which many land acquisitions are conducted, evidence suggests that many thousands (perhaps hundreds of thousands) of rural farmers and other land users have been dispossessed of their land (often without compensation) or otherwise had their human rights violated as a consequence of TLA. The global land rush is a complex phenomena that cuts across the fields of development, international trade and investment, global governance, and international struggles for the protection and promotion of human rights. Scholars are beginning to shed light on these different aspects; in particular, the agro-economic impact of the global land rush has been widely discussed.6 However, the legal and governance questions raised by TLA have received less attention. This paper responds to this knowledge gap by responding to the legal and governance (as opposed to the wider developmental) questions raised by TLA. It will show that the current international, regional and domestic legal frameworks that govern TLA provide excellent security for foreign investments in land but fail to adequately protect the human rights of the rural land users affected by those investments.

Includes bibliographical references. / The trafficking of children has been recognised by the international community as a transnational organised crime that affects children globally. As the child rights movement has grown in momentum over the last few decades, so has the concern regarding the exploitation of children. Child trafficking is certainly one of the gravest forms of abuse currently perpetuated against a child and his/her rights. Despite the numerous policy documents, international treaties and various other legal documents prohibiting the sale of children for any purpose; these documents have not resulted in the decrease or elimination of child trafficking. This paper will engage with child trafficking through a human rights lens in order to highlight the full extent of child abuse perpetuated by child trafficking. It is due to the very nature of child trafficking that resulted in the international and regional community enacting legal instruments to deal with different aspects of this crime. These instruments require states to prevent and punish the trafficking of children. This paper will examine South Africa s child trafficking laws and policies having regard to its international and regional obligations.

Humanitarian intervention refers to the use of force for the protection of human rights in a foreign state and usually against the will of the state in which force is used. The legality of unilateral humanitarian Intervention is a widely contested area in contemporary international law. It is a discussion that cuts across law, morality and foreign policy. Humanitarian intervention brings to the fore the contention between the principles of sovereignty and political independence on one hand and human rights and the principle of common humanity on the other hand. Some scholars contend that humanitarian intervention is a violation of the principles of sovereignty and political independence of states and violates Article 2(4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter. Other scholars have argued that Artcicle 2(4) of the UN Charter does not prohibit the use of force for human rights purposes but rather prohibits use of force which is targeted against a state's political framework or territorial annexation. They argue further that huamn rights constitutes one of the purposes of the UN and it is therefore unthinkable that the UN Charter will prohibit the use of force for such a purpose as human rights. Humanitarian intervention thus stands at the crossroasds of very foundational principle of both customary international law and the UN Charter. In this thesis, I argue that humanitarian intervention is illegal under the UN Charter as it does not fall within the two exceptions to the use of force: self-defence and Security Council sanctioned use of force. However, I go further to argue for the legitimacy of humanitarian intervention based on the principles of common humanity and wider principles of sovereignty. This argument draws from the just war doctrine as postulated by Grotius and other early just war theorists. The need to allow for unilateral intervention is pertinent given the rise in the abuse of power by some governments. Sovereignty should not be an umbrella that shields human rights abuses.

Includes bibliographical references. / This dissertation will, through the analysis of various pieces of legislation and taking account of the daily realities of children in South Africa, Brazil and India (IBSA), outline the progress made to reduce and eradicate the exploitation of children, through the elimination of child labour. These three countries are chosen because of the particular challenges they face, but also because as part of the IBSA group, they have committed themselves to working together in the advancement of key international matters, including issues of human rights and social justice. The India, Brazil and South Africa (IBSA) group has further recently been held up as a global example for the efforts made by nations in the elimination of the worst forms child labour. The ultimate goal is the total elimination of child labour. This dissertation will draw attention to the complexities and contradictions in policy and practice, with particular reference to concepts such as ‘Child Labour’ and the ‘Worst Forms of Child Labour’. This dissertation will compare [the experience of] childhood in these countries, and explore the risk factors that place particular children, and families, at risk of utilising child labour as a source of income.

On the 18th August 2003 in the City of Accra, Ghana, representatives of the new Liberian government signed what became known as the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). The Agreement marked the formal end of over twenty years of civil war and strife for Liberia and the Liberian people. Article XIII of the CPA outlines the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC). Accordingly, the Commission was mandated to provide a forum that will address issues of impunity, as well as an opportunity for both the victims and perpetrators of human rights violations to share their experiences in order to get a clear picture of the past to facilitate genuine healing and reconciliation.In essence, the proposal was for individuals to share their experiences, through speech and language, of the violence and inhumane treatment suffered through the years of war, in order to provide the greater community of Liberia with a clearer understanding of their collective history and, as a result, lead the country to realise "genuine healing and reconciliation‟ through this process. Through a philosophical and psychological framework this paper seeks to explore the promises and limitations of truth commissions - with specific refererence to the truth commission established in Liberia - through a deconstruction and discussion of their central elements: truth, testimony, history and reconciliation. The paper will contest the notion posited in the mandates of truth commissions that truth is something objective and verifiable that can be found; rather, I insist that if we align our understanding of truth with Nietzschean thinking on the subject, truth commissions can foster the creation of truth through the individual's creative engagement with speech and language as they testify at truth commission hearings. The paper then goes on to discuss some of the problems inherent in the idea that, through the act of narrative, individuals can heal through a spoken testament of their traumas. Following post-modernist thinking, this paper is sceptical of claims of official truth and history which privileges certain memories and narratives and in fact subscribes to a version of history which suits the agenda of the new order and government, or those who have been tasked with writing this official truth and history. Indeed, by the very notion that truth commissions 'rewrite' the past they admit that truth and history are permeable, biased and privileged to whomever is writing it. This paper argues that despite truth commission's claims that they are therapeutic bodies aimed at the overall healing and betterment of those afflicted by the pains of war, truth commissions are in fact political bodies designed to forward the agenda of the new reigning order. In addition, this paper makes suggestions as to what elements of a truth commission can have a positive and healing effect, and could therefore lead to what I argue to be true and lasting reconciliation. The paper will contest the notion posited in the mandates of truth commissions that truth is something objective and verifiable that can be found; rather, I insist that if we align our understanding of truth with Nietzschean thinking on the subject, truth commissions can foster the creation of truth through the individual's creative engagement with speech and language as they testify at truth commission hearings. The paper then goes on to discuss some of the problems inherent in the idea that, through the act of narrative, individuals can heal through a spoken testament of their traumas. Following post-modernist thinking, this paper is sceptical of claims of official truth and history which privileges certain memories and narratives and in fact subscribes to a version of history which suits the agenda of the new order and government, or those who have been tasked with writing this official truth and history. Indeed, by the very notion that truth commission's 'rewrite' the past they admit that truth and history are permeable, biased and privileged to whomever is writing it. This paper argues that despite truth commission's claims that they are therapeutic bodies aimed at the overall healing and betterment of those afflicted by the pains of war, truth commissions are in fact political bodies designed to forward the agenda of the new reigning order. In addition, this paper makes suggestions as to what elements of a truth commission can have a positive and healing effect, and could therefore lead to what I argue to be true and lasting reconciliation The paper then goes on to discuss some of the problems inherent in the idea that, through the act of narrative, individuals can heal through a spoken testament of their traumas. Following post-modernist thinking, this paper is sceptical of claims of official truth and history which privileges certain memories and narratives and in fact subscribes to a version of history which suits the agenda of the new order and government, or those who have been tasked with writing this official truth and history. Indeed, by the very notion that truth commission's 'rewrite' the past they admit that truth and history are permeable, biased and privileged to whomever is writing it. This paper argues that despite truth commission's claims that they are therapeutic bodies aimed at the overall healing and betterment of those afflicted by the pains of war, truth commissions are in fact political bodies designed to forward the agenda of the new reigning order. In addition, this paper makes suggestions as to what elements of a truth commission can have a positive and healing effect, and could therefore lead to what I argue to be true and lasting reconciliation.

Includes bibliographical references. / An astute understanding of history is not required to grasp that global trade is not a new phenomenon. As a very young student in American schools, I still recall learning about the caravans of traders trekking across the Silk Road, about the merchant traveller Marco Polo, about the misplaced aspirations of Christopher Columbus and the resulting Columbian Exchange between Europe and the Americas. This is an oft-mythologized and sometimes flatly fabricated period of history,1 but there are basic truths at the base of it all. There were certainly men embarking on difficult journeys across vast ocean stretches, carrying goods from one continent to another with the hope of striking it rich (or at least making enough to buy themselves a good time at the next harbour). There were certainly people who profited, and plenty more who were exploited. But while global trade is not new, the structure and volume of global trade has changed drastically during recent decades. More money is at stake, and so is a greater swath of humanity. Complex global value chains2 have sprouted, in which a single product may contain fingerprints from dozens of countries when it finally lands on retail shelves. In this dissertation I am concerned with the fate of workers that toil anonymously at the base of these global value chains. But my primary focus is to contest a myth, though it has nothing to do with Christopher Columbus. Rather, the dominant narrative surrounding contemporary global trade suggests that regulation of such is beyond our reach. Due to the evolving structure of global trade, ‘governance gaps’ have emerged. This begs many questions: Who is responsible for achieving a remedy when things go wrong, when a factory collapse kills hundreds of workers or when the makers of high-priced fashion aren’t paid a living wage? Do we turn to the state that shelters the corporation, even if the wrongdoing occurs outside their jurisdiction? What about the state where the operations are based? Can they impose their will on corporations that are sheltered elsewhere? Are the corporations themselves responsible, even when they are not directly involved in outsourced operations? Are local manufacturers at fault if they are acting at the behest of a more powerful entity?

Includes bibliographical references. / Zambia's housing problems cannot be overstated. The current Constitution of Zambia does not recognise the right to adequate housing as a fundamental human right. It provides that the State shall endeavour to provide decent shelter for all but as a directive principle of state policy. In essence, as explicitly stated by the Constitution, the right to housing is not justiciable. This means that Zambians cannot approach any court, tribunal, administrative institution or entity to claim violation of the right to adequate housing. It is submitted that rights must be claimed if they are to be fully enjoyed. This thesis will discuss the importance and the need for a justiciable right to adequate housing in Zambia enshrined in the Constitution.