Ce mémoire de maîtrise tente de répondre à deux questions interreliées : l’État a-t-il, d’un point de vue philosophique, un droit d’exclure et quelle est la réponse que l’État devrait donner, d’un point de vue moral, au phénomène migratoire? Pour ce faire, nous nous livrons à l’analyse critique du débat philosophique sur les frontières et l’immigration entre les défenseur.e.s du droit d’exclure de l’État et les tenant.e.s de l’ouverture des frontières. Adoptant une approche non idéale égalitariste libérale cosmopolitique et nous concentrant principalement sur la migration économique non qualifiée en provenance des pays pauvres et à destination des riches démocraties libérales dans le monde d’aujourd’hui, nous critiquons successivement les arguments sécuritaire, socio-économique et démocratique en faveur du droit d’exclure de l’État. De manière générale, nous visons à montrer que ces trois arguments exagèrent la menace que représente l’immigration pour la sécurité, l’ordre public, les emplois, les salaires, l’État-providence, la culture et l’autodétermination politique, et qu’ils n’accordent pas assez de poids aux intérêts des migrant.e.s en provenance de pays pauvres. Nous en concluons que l’État n’a pas, d’un point de vue philosophique, un droit d’exclure, et qu’il serait moralement préférable d’ouvrir davantage les frontières, tout en redéfinissant les pouvoirs et les responsabilités des États et des institutions internationales afin de permettre une gouvernance internationale multilatérale de la migration et de mieux répondre aux principaux problèmes qui amplifient le phénomène migratoire, c’est-à-dire les conflits armés, les inégalités socio-économiques criantes au niveau international et les changements climatiques. / This master’s thesis tries to answer two interrelated questions: does the state have, from a philosophical point of view, a right to exclude, and what is the answer the state should give, from a moral point of view, to the migratory phenomenon? To do this, we engage in a critical analysis of the philosophical debate on borders and immigration between the defenders of the state’s right to exclude and the defenders of open borders. Adopting a non-ideal cosmopolitan liberal egalitarian approach and focusing mainly on unskilled economic migration from poor countries to rich liberal democracies in today's world, we successively criticize the security, socio-economic and democratic arguments for the state’s right to exclude. In general, we aim to show that these three arguments exaggerate the threat of immigration for security, public order, jobs, wages, the welfare state, culture and political self-determination, and that they do not give enough weight to the interests of migrants from poor countries. We conclude that the state does not, from a philosophical point of view, have a right to exclude, and that it would be morally preferable to open the borders further, while redefining the powers and responsibilities of states and international institutions to enable an international multilateral governance of migration, and to better respond to the main problems that amplify the migratory phenomenon, i.e. armed conflicts, glaring global socio-economic inequalities, and climate change.

This thesis investigates the compatibility of a crucial aspect of Sudanese criminal justice, namely, the compatibility of the right to a fair trial with two main sources of this right: international human rights law and Shari’a law. The right to a fair trial is a cornerstone for any society and serves to observe the rule of law and other rights of citizens. The study illustrates that the right to a fair trial could play a significant role in the protection of human rights in Sudan. The main aim of this study is to establish ways in which the right to a fair trial can be strengthened in Sudan. The thesis has examined the work emanating from the international level by reviewing decisions, providing general comments and analysing other jurisprudence emanating from bodies such as the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights and the Human Rights Committee. The decisions, general comments and other jurisprudence from these bodies are juxtaposed against Sudan’s laws to establish the extent to which the right to a fair trial is upheld at the domestic level in Sudan. The study critically examines the sources of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. The main sources of right to a fair trial in Sudan are the Constitution, the Criminal Procedure Act, the Penal Code, Shari’a law and international human rights law. It seeks to answer the question whether Sudanese fair trial rights are compatible with international standards. The study establishes that one of the sources of law that govern the right to a fair trial in Sudan is Shari’a law. The main principle in Islam is that nothing is unlawful, unless it is expressly forbidden by law. However, the Shari’a law in Sudan has not been properly implemented as is illustrated through the rigid and traditional implementation of some of its provisions. The selective and rigid implementation of provisions of Shari’a law has resulted in a conflict with the accepted international standards of fair trial rights. What the study establishes is that a more progressive interpretation of Shari’a law can potentially solve the contradictions with international human rights law that currently exist. The study identifies a number of factors that have affected the development of the right to a fair trial in Sudan. Among these factors are the lack of political will, poverty, the lack of awareness about rights, laws that are contrary to the right to a fair trial, laws that inadequately protect victims and witnesses, impunity, corruption, the lack of resources both human and financial, abuse of power, existence of military and special courts, institutional constraints, discrimination against women, and the refusal or resistance of the executive branch of government to implement decisions of the courts. This study concludes that some pre-trial, trial and post-trial rights and standards in Sudan are not in conformity with international and regional standards. The study concludes by making a number of recommendations aimed at institutional and legal reform. / Dissertation (LLD)--University of Pretoria, 2014. / Centre for Human Rights / LLD / Unrestricted

What makes real life contractual arrangements? How does the law influence real life contractual arrangements? These are everyday questions for businesspeople and commercial lawyers. The traditional ‘imperative’ view of law assumes that business people contract ‘in the shadow of the law’ and contractual arrangements conform to what the law says. But empirical studies on contract practice suggest that contract law may, in fact, play a very insignificant role in real life contractual arrangements. This thesis provides a sociological view of the role of contract law in real life contractual arrangements in the context of the Vietnamese market. Specifically, this thesis applies an institutional law & economics approach to investigate how social structures of the market influence contractual arrangements to marginalize contract law in the Vietnamese market. Drawing on two surveys of contract behaviour in the Vietnamese market, this thesis finds that real life contractual arrangements respond to the institutional structure of the market as a whole, rather than only ‘the shadow of the law’. Institutional changes in the Vietnamese market suggest that there exists a merchant law system, constituted of traditional moral norms and social structures in the market. This merchant law system continues to order contractual arrangements in the market, despite the introduction of a transplanted contract law system. Disagreeing with the imperative approach, this thesis claims that contract law reform should conform to the institutional structure of the market to reduce transaction costs of contracting and to provide an effective framework for real life contractual arrangements.