"The question of locus standi regarding the non-state complaints procedure before the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Commission) is a very flexibile one. Although the language of the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (the Charter), the enabling powers and functions of the Commission, does not provide for such broad standing, the Commission has over its 20 years of operation, given broad interpretation to the question of standing by adopting the actio popularis doctrine. As a reslut the Commission has entertained communicatons from any person, group of persons or non-governmental organisation (NGOs), whether on their own behalf or on behalf of tothers. The location or nationality of such persons is also not a bar to standing. Consequently, the Commission has accepted communications from national NGOs operating in the country of the state party against whom the complaint is made, NGOs with a regaional focus, international NGOs, and non-African nationals. ... The study has five chapters. Chapter one introduces the study and the justification thereof. Chapter two explores the origin, nature and application of locus standi in domestic legal systems with particluar respect to private protection of public rights and human rights protection using Ghana, Mozambique and South Africa as case studies. Chapter three examines the standing requirements before other regional human rights protection systems namely the ECHR, and the IACHR as well as global human rights protection mechanisms throught the lens of the HRC, the CERD-Committee, the CAT-Committee and the CEDAW-Committee. Chapter four traces and assesses the development of the broad standing requirements before the Commission regarding its non-state communications procedure and the problems associated with them. And Chapter five presents the conclusions and recommendations of the study." -- Introduction. / Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2006. / Prepared under the supervision of Mr. Angelo Matusse at the Faculty of Law, Universidade Eduardo Mondlane, Maputo, Mozambique / http://www.chr.up.ac.za/academic_pro/llm1/dissertations.html / Centre for Human Rights / LLM

No description available.

No description available.

Magister Legum - LLM / South Africa

L’action en justice intentée en matière de Responsabilité Sociale de l’Entreprise révèle certaines limites lorsque les justiciables parties prenantes souhaitent protéger leurs intérêts. Par une juridicisation du droit de la RSE à mi-chemin entre la soft law et la hard law, l’action en justice des parties prenantes pourrait être véritablement efficiente. Dès lors, les mécanismes processuels traditionnels sont insuffisants lorsqu’il s’agit d’agir en justice dans ce domaine. C’est notamment à travers l’intérêt et la qualité à agir en justice des parties prenantes que des aménagements de la procédure civile vont être véritablement nécessaires. Des améliorations supplémentaires telles que l’instauration d’une action de groupe élargie au domaine de la RSE et davantage américanisée permettrait notamment aux parties prenantes d’assurer leur défense grâce à un dispositif nouveau très efficace. De plus et par la voie extrajudiciaire des modes alternatifs de règlement des litiges, les acteurs de la RSE peuvent également décider de porter le différend qui les oppose hors de la connaissance du juge étatique. Ce choix d’action peut être révélateur d’une préférence pour une justice davantage négociée. Ces propositions semblent être indispensables à la mise en œuvre d’une action en justice efficace en matière de RSE. Les parties prenantes pourront alors agir en justice de manière inédite afin de parachever leur protection. Les nécessités juridiques et sociales actuelles semblent ainsi faire évoluer le droit afin que les parties prenantes puissent bénéficier d’une action en justice considérée comme un véritable contre-pouvoir face à l’entreprise. / Legal actions brought to court concerning Corporate Social Responsability reveal certain limits when litigants’ stakeholders wish to protect their interests. The Corporate Social Responsability law falls between soft law and hard law. Going through CSR law’s judicalization could really make litigation of stakeholders efficient. Usual processual mechanisms are insufficient once an action has to be brought to court dealing with CSR. The civil procedure will need some changes, specifically relating to legal standing and stakeholder interest. Some added improvement would allow stakeholders to ensure their legal defence thanks to this new and efficient legal device. The setting up of a collective action including a CSR with more resemblance to the American one would represent one such improvement. Moreover, stakeholders can decide to settle the matter out-of-court with an extrajudicial approach, using alternative dispute resolution. This choice could amount to a more negotiated inflection of justice. These proposals seem to be necessary to settle an efficient legal action concerning CSR. In this way stakeholders will be able to litigate in a whole new way in order to consolidate their protection. Current legal and social needs seem to make the law evolve so that stakeholders benefit from a legal action which can be considered as a real countervailing power against a corporation.