Des déchets industriels de toutes natures sont enfouis en sous-sol pour un temps indéterminé. Ce déplacement spatial et temporel des déchets confronte les règles de droits à deux univers particuliers, et plus ou moins lointains, le sous-sol et le long terme. Les cadres juridiques des stockages géologiques vont accompagner la technique de stockage souterrain dans son rôle d'exécutoire pour les activités industrielles menées aujourd'hui en surface. Le stockage géologique déplace la charge environnementale des déchets. D'une part, le sous-sol possède un cadre juridique propice à son exploitation industrielle et donc à son utilisation comme lieu de stockage de déchets. Cela est susceptible de heurter les différents usages du sous-sol. Des arbitrages entre les intérêts en conflits doivent être réalisés, au plan technique mais aussi démocratique, s'agissant des modes d'élaboration des décisions publiques relatives à l'espace géologique. Les droits d'exploiter les ressources souterraines peuvent, en outre, entraver les mesures de protection environnementale. D'autre part, le stockage géologique oblige les règles de droit à se projeter dans le temps. Les outils juridiques pour appréhender le futur sont mis à l'épreuve. La difficulté est de partager le fardeau des déchets au cours du temps, entre la sphère publique et la sphère privée. De la même façon, l'enfouissement de déchets dangereux à des échelles transgénérationnelles interroge le contenu et la portée de la responsabilité juridique envers les générations futures. / Industrial waste of all kinds are burried in the underground for an indefinite period of time. With this displacement, both in space and time, the rules of law face the challenge of two specific, and more or less distant, worlds: the subsoil and the long term. Legal frameworks for underground storage strengthen the technique of underground storage in its role as an outlet for industrial activities which are carried out on the surface. Underground storage shifts the environmental load of waste. On the one hand, the legal frameworks for subsoil use is favourable to industrial exploitation and therefore to the use of the underground as a storage place for waste. When it comes to the decision-making process for public action in relation with the subsoil, arbitration must be made between the competing interests at stake, both in democratic and technical terms. Besides, the rights to exploit the underground ressources can hamper environmental protection measures. On the other hand, underground storage compels the rules of law to look to the future. The legal tools to anticipate the years ahead are placed under severe strain. The challenge lies in how to share the burden of waste over time between the public and the private spheres. In the same way, the landfill burial of hazardous waste on a transgenerational scale questions the content and scope of legal responsability towards future generations.

Whilst the mining industry has stimulated the economic growth of South Africa, its activities have also impacted on the social and environmental well-being of the communities and ecosystems in which it operates. Environmental degradation often severely affects the livelihoods of people in rural areas, who are often impoverished. Hondeklip Bay, a small fishing community in the Northern Cape, has been affected by the mining activities of the adjacent Hondeklip Bay Mine. The purpose of this paper is to identify whether impoverished residents affected by the detrimental effects of mining activity have rights to enforce the protection of their environment. These environmental rights pertain to an environment that is safe and not harmful to one's health and well-being. Environmental obligations of the mines as illustrated in terms of applicable legislation, and legal recourse available to the residents affected by the infringement of their environmental rights are furthermore explored. / Jurisprudence / LL.M

This article comments the most important aspects of the tax treatment applicable to investments of mining and oil and gas industry. The document highlights the relevant tax topics of the general tax legislation(Income Tax Law) and the special legislation of both industries (General Mining Law and Hydrocarbons Organic Law). / Este artículo comenta los aspectos más relevantes del tratamiento tributario de las inversiones de la industria minera y de hidrocarburos, resaltando los puntos principales de la legislación tributaria general (Ley del Impuesto a la Renta) y sectorial (Ley General de Minería y Ley Orgánica de Hidrocarburos).

Dans un contexte de libéralisation globale de l'économie, la majorité des pays en développement ont, à partir des années 1980-1990, réformé leur législation minière dans le but d'attirer les capitaux étrangers. La Guinée, avec des ressources minérales potentielles estimées à plus de 45 milliards de tonnes, est considérée comme l'un des pays disposant du sous-sol le plus riche en Afrique. Conscient d'un tel potentiel pour le développement du pays, le législateur guinéen adopte, en 1995, un nouveau code minier pour rendre le territoire attractif pour les investisseurs privés étrangers. Cependant, avec l'avènement du concept de développement durable, comme l'un des nouveaux défis mondiaux, de nombreuses réglementations minières ont progressivement été modifiées pour s'adapter à ce dernier. La Guinée, une fois de plus, n'a pas échappé à cette tendance, en adoptant un nouveau code minier en 2011. Ce dernier est la conséquence d'une mobilisation sociale sans précédent dans le pays, ayant débutée dans la moitié des années 2000 et visant à dénoncer l'absence de retombées économiques et financières, issues du secteur minier, pour l'État et la population. Néanmoins, peu de temps après sa promulgation, cette nouvelle législation minière a suscité de vives critiques de la part des compagnies minières. Le gouvernement, prenant en compte ces recommandations, s'est donc engagé dans un processus d'amendement de certaines dispositions du code de 2011, qui s'est achevé par l'adoption d'une nouvelle loi minière en avril 2013. Par conséquent, ce travail a pour objectif d'analyser de quelle manière la réglementation minière en Guinée (2011 et 2013) prend en compte les meilleures pratiques internationales actuelles en matière d'attractivité et de développement durable. Pour ce faire, des comparaisons sont réalisées, à la fois avec le code minier de 1995, pour donner une dimension évolutive à cette étude, ainsi qu'avec les législations minières d'autres États dans le monde. / In the context of a general liberalisation of the economy, the majority of developing countries have since the years 1980-1990 reformed their mining legislation in order to attract foreign capital. Guinea, with its potential mineral resources estimated at more than 45 billion tons, is considered to be one of the African countries with the richest subsoil. Conscious of such potential for the development of the country, the legislature in Guinea adopted, in 1995, a new Mining Code in order to make the Guinean territory more attractive to foreign private investors. However, with the arrival of the concept of sustainable development as one of the new global challenges, numerous mining regulations have been progressively modified in order to adapt. Guinea, once again, did not escape this trend and adopted a new Mining Code in 2011. This code is the consequence of a social mobilization without precedent in the country, which started in the first half of the 2000s. Its goal was to denounce the absence of economic and financial repercussions born from the mining sector on the Government and the population. Nevertheless, not long after its promulgation, this new legislation was the subject of harsh criticism from mining companies. The government, taking into account its recommendations, undertook the process of amending certain dispositions of the Mining Code of 2011, which resulted in the passage of a new Mining Law in April of 2013. Consequently, this work will analyze how mining regulation in Guinea (of 2011 and 2013) takes into account current international best practice in terms of attractiveness and sustainable development. In order to do so, comparisons will be made with the Mining Code of 1995 in order to give an evolutionary dimension to this study, as well as with Mining Regulations from other countries in the world.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL.M.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL. M.