The principal argument of this paper is that South Africa's current drug policy is unsound and unconstitutional. The legislative and policy framework is based on the prohibition of certain psychoactive substances deemed illicit and the criminalisation of their production, distribution and use, to wit: prohibition drug policy. This paper contends that prohibition drug policy is unsound on the grounds that it is utterly ineffective and vulgarly counterproductive. This is because prohibition drug policy fails to reduce the demand for, restrict the supply of or allay the harms associated with drugs. Furthermore, prohibition drug policy, in fact, greatly exacerbates drug-related harms for individuals and their communities. This is starkly exposed in the light of the devastating consequences pursuant to the drug war. In addition, this paper contends that prohibition drug policy, and the legislation that enacts it, the Drugs and Drug Trafficking Act, is unconstitutional. This, on the grounds that it unjustifiably violates the right to privacy, the right to freedom, and the right to human dignity. Moreover, the alternative drug policy of decriminalisation is a far less restrictive means of achieving the legitimate purpose of drug control in society. Lastly, this paper contends that prohibition drug policy ought to be replaced instead by the more effective, just and humane policy of the legal regulation of drugs. This, on the grounds that the South African constitutional dispensation compels a drug policy that takes a human rights-based, public health approach to drug control.

Includes bibliographical references. / Following the introduction of the margin squeeze cause of action into South African competition law jurisprudence, the question arises whether the Senwes decisions, have definitively clarified the criteria against which future margin squeeze abuse cases will be dealt with and whether these criteria have evolved into a standalone cause of action. This dissertation will demonstrate the absurdity of the Constitutional Court decision, to delete all references to margin squeeze in the decision of the Competition Tribunal which it upheld while retaining the underlying criteria against which future margins queeze cases will be adjudicated. This dissertation will additionally demonstrate that the Senwes cases, in particular the Tribunal decision read with the Constitutional Court decision, have on the one hand only marginally delineated and elaborated on the elements necessary to establish a margin squeeze abuse, but have on the other hand established margin squeeze as a standalone cause of action in terms of which offending firms can be prosecuted in South African competition jurisprudence.

This minor dissertation involves exploratory research by way of in-depth qualitative interviews with two past juvenile offenders exploring the idea of 'possible selves’ as an intervention strategy for incarcerated youth. The participants share experiences of their own incarceration as juveniles as well as insights gained through their recent working experience with incarcerated youth. This study concerns itself with risk and resilience factors relating to offending behaviour. It is acknowledged that there has been a recent shift in criminological debates with a greater focus on primary prevention efforts in building resilience to anti-social behaviour in a child’s formative years. However, the current study is focused on secondary prevention efforts with a specific focus on incarcerated youth. The well-developed body of work on risk factors is consulted which determines criminal victimisation, family violence, school violence, structural violence in the form of poverty and institutional violence in the form of incarceration as key factors which may contribute to offending behaviour. Acknowledging that the attention to date has largely focused on what past factors may influence or contribute to a criminal trajectory, this study shifts the focus to the idea of 'possible selves’ and the potential that future expectations, fears and hopes can have on preventing further offending behaviour. 'Possible selves’ is a social-psychological construct initially devised by Markus and Nurius in 1986. It is largely an under-developed area of research with only a few key studies undertaken and limited application to delinquent and incarcerated youth. Findings have however indicated that 'possible selves’ do have the ability to influence present and future behaviour, particularly when balance (i.e. goals and fears are developed in the same life domain) and feasible strategies to achieve desired selves and avoid feared selves are developed. Youth offending in the South African context is reviewed to explore the current climate and determine the extent of current interventions focusing on the re-integration of incarcerated youth offenders both during and post-release. The empirical component of this study produced findings across five key themes being risk factors present prior to incarceration, the nature of possible selves of incarcerated youth, the impact of incarceration, possible selves are limited by context and the self and implications for practice of a 'possible selves’ intervention.

Jurisprudence on water justice is fractured, and this dissertation explores a range of causal factors for the way it has developed. Firstly, water justice is defined as a concept, and it is argued that the concept remains weakly theorised, with discussion on the reasons some components are better reflected in law than others. Then, the process of litigation as a means of obtaining water justice is explained within the context of other strategies for seeking justice. Finally, the development of jurisprudence is analysed using the components of water justice outlined in the study. The research found that some components of water justice are more prominent in jurisprudence than others. Interviews with litigators explained a range of causal reasons for this, including a need for communities to have access to water in a timely manner, and a need by courts to have cases that are clear; based on sound and available evidence. Building jurisprudence requires incremental change, and litigators face a variety of priorities informing their strategies. Furthermore, while litigation plays an important role in attaining water justice, it is most effective in combination with other approaches. This study asserts that there is significant scope for a diversity of interested parties to collaborate and build integrated approaches to attaining water justice.

Includes abstract. / Includes bibliographical references. / This thesis grapples with the one particular case: the unsuccessful draft Solar Water Heater By-law in the City of Cape Town. The case is framed by the question why the by-law initiative did not take off. The choce behind this initiative was informed by the hope that the answer would help in understanding climate change governance in the municipal setting in particular. Essentially, the desire is to gain an appreciation of how such initiatives should be undertaken in settings such as these. Networked governance literatures of Rhodes et al, literatures on power in the Foucaldian and Weberian traditions, implementation theories and literatures on municipal climate change governance all aided in reaching findings to the question posed. Through the engagement with the literature in combination with the analysis of the empirical data, a hypothesis in answer to this question was generated. In the context of the City of Cape Town, the complexities of both power and governance were confirmed. There is a tapestry of networks and nodes interacting with each other in this context. Each network and node has its own peculiarities, which in combination create a delicate regulatory environment. Such policy environment requires strategic action. Ultimately, in line with the hypothesis, it has been found that if one wants to drive a policy initiative, one needs to understand both the complexities and power, and the context of the policy regime within which one works. This, however, though necessary, is not sufficient. In addition, one must formulate a strategy of implementation that fits this context, if one wishes to be successful in seeing the policy through to implementation.

Terrorist attacks pose a huge threat these days. The attack in Paris on 13 November 2015 has shown that. The terrorist organisation Islamic State (hereinafter: IS) claimed responsibility for the attack. France (and the USA) reacted by launching massive air strikes against the IS stronghold in Raqqa/Syria. Furthermore, France declared that it was exercising its right to self-defence, Art. 51 of the United Nations Charter (hereinafter: UNC). According to the traditional view in international law, the right to self-defence requires an armed attack by a state or alternatively, if the attack was launched by a non-state actor, that the attack is attributable to a state. The thesis illustrates that the IS is not a state under international law as it does not fulfil all four criteria of statehood. Since the 9/11-attacks in 2001, it is highly debated, whether this traditional view is still appropriate. Some commentators are of the opinion that an armed attack under Art. 51 of the UNC can also originate from a non-state actor. The thesis highlights that this view is not correct. In order to qualify the attack of a non-state actor as an armed attack under Art. 51 of the UNC it must still be attributable to a state. The thesis shows that the attack in Paris is not attributable to the Syria. Neither under the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, nor under the Safe Haven-Doctrine or the Unwilling or Unable-Doctrine, whereby the focus of the thesis lies on the last mentioned doctrine. The content of the doctrine is analysed as well as the question whether or not the doctrine is already a norm of customary international law, which is not the case. The thesis then discusses a new interpretation of the rules of attribution in form of the clarified Unwilling or Unable-Doctrine. The underlying idea of this doctrine is that all states have certain counter-terrorism obligations from which due diligence obligations vis-à-vis other states arise. Based on this idea a definition of the terms 'unable' and 'unwilling' is elaborated. Although the elaborated definitions give the clarified Unwilling or Unable-Doctrine a clearer content, there is still a tension between the attacked state's right to self-defence and the host state's territorial sovereignty. In order to mitigate this tension four preconditions, based on the existing law, are developed. To render the defensive use of force by the attacked state lawful, these preconditions have to be fulfilled. The thesis concludes that the Paris attack is not attributable to Syria. Thus, there was no armed attack by Syria on France. The thesis further concludes that the current rules of attribution do not meet today's challenges, namely the threat that terrorist attacks pose and that there is an urgent need for a clarification of the rules of attribution.

This thesis will focus on examining MNCs violation of human rights with specific reference to the environment and child labour. This paper will critique existing measures South Africa has adopted and implemented to prevent MNCs from committing such harmful practices and to hold them accountable for violating the aforementioned rights. This will be done by focusing in particular on MNCs operating in the extractive industry in South Africa. The study will consider the nature of human rights violations MNCs in this sector have been accused of and how, if at all, they are being held accountable. Lastly, this thesis will provide recommendations in respect to better prevention and accountability of MNCs of human rights violations.

Bibliography: p. xix-lvii. / The focus of this thesis is on an aspect of judicial accountability that has not hitherto attracted much attention in South African law: the civil liability of the judiciary for wrongs committed in the course of judicial proceedings. More particularly, the thesis examines to what extent a South African judicial officer may be held liable in delict for infringing the proprietary or personality rights of another - almost invariably a litigant appearing before the judicial officer. The wrongful conduct in question is usually the giving of a judgement without a proper legal foundation (wrong judgement), but it may take a variety of other forms, for example defamation, insult or, less commonly, physical assault. Since judicial liability is not an invention of the modem constitutional state, but has deep and ancient roots, the investigation is inevitably and essentially an historical one. The thesis traces the development of such liability in Roman law, in early medieval law, in the ius commune (i.e., the Italian school of the Glossators and the Commentators), in Roman-Dutch law, in English law, and finally, in the South African usus hodiernus. The assessment of the modem South African law is a critical one. The question is asked whether the narrow scope of judicial liability that is presently recognised is an adequate safeguard against abuse of the judicial office, and whether it is compatible with the new constitutional order in South Africa. The topicality and controversial nature of the subject is evident from the submissions made by the judiciary to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission in October 1997. It is apparent that the judges are suspicious of attempts to make them more accountable for their actions, regarding these as encroachments on their traditional independence. Significantly, it also appears that the threat of civil liability is not one that is taken seriously. The approach adopted in this thesis is that a proper balance needs to be struck between judicial independence and judicial accountability; and that, as history teaches us, civil liability is an essential component of such accountability.

Scroll down to electronic link to access the thesis. Includes bibliographical references.

Swart gevaar was a term used during apartheid to refer to the perceived security threat of the majority black African population to the white South African government and the white minority population. The Native Territories Penal Code, transported from English law, assimilated the doctrine of common purpose into South African law. During apartheid, the doctrine of common purpose served as one of many governmental tools to criminalise the black population and curtail the swart gevaar. The development of the doctrine largely occurred during the apartheid-era, whereby the white-ruled judiciary continuously sacrificed legal principles to ensure that the doctrine achieved its' crime control objective. The doctrine was expanded beyond its original scope in the Native Territories Penal Code to encompass two distinct forms of common purpose, namely: common purpose by prior agreement, whether by express or implied mandate; and common purpose in its active association form. In the 2003 case of Thebus and Another v The State, the Constitutional Court declared the doctrine of common purpose; in its active association form, constitutional. The Constitutional Court rejected the appellants' argument that the doctrine infringes an accused's constitutionally protected rights to dignity, freedom and security of persons, and a fair trial including the right to be presumed innocent. The Constitutional Court's finding came as a surprise, as it ignored worldwide condemnation of the doctrine throughout the apartheid regime and Constitutional democratic era. This paper challenges the Constitutional Court's finding and critically examines the doctrine of common purpose in the context of constitutional jurisprudence, general principles of criminal law, and policy considerations.