Prior to 1994, citizenship was one of the pillars upon which the erstwhile government's policy of separate development rested. The concepts of citizenship and nationality were manipulated by the apartheid government to justify the denationalisation of black people and the creation of different classes of citizenship. Race, colour and language were the distinguishing features used to classify people into the different classes of citizenship. With the advent of the new constitutional order in 1994, common citizenship and the rights associated with it were restored to all South Africans. This discussion shows how in the post-1994 constitutional order citizenship has become an element of nation-building, while on the other hand it continues to perpetuate discrimination against non-citizens. The study aims to further the debate regarding the ill treatment of non-citizens with a view of influencing legislative and policy reform to replace the existing laws which are biased against no-citizens. / Law / LL.M.

Text in English / The study aims to investigate criminal jurisdiction of the visiting SADC armed forces during peace time focusing only on the Republic of Botswana and the Republic of South Africa. Since the adoption of the Declaration and Treaty of SADC, the armed forces of both Botswana and South Africa at times find themselves on each other’s territory. Once in each other’s territory the question of criminal jurisdiction becomes imperative. The two countries seem not to agree on the content of status of force agreements while cooperating in terms of the SADC Treaty. The contentious point is that the death sentence is still a competent sentence for certain offences under certain circumstances in terms of Botswana laws, whereas in South Africa the death sentence was declared unconstitutional. In the absence of any agreement, South African armed forces may face a death sentence while in Botswana and Botswana authorities might not be able to carry out a death sentence over their members for offences committed while in South Africa. In trying to answer the question of criminal jurisdiction while on each other’s territory during peace time, a study of the evolution of jurisdiction is undertaken. The laws of both countries are considered, especially the application and protection afforded by their respective constitutions. The approach followed by the UN in sending a peace-keeping force to conflict areas is analysed. A micro-comparison of agreements concluded by selected countries, more especially the NATO agreement, is undertaken. Treaties as a source of international law are analysed to show that rights can be extended and be limited by agreement. The study concludes by recommending that concurrent criminal jurisdiction with certain qualification seems to be the accepted norm and compromise amongst the international community, and that the two countries may consider this approach as the basis for such agreement. / Public, Constitutional, and International Law / LL.M

The Southern African Development Community Tribunal (the Tribunal) is the only judicial organ of the Southern African Development Community (the SADC). Its mandate includes ensuring “adherence to and the proper interpretation of the provisions of the Southern African Development Community Treaty” (the Treaty). The decisions of the Tribunal are final and binding in the territories of member states party to a dispute before it. The responsibility to ensure that the decisions of the Tribunal are enforced lies with the Southern African Development Community Summit (the Summit). The Summit is the supreme policy-making body of the SADC. It comprises the Heads of State or Government of all SADC member states. The decisions of the Summit are binding on all member states and, upon referral from the Tribunal, it has the power to take appropriate action against a member state who refuses to honour a decision of the Tribunal. The Tribunal was established primarily to deal with disputes emanating from the SADC’s economic and political units and not with human rights. A dispute concerning allegations of human rights violations in Zimbabwe was brought before the Tribunal by farmers affected by the country’s land-reform policy. The Tribunal, through reliance on the doctrine of implied powers, and the principles and objectives of the SADC as contained in the Treaty, extended its jurisdiction. In particular, the Tribunal found that it had jurisdiction to hear cases involving human rights violations and that there had indeed been human rights violations in the case before it. It consequently ruled against Zimbabwe. This decision has been welcomed by many within the SADC region as showing the Tribunal’s commitment to interpreting the Treaty in a way that does not run counter the rights of SADC citizens. However, the Tribunal’s decision has met with resistance from Zimbabwe and has not been implemented on the ground, inter alia, that the Tribunal acted beyond its mandate. The Tribunal has on several occasions referred cases of non-compliance to the Summit for appropriate action against Zimbabwe. The Summit, however, has done nothing concrete to ensure that the Tribunal’s decisions are enforced in Zimbabwe. Instead, in an unexpected move that sent shockwaves through the SADC region and beyond, the Summit suspended the Tribunal and resolved that it should neither receive nor adjudicate any cases. During the SADC summit in August 2014, a Protocol on the Tribunal in the Southern African Development Community was adopted and signed (the 2014 Protocol). In terms of this Protocol the iii jurisdiction of the (new) Tribunal will be limited to inter-state disputes. Unfortunately, it also does not provide any transitional measures to address issues such as the manner to deal with pending cases and the enforcement of judgments. When it comes to the execution and enforcement of judgments, it can be argued that the 2014 Protocol is largely a replica of the original 2000 Tribunal Protocol. The reason for this is that the envisaged mechanisms to enforce the decisions of the new Tribunal is to a large extent similar to the previous one. Unsatisfied over the non-compliance with the decision by Zimbabwe, the litigants approached the South African courts to enforce the Tribunal’s decision in South Africa.1 The South African courts found that South Africa is obliged under the SADC Treaty to take all the necessary measures to ensure that the decisions of the Tribunal are enforced, and ruled against Zimbabwe. However, the decision is yet to be enforced. The non-compliance with the judgments and a lack of mechanisms to enforce the decisions of the Tribunal, are crucial issues as they undermine the authority of the Tribunal. This thesis explores whether the Tribunal acted within its mandate in receiving and hearing a human rights case. It further considers whether, in the absence of a human rights mandate, the Tribunal enjoys implied powers under international law to invoke the powers necessary for the fulfilment of the objectives set out in the Treaty. It also reviews the concept of state sovereignty and the extent to which it has been affected by human rights norms post-World War II; regionalism; and globalisation. An important aspect examined, is the relationship between SADC Community law and the national law of member states. The relationship between national courts and the Tribunal also receives attention. Ultimately, the discourse addresses compliance and enforcement of the Tribunal’s decisions in the context of international law. To the extent relevant, I draw on other regional (the European Court of Justice) and sub-regional (the ECOWAS Community Court of Justice, and the East African Court of Justice) courts to establish how they have dealt with human rights jurisdiction and the enforcement of their judgments. / Jurisprudence / LL. D.

This diploma thesis deals with intelligence gathering and its international law aspects. The main research question of this diploma thesis is as follows: is the intelligence gathering legal from the point of view of international law? In light of recent scandals and accusations of secret services of illegal espionage, it is very important to find an answer to this question. There are almost no relevant Czech academic sources about this issue and foreign sources are rather contradictory. Included in the main research question are number of additional issues, such as: are there differences in legality between intelligence gathering during peacetime or wartime? What are the international law sources regarding espionage? Is the work of secret services affected by international law? Is international law relevant to espionage? As part of the introduction the diploma thesis outlines various intelligence gathering methods and defines relevant terms. The diploma thesis also addresses the issue of compatibility of espionage with the international law principle of non-intervention and state sovereignty. Next, three current approaches to the question of legality of espionage are presented to the reader and one new approach is introduced. Furthermore, the international implications of the unlawful behavior of...

La responsabilité de protéger a été élaborée en 2001 par la Commission internationale de l’intervention et de la souveraineté des États. Le concept se voulait une réponse aux controverses suscitées par les interventions armées à des fins humanitaires menées dans les années 1990. Il cherchait à concilier l’intervention à des fins humanitaires et le principe de souveraineté afin d’assurer la protection universelle des populations civiles, notamment par les actions du Conseil de sécurité, tout en respectant les principes qui constituent les fondements de la société internationale basée sur la Charte des Nations Unies. Avec son entérinement par les 191 États membres des Nations Unies lors du Sommet mondial de 2005, la responsabilité de protéger est devenue un sujet incontournable du discours international. En 2011, la mise en œuvre de la responsabilité de protéger par le Conseil de sécurité durant la guerre civile en Libye et la crise postélectorale en Côte d’Ivoire a mis le concept au premier plan de l’actualité internationale. Notre mémoire cherche à déterminer les répercussions juridiques qu’a eues la responsabilité de protéger sur le principe de la souveraineté étatique et sur le fonctionnement institutionnel du Conseil de sécurité. / The Responsibility to Protect was elaborated in 2001 by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty following the controversies surrounding humanitarian interventions lead during the 1990s. The Responsibility to Protect aimed at reconciling intervention for human protection purposes and sovereignty in order to ensure the universal protection of civilian populations, notably through the Security Council, while respecting the principles constituting the foundation of the international society based on the Charter of the United Nations. Since its acceptance by the 191 Member States of the United Nations during the 2005 World Summit, the concept has become a subject of first importance at the international stage. The implementation of the Responsibility to Protect by the Security Council in 2011 during the Civil War in Libya and the post-electoral crisis in Ivory Coast has put the concept on the headlines of the international news. Our thesis aims at determining the juridical repercussions that the Responsibility to Protect had on the State Sovereignty principle and on the institutional functioning of the Security Council.

The thesis "Sweden and European Integration in the Field of Security" deals with the Swedish role in the military dimension of the EU"s Common Security Policy. The thesis applies the concept of "Integration Dilemma" that forms the basis of the theory of national integration policy formulated by Nikolaj Petersen. The thesis draws on Petersen"s premise that all states involved in integration sooner or later experience an integration dilemma constituted by difficult choices between preserving autonomy and exercising influence on other participants. According to Petersen the salience of the integration dilemma differs among states depending on their influence capability, stress sensitivity and degree of identification with ideological sources of integration. Petersen argues that to handle the dilemma, national governments will most likely use adaptive strategies typical for the "balancing policy" mode. Petersen also predicts that countries characterised by high stress sensitivity, limited influence capability and aloofness from the ethos of European integration will perceive the dilemma as highly salient. Petersen assumes that integration policies of those countries will also include strategies characteristic for the "acquiescent" or "quiescent" mode. Petersen"s hypotheses are tested in the analysis of...

The resource curse is a defining feature of the African content. Despite vast resource wealth, Africa remains the poorest and most underdeveloped continent in the world. The aim of this study is to conduct a comparative analysis of the primary laws regulating of oil and gas exploration and product activities in Angola, Nigeria and South Africa in order to determine their effectiveness in protecting the continent's depleting petroleum resources. Different regulatory models apply to Angola, following the Norwegian carried-interest model, Nigeria, where a British discretionary model has been retained, an a South africa, where a unique model has been developed. The comparison is conducted by analysing and comparing these different regulatory systems in terms of legal frameworks; the legal nature of the regulatory systems; ownership of the oil and gas resources; legal nature of licenses; organisational or institutional structures; fiscal systems; local communities benefits from these proceeds of oil and gas resources; local content; state/government participation arrangements; and environmental challenges. The study evaluates the effectiveness of these regimes by examining the extent to which they recognise and enforce state ownership of he oil and gas resourcs in situ; recognise and enforce the doctrine of Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources (PSNR); protect the environment; how they provide for institutional capacities for the management of resources; and the protection of local communities from exploitation and abuse by recognising their rights to benefit from revenues derived from these resources. An overall assessment of the three systems reveals that there is no ideal model for oil and gas regulation in Africa. The Norwegian model might well be considered an ideal model if it was applied with care and correctly in Angola. The study hopes to gain practical importance for the proper regulationof the oil and gas industries' upstream activities in Africa and assist governments of the selected jurisdictions in their policy revisions, as some recommendations are made. / Public, Constitutional and International Law / LL. D.