Thesis (LLM)-- Stellenbosch University, 2013. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Secession is one of the oldest and probably more controversial themes of public international law. The potential of a right to secede draws even more controversy amongst international law scholars and lawyers alike. This research merges classical international law perspectives on secession and the right to secede in particular, within a contemporary setting. Two research questions are answered: (i) Does a legitimate right to state secession exist under contemporary international law; if so, what are its normative characteristics? (ii) What is the position of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the realisation of a legitimate right to secede, considering its opinion in the Kosovo-case? The work follows a normative methodological approach in tackling and presenting the arguments towards and against the legitimacy of the right to secede. This allows for a clear interrogation of the norms constituting classic international law against the realities of an evolving pedagogy. Classical international law is traditionally statecentred, primarily due to the 1648 legacy of the Treaty (Peace) of Westphalia. However, contemporary international law has come to incorporate the roles of nonstate actors and even individuals. Consequently, the impact of secession extends beyond traditional international law norms like; territorial integrity and sovereignty, nationalism and uti possidetis. Moving forward, a critical inclusion within modern conceptualisation of secession needs to be considerations like, the right to selfdetermination and the promotion of human rights. The research departs with a clear comprehension of the status quo of a general theory of secession. The identification of a prescriptive general theory of secession remains rather elusive. However, cogent arguments are presented for the establishment of a right to secede with a sufficient legal foundation to support a general theory and find effective enforcement for the right. The arguments for the right to secede are rooted within a sound conceptual framework and historical context. In dealing with the normative characteristics of the right to secede, the historic reasoning of Shaw is utilised in order to establish a legal process for secession. This reasoning is applied in the presentation of the municipal manifestation of the right to secede, which traditionally is found in the constitutional entrenchments of the right. The relationship between the right to secede and selfdetermination is presented through a balancing of the components that constitute the right to self-determination. Following the Canadian Supreme Court’s contribution on the right to self-determination in the Quebec-case, the aspirations of peoples for selfdetermination needs to follow this dual view of self-determination as consisting of the right to internal and external self-determination. The contemporary position of the right to secede under international law is best illustrated in the ICJ treatment of secession in its Kosovo Opinion. The focus here is to present new insights into the impact of unilateralism and multilateralism in the interaction with secession. Ultimately, this research in its normative methodological approach presents the arguments both ancient and contemporary for the legitimate potential of a right to secede. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die internationale reg, is sessessie (afskeiding) sekerlik een van die meer kontroversiële temas. Binne die geledere van akademici en praktisyns veroorsaak die moontlikheid van ‘n reg tot afskeiding selfs meer onenigheid. Met hierdie navorsing word die klassieke sienings hieroor in die internationale reg saamgesnoer binne ‘n meer hedendaagse uitleg. Twee navorsingsvrae word beantwoord: (i) Bestaan daar ‘n legitieme reg vir staatsafskeiding binne die hendendaagse internationale reg en indien wel wat is die normatiewe karaktereienskappe van so ‘n reg? (ii) Wat is die stand van die Internationale hof vir Geregtigheid (ICJ) aangaande die verwesinliking van ‘n legitieme reg op afskeiding in die lig van die hof se uitspraak in die Kosovo-Opinie. Die navorsing volg ‘n normatiewe metodologiese benadering om die argumente teen asook vir die legitieme reg op afskeiding te voer. Dit skep ruimte vir ‘n duidelike bevraagtekening van die klassieke internationale regsnorme teen die agtergrond van ‘n transformerende pedagogie. Die klassieke internationale reg is kenmerkend staatsgeorienteerd, grootendeels as gevolg van die nalatingskap van die 1648 Verdrag (Vrede) van Westphalia. Tog gee hedendaagse internasionale reg erkening aan die handelinge van nie-regeringsentiteite en selfs individue. Gevolglik, strek die impak van sessessie heel verder as tradisionele internasionale regsnorme soos; territoriale integriteit en soewereiniteit, nasionalisme en uti possidetis. 'n Kritiese blik op die moderne begrip van sessessie moet oorwegings soos die reg op selfbeskikking en die bevordering van menseregte in ag neem om vooriutgang te bewerkstellig. Die navorsing begin met 'n duidelike begrip van die status quo insake 'n algemene teorie van sessessie. Die identifisering van 'n voorskriftelike algemene teorie van afskeiding bly ongelukkig ontwykend. Tog word oortuigende argumente vir die vestiging van 'n reg om af te skei gevoer. Dit gaan gepaard met 'n voldoende regsgrondslag wat 'n algemene teorie ondersteun, asook die moontlikheid vir die doeltreffende uitvoering van die reg. Die argumente ter ondersteuning van die reg tot afskeiding word geïllustreer binne 'n verantwoordbare konseptuele raamwerk en historiese konteks. In die hantering van die normatiewe kenmerke van die reg word die klassieke redenasie van Shaw benut ten einde 'n regsproses vir afskeiding te vestig. Hierdie redenasie word toegepas by die handtering van voorbeelde oor plaaslike manifestasies van die reg to afskeiding. Hierdie plaaslike manifestasies word tradisioneel gevind binne state se grondwetlike erkennings van die reg. Die verhouding tussen die reg om af te skei en selfbeskikking word aangebied deur 'n balansering van die komponente waaruit die reg op selfbeskikking bestaan. Na aanleiding van die Kanadese Hooggeregshof se bydrae tot die reg om selfbeskikking in die Quebec-saak, is die aspirasies van volkere vir selfbeskikking gevestig in die reg om interne en eksterne selfbeskikking. Die kontemporêre posisie van die reg om af te skei ingevolge die internasionale reg word goed geïllustreer in die Wêreldhof se behandeling van afskeiding in die Kosovo-Opinie. Die fokus hier is die uitleg van nuwe insig oor die mag van unilateralisme en multilateralisme in die interaksies oor sessessie. Ten slotte bied hierdie navorsing in sy normatiewe metodologiese benadering die argumente, beide antiek en kontemporêre, vir die legitieme potensiaal van 'n reg om af te skei.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))—University of Stellenbosch, 2008. / Aggression is regarded as one of the core crimes under customary international law, but the definition of aggression is still contentious. At present there is no international instrument that provides for effective individual criminal liability for the crime of aggression. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) provides for the inclusion of the crime of aggression within the court’s jurisdiction, but the Statute needs to be amended to include a definition of aggression and conditions for the exercise of jurisdiction by the ICC. This dissertation seeks to identify the elements of the international crime of aggression, for purposes of individual criminal liability. It is submitted that the creation of the ICC provides the international community with an historic opportunity to establish effective jurisdiction over the crime of aggression.

Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2012. / Includes bibliography / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: This dissertation analyses and investigates how virtual property functions inside virtual worlds. It also determines if, within that context, virtual property is similar to, or should be treated like real world property. The questions that are addressed include the following. What is the (real world) legal status of property in virtual worlds? Is it worthwhile to recognise and protect virtual property in real world law? Is it possible to recognise and protect virtual property in real world law, given the differences? Would recognition and protection of virtual property in real world law require or be restricted to instances where virtual property is or can be recognised as real rights? The dissertation finds that there is a definable concept of “virtual property” as it is encountered in virtual worlds and there is a great degree of similarity between the function of property in virtual and real world systems. There are also sufficient justifications (social, economic and normative) to recognise virtual property as property. Even though the function of property is similar in both systems, the similarities are undermined by the absence, complete or almost complete, of real rights in virtual worlds. This creates a problem since, in real world law, real rights enjoy stronger protection than weaker personal rights. The first reason for this absence of real rights stems from the unique (and mostly uncircumventable) nature of game-code that removes the necessity to make all rights in virtual worlds real rights. The second reason relates to the fact that most virtual world rights are completely derived from and regulated by contract. It is concluded that it is possible to recognise and protect virtual property by means of traditional private law property law (both Roman-Germanic and Anglo-American), constitutional property law, and criminal law. While criminal law will fill some gaps left by the absence of real rights, the rest that are left are contractual rights. In certain circumstances, these contractual rights may be strong enough and in other cases they may require support from special legislation that strengthens weak personal rights and makes them into stronger property-like rights. In constitutional cases, these rights derive support from constitutional property law. However, in other circumstances recognition and protection will probably require recognition of real rights. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Hierdie proefskrif analiseer en ondersoek hoe virtuele eiendom in virtuele wêrelde werk. Dit gee ʼn oorsig oor die vraag of virtuele eiendom, in daardie konteks, vergelykbaar is met eiendom in die regte wêreld en dieselfde erkenning moet ontvang. Die volgende vrae word gestel en beantwoord. Wat is die (regte wêreld-) status van eiendom in ʼn virtuele wêreld? Is dit die moeite werd om virtuele eiendom in die regte wêreld-regstelsels te erken en te beskerm? Is dit moontlik om virtuele eiendom in die regte wêreld te erken en beskerm, gegewe die verskille? Sal erkenning en beskerming van virtuele eiendom in die regte wêreld-regstelsels vereis dat, of beperk word tot gevalle waar virtuele eiendom geïdentifiseer of erken word as saaklike regte? Die navorsing toon aan dat daar ʼn bepaalde konsep van virtuele eiendom is soos wat dit in virtuele wêrelde gevind word. Daar is ook ʼn merkbare ooreenkoms tussen die eiendomstelsels in die virtuele en regte wêrelde. Hierdie proefskrif bevind dat daar genoegsame regverdigingsgronde is (sosiaal, ekonomies, sowel as normatief) om regte wêreld-eiendomserkenning aan virtuele eiendom te verskaf. Alhoewel die funksie van eiendom dieselfde is in beide stelsels, word die ooreenkomste tussen hulle ondermyn deur die (algehele of amper algehele) tekort aan saaklike regte in die virtuele wêreld. Dit veroorsaak probleme, aangesien saaklike regte in die regte wêreld aansienlik sterker beskerming geniet as swakker persoonlike regte. Die redes vir hierdie tekort aan saaklike regte in ʼn virtuele wêreld is tweeledig. Eerstens veroorsaak die unieke aard van rekenaar-kode ʼn tekort aan saaklike regte binne die virtuele wêreld, aangesien die kode die bestaan van saaklike regte in meeste gevalle onnodig maak. Tweedens word meeste van die regte wat verkry word en bestaan in virtuele wêrelde geskep en gereguleer deur middel van kontrak. Daar word ook bevind dat dit moontlik is om aan virtuele eiendom erkenning en beskerming te gee deur middel van tradisionele privaatregtelike eiendom (beide Romeins-Germaans en Anglo-Amerikaans), konstitusionele eiendom en die strafreg. Strafreg kan egter slegs sekere gapings vul wat deur die tekort aan saaklike regte veroorsaak word. Die oorblywende regte sal egter persoonlike regte wees. In sekere omstandighede is dit moontlik dat hierdie persoonlike regte sterk genoeg sal wees, maar in ander gevalle sal dit nodig wees dat hul ondersteun word deur middel van die proklamasie van spesiale wetgewing wat swak persoonlike regte in die virtuele eiendom versterk tot eiendoms-agtige regte. In ander gevalle geniet hierdie regte beskerming deur die konstitusionele reg. In ander omstandighede sal dit egter verg dat erkenning en beskerming moet plaasvind deur die erkenning van saaklike regte in virtuele eiendom. / South African Research Chair in Property Law (sponsored by the Departement of Science and Technology (DST) / National Research Foundation (NRF) / University of Maastricht‟s Faculty of Law / Ius Commune Research School

Thesis (LLM)--Stellenbosch University, 2014. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Inaedificatio entails that movables that have been permanently attached to land through building cease to exist as independent things and become part of the land. Courts have adopted different approaches over time to investigate whether or not inaedificatio had occurred. It is sometimes said that courts have moved away from the so-called traditional approach, which focused on the objective factors, to the so-called new approach, which places more emphasis on the subjective intention of the owner of the movables. This thesis analyses the applicable case law and concludes that there is inadequate proof of such a shift since both older cases associated with the traditional approach and later cases associated with the new approach emphasise the intention of the owner of the movables to establish whether accession had taken place. However, the case law does allow for a cautious different conclusion, namely that a certain line of both older and new cases emphasise the owner of the movable’s intention for commercial policy reasons, specifically to protect ownership of the movables in cases where ownership had been reserved in a credit sale contract. Constitutional analysis of these conclusions in view of the FNB methodology indicates that the courts’ decision to hold that accession had in fact occurred in cases that do involve permanent attachment of movables to land will generally establish deprivation of property for purposes of section 25(1) of the Constitution, but such deprivation would generally not be arbitrary since there would be sufficient reason for it. However, in cases where the courts decide that there was no accession because ownership of the movables had been reserved subject to a credit sale agreement, there is no deprivation of property because the landowner, who is the only one who might complain about the decision, could not prove a property interest for purposes of section 25(1). Moreover, the courts’ decision that accession had either occurred or not does not amount to expropriation under section 25(2) of the Constitution because there is no common law authority for expropriation. Therefore, the principal conclusion of the thesis is that the courts’ decision that accession had either occurred or not would generally be in line with the property clause of the Constitution. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Inaedificatio behels dat roerende sake wat permanent deur bebouing aan grond vasgeheg is ophou bestaan as selfstandige sake en deel word van die grond. Die howe het in die verlede verskillende benaderings gevolg in hulle pogings om vas te stel of inaedificatio plaasgevind het. Daar word soms beweer dat die howe wegbeweeg het van die sogenaamde tradisionele benadering, wat op die objektiewe faktore gefokus het, na die sogenaamde nuwe benadering waarin die klem op die eienaar van die roerende goed se bedoeling val. Hierdie verhandeling analiseer die toepaslike regspraak en kom tot die gevolgtrekking dat daar onvoldoende bewys van so ‘n verskuiwing bestaan, aangesien sowel ouer sake wat met die tradisionele benadering geassosieer word en later regspraak wat die nuwe benadering sou volg klem op die eienaar van die roerende sake se bedoeling plaas. Die regspraak bied wel bewyse vir ‘n versigtige gevolgtrekking op ‘n ander punt, naamlik dat bepaalde ouer en later sake die eienaar van die roerende goed se bedoeling vir kommersiële beleidsredes beklemtoon, spesifiek in gevalle waar eiendomsreg in ‘n kredietkoop voorbehou is. Grondwetlike analise van hierdie gevolgtrekkings in die lig van die FNB-metodologie suggereer dat die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting wel plaasgevind het in gevalle waar permanente aanhegting van roerende goed aan grond ter sprake was oor die algemeen ‘n ontneming van eiendom vir doeleindes van artikel 25(1) van die Grondwet sal daarstel, maar aangesien daar oor die algemeen voldoende rede vir die ontneming is sal dit nie arbitrêr wees nie. Aan die ander kant, waar die howe beslis dat daar geen aanhegting was nie omdat eiendomsreg van die roerende goed vir sekerheid onderhewig aan ‘n kredietkoop voorbehou is, is daar geen ontneming van eiendom nie omdat die grondeienaar, die enigste party wat beswaar teen die beslissing mag maak, nie ‘n eiendomsbelang vir doeleindes van artikel 25(1) kan bewys nie. Verder stel die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting óf plaasgevind het al dan nie in elk geval geen onteiening daar nie aangesien daar geen magtiging vir onteiening in die gemenereg bestaan nie. Die gevolgtrekking van die verhandeling is dat die howe se beslissing dat aanhegting óf plaasgevind het al dan nie oor die algemeen nie in stryd met die eiendomsbepaling in die Grondwet sal wees nie.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))—University of Stellenbosch, / In this dissertation a comparative study is made of the constitutional accommodation of the distribution of financial resources and constitutional obligations to the various spheres of government in Germany and South Africa. Both countries have decentralised or multi-level systems of government and can be classified, in terms of current studies on federalism, as integrated or cooperative federal systems. An overview of the historical developments, the political contexts, the fundamental principles and the constitutional frameworks for government in Germany and South Africa is provided as a basis for the in-depth analysis regarding the financial intergovernmental relations in these countries. This study has shown that economic theory is important in the design of decentralised systems of government and that political and socio-economic considerations, for example, the need for rebuilding Germany after World War II and the need to eliminate severe poverty in South Africa after 1994, often play a dominant role in the design and implementation of decentralised constitutional systems. The economic theory applicable to decentralised systems of government suggests a balanced approach to the distribution of financial resources and constitutional obligations with a view to obtaining the most efficient and equitable solution. In both countries the particular constitutional allocation of obligations and financial resources created a fiscal gap that required some form of revenue sharing or financial equalisation. The German financial equalisation system has been developed over fifty years and is quite complex. It attempts to balance the constitutional aim of reasonable equalisation of the financial disparity of the Länder with the financial autonomy of the Länder as required by the Basic Law. The huge financial and economic demands from the eastern Länder after unification in 1990 placed an additional burden on the available funds and on the financial equalisation system. Germany currently faces reform of its financial equalisation system and possibly also bigger constitutional reform. The South African constitutional system is only a decade old and the financial equalisation system that is less complex than the German system, is functioning reasonably well but needs time to develop to its full potential. The system may however require some adjustment in order to enhance accountability, efficiency and equity. A lack of sufficient skills and administrative capacity at municipal government level and in some provinces hampers service delivery and good governance and places additional pressure on the financial equalisation system. The Bundesverfassungsgericht and the Constitutional Court play important roles in Germany and South Africa in upholding the principle of constitutional supremacy, and make a valuable contribution to the better understanding of the constitutional systems and the further development thereof. This study has shown that clear principles in constitutional texts, for example, such as those contained in the Basic Law, guide the development of applicable financial legislation and add value to the provisions on financial equalisation and how they are implemented. These principles in the Basic Law are justiciable and give the Bundesverfassungsgericht an important tool to adjudicate the financial equalisation legislation. The study of the constitutional accommodation of the distribution of financial resources and constitutional obligations in Germany and South Africa is not an abstract academic exercise and should be seen in the particular political and socio-economic contexts within which the respective constitutions function. The need to give effect to the realisation of socio-economic rights, for example, the right of access to health services, places additional demands on the financial equalisation system. The South African society experienced a major transformation from the apartheid system to a democratic constitutional order that in itself has had a significant influence on financial intergovernmental relations. This dissertation focuses on a distinct part of constitutional law that can be described as financial constitutional law. This comparative analysis of the two countries has provided some lessons for the further development of South Africa’s young democracy, in particular the financial intergovernmental relations system.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))—University of Stellenbosch, 2009. / ENGLISH SUMMARY: The point of departure of this dissertation is that transformation in South Africa depends on transformative politics – extra-institutional, substantive, oppositional, transformation-oriented politics. One challenge South Africa’s constitution therefore poses to courts is to take account of the impact of adjudication on transformative politics. The purpose of this dissertation is to investigate the relationship between adjudication and transformative politics within a specific context – adjudication of socio-economic rights cases. This relationship is commonly described in a positive light – either that adjudication of socio-economic rights cases promotes transformative politics by giving impoverished people access to the basic resources required for political participation; or that adjudication of such cases is in itself a space for transformative politics. Although there is much truth in both these descriptions, both under-estimate the extent to which adjudication also limits transformative politics. This dissertation focuses on the extent to which adjudication limits transformative politics – it comprises an analysis of socio-economic rights cases with the aim of showing how adjudication of these cases, despite positive results, also limited transformative politics. The theoretical aspects of this problem are outlined in the first chapter. After a description of the body of case law on which the analysis focuses two chapters follow in which two ways in which adjudication limits transformative politics are investigated. The first traces how courts in socio-economic rights cases participate in discourses about impoverishment that tend to describe the problem as non-political – specifically how courts tend to describe impoverishment as technical rather than political in nature; and how courts implicitly legitimise in their judgments liberal-capitalist views of impoverishment that insist that impoverishment is best addressed through the unregulated market. Then follows a chapter investigating how views of legal interpretation in terms of which legal materials have a certain and determinable meaning that can be mechanically found by courts limit transformative politics by insulating adjudication from critique and emphasising finality in adjudication. Throughout it is shown how courts can mitigate the limiting effects of adjudication, by legitimating the political agency of impoverished people, by using remedies requiring political engagement between opponents and postponing closure in adjudication, and by adopting a different approach to interpretation, that emphasises the pliability and relative indeterminacy of legal materials. Despite this, the conclusion of the dissertation is that courts can never wholly avoid the limiting impact of adjudication on transformative politics, but should rather aim to remain continually aware of it. / AFRIKAANS OPSOMMING: Die uitgangspunt van hierdie proefskrif is dat transformasie in Suid-Afrika afhang van transformatiewe politiek – buite-institusionele, substantiewe, opposisionele, transformasie-gerigte politiek. Een eis wat Suid-Afrika se grondwet daarom aan howe stel, is om ag te slaan op die impak van beregting op transformatiewe politiek. Die doel van hierdie proefskrif is om die verhouding tussen beregting en transformatiewe politiek binne ‘n spesifieke konteks – beregting van sake oor sosio-ekonomiese regte – te ondersoek. Meeste beskouinge van hierdie verhouding beskryf dit in ‘n positiewe lig - óf dat die beregting van sake oor sosio-ekonomiese regte transformatiewe politiek bevorder deur vir verarmde mense toegang tot basiese lewensmiddele te bewerkstellig sodat hulle aan politieke optrede kan deelneem; óf dat beregting van sulke sake opsigself ‘n spasie is vir transformatiewe politiek. Hoewel daar waarheid steek in beide beskrywings, onderskat hulle die mate waartoe beregting ook transformatiewe politiek kan beperk. Hierdie proefskrif fokus op hoe beregting transformatiewe politiek beperk - dit behels ‘n analise van sake oor sosio-ekonomiese regte met die doel om te wys hoe beregting van hierdie sake, ten spyte van kennelik positiewe gevolge ook transformatiewe politiek beperk het. Die teoretiese vergestalting van hierdie probleem word in die eerste hoofstuk beskou. Na ‘n beskrywing van die liggaam van regspraak waarop die analise fokus volg twee hoofstukke waarin twee maniere waarop beregting transformatiewe politiek beperk ondersoek word. Die eerste beskou hoe howe in sake oor sosio-ekonomiese regte deelneem aan diskoerse oor verarming wat neig om hierdie probleem as non-polities te beskryf - spesifiek hoe howe neig om hierdie problem as tegnies eerder as polities van aard te beskryf; en hoe howe liberaal-kapitalistiese sieninge van verarming, ingevolge waarvan verarming deur die ongereguleerde mark aangespreek behoort te word, implisiet in hul uitsprake legitimeer. Dan volg ‘n hoofstuk wat naspeur hoe sieninge van regsinterpretasie ingevolge waarvan regsmateriaal ‘n sekere en vasstelbare betekenis het wat meganies deur howe gevind word, transformatiewe politieke optrede beperk deur die openheid van beregting vir kritiek te beperk en finaliteit in beregting in die hand te werk. Deurgaans word gewys hoe howe die beperkende effek van beregting kan teëwerk, deur die politike agentskap van verarmde mense te legitimeer, deur remedies te gebruik wat politieke onderhandeling tussen opponente bewerkstellig en finale oplossings uitstel, en deur ‘n ander benadering tot interpretasie, wat die buigsaamheid en relatiewe onbepaalbaarheid van regsmateriaal erken, te omarm. Tog is die gevolgtrekking van die proefskrif dat howe nooit die beperkende effek van beregting op transformatiewe politiek geheel kan vermy nie, maar eerder deurgaans daarop bedag moet wees.

Thesis (LLD )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: Acquisitive prescription (“prescription”), an original method of acquisition of ownership, is regulated by two prescription acts. Prescription is mostly regarded as an unproblematic area of South African property law, since its requirements are reasonably clear and legally certain. However, the unproblematic nature of this legal rule was recently brought into question by the English Pye case. This case concerned an owner in England who lost valuable land through adverse possession. After the domestic courts confirmed that the owner had lost ownership through adverse possession, the Fourth Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg found that this legal institution constituted an uncompensated expropriation, which is in conflict with Article 1 of Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. This judgment may have repercussions for the constitutionality of prescription in South African law, despite the fact that the Grand Chamber – on appeal – found that adverse possession actually constitutes a mere (constitutional) deprivation of property. Therefore, it was necessary to investigate whether prescription is in line with section 25 of the Constitution. To answer this question, the dissertation investigates the historical roots of prescription in Roman and Roman-Dutch law, together with its modern requirements in South African law. The focus then shifts to how prescription operates in certain foreign systems, namely England, the Netherlands, France and Germany. This comparative perspective illustrates that the requirements for prescription are stricter in jurisdictions with a positive registration system. Furthermore, the civil law countries require possessors to possess property with the more strenuous animus domini, as opposed to English law that merely requires possession animo possidendi. The justifications for prescription are subsequently analysed in terms of the Lockean labour theory, Radin’s personality theory and law and economics theory. These theories indicate that sufficient moral and economic reasons exist for retaining prescription in countries with a negative registration system. These conclusions are finally used to determine whether prescription is in line with the property clause. The FNB methodology indicates that prescription constitutes a non-arbitrary deprivation of property. If one adheres to the FNB methodology it is equally unlikely that prescription could amount to an uncompensated expropriation or even to constructive expropriation. I conclude that prescription is in line with the South African property clause, which is analogous to the decision of the Grand Chamber in Pye. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Verkrygende verjaring (“verjaring”), ‘n oorspronklike wyse van verkryging van eiendomsreg, word gereguleer deur twee verjaringswette. Verjaring word grotendeels beskou as ‘n onproblematiese aspek van die Suid-Afrikaanse sakereg, aangesien die vereistes daarvan taamlik duidelik en regseker is. Nietemin is die onproblematiese aard van hierdie regsinstelling onlangs deur die Engelse Pye-saak in twyfel getrek. Hierdie saak handel oor ‘n eienaar wat waardevolle grond in Engeland deur adverse possession verloor het. Nadat die plaaslike howe die verlies van eiendomsreg deur adverse possession bevestig het, het die Vierde Kamer van die Europese Hof van Menseregte in Straatsburg bevind dat hierdie regsreël neerkom op ‘n ongekompenseerde onteiening, wat inbreuk maak op Artikel 1 van die Eerste Protokol tot die Europese Verdrag van die Reg van die Mens 1950. Hierdie uitspraak kan implikasies inhou vir die grondwetlikheid van verjaring in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, ten spyte van die Groot Kamer se bevinding – op appèl – dat adverse possession eintlik neerkom op ‘n grondwetlik geldige ontneming van eiendom. Derhalwe was dit nodig om te bepaal of verjaring bestaanbaar is met artikel 25 van die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet. Vir hierdie doel word die geskiedkundige wortels van verjaring in die Romeinse en Romeins- Hollandse reg, tesame met die moderne vereistes daarvan in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg, ondersoek. Daar word ook gekyk na hoe hierdie regsreël in buitelandse regstelsels, naamlik Engeland, Nederland, Frankryk en Duitsland, funksioneer. Hierdie regsvergelykende studie toon dat verjaring strenger vereistes het in regstelsels met ‘n positiewe registrasiestelsel. Verder vereis die sivielregtelike lande dat ‘n besitter die grond animo domini moet besit, wat strenger is as die Engelsregtelike animus possidendi-vereiste. Die regverdigingsgronde van verjaring word vervolgens geëvalueer ingevolge die Lockeaanse arbeidsteorie, Radin se persoonlikheidsteorie en law and economics-teorie. Hierdie teorieë illustreer dat daar genoegsame morele en ekonomiese regverdigings vir die bestaan van verjaring is in lande met ‘n negatiewe regstrasiestelsel. Hierdie bevindings word ten slotte gebruik om te bepaal of verjaring bestaanbaar is met die eiendomsklousule. Die FNB-metodologie toon dat verjaring neerkom op ‘n geldige, nie-arbitrêre ontneming volgens artikel 25(1). Indien ‘n mens die FNB-metodologie volg is dit eweneens onwaarskynlik dat verjaring op ‘n ongekompenseerde onteiening – of selfs op konstruktiewe onteiening – neerkom. Gevolglik strook verjaring wel met die Suid-Afrikaanse eiendomsklousule, welke uitkoms soortgelyk is aan dié van die Groot Kamer in die Pye-saak.

Thesis (LLD (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2010. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The guarantee of a fair trial is fundamental to the criminal process of every modern society. Like all civilised nations, Botswana’s legal order provides for the protection of accused persons through the guarantee of a fair trial. But equality of arms, a central feature of medieval trial by combat, seems to have disappeared from modern criminal procedural systems. The question arises, therefore, whether criminal justice systems sufficiently cater for the fair trial of accused persons. This thesis will argue that the present legal and institutional framework for the protection of fair trial rights in Botswana falls short of guaranteeing procedural equality and that this severely compromises fairness. The institutional framework does not support equality of arms and therefore leaves procedural rights in a basic state of application. The thesis, therefore, seeks to analyse the protection of fair trial rights in Botswana in light of the principle of equality of arms. The thesis explores the origins and theoretical foundations of the principle. It recognises that the present application of the principle occurs by implicit countenance. The absence of any constitutional recognition of the principle leaves procedural rights in a basic state of application. The thesis discusses the practical implications of an express recognition and constitutional application of the principle in the adversarial system. Equality of arms should be central in the criminal process and no party should have an unfair advantage over the other. The thesis recognises that the prosecution is in a position of advantage in that it has the support of the state. This advantage manifests itself in the form of vast resources regarding expertise, investigatory powers and legislative powers. Disparities in resources, the ability to investigate and access to witnesses create an inequality of arms between the state and the accused. This can only be balanced and countered by empowering the accused with constitutional and procedural rights that specifically protect the accused in the face of the might of the state. These procedural rights include the presumption of innocence, the right to legal representation and the right to disclosure. It is argued, however, that though accused-based rights and constitutional rules of procedure generally protect the accused and ensure that the process is fair, they mainly remain theoretical declarations if they are not applied in line with equality of arms. In other words, the meaningful enjoyment of these rights by the accused, demands the strengthening of resources and legislative and institutional governance. Fairness in criminal trials is epitomised in the balance between the overwhelming resources of the state and the constitutional protection of the accused. Otherwise, the constitutional protection afforded to the accused is compromised. The first part engages the reader with the development of accused-based rights and introduces the constitutionalisation of procedural rights in Botswana. It discusses the scope and application of the principle of equality of arms, develops its relevance to the adversarial system and justifies an application of the principle in Botswana domestic law. It makes a comparison between the adversarial and inquisitorial models while recognising the growing tendency towards convergence. It highlights the adversarial system as interest-based, and recognises the indispensability of the principle of equality of arms to such a system. While recognising that inquisitorial procedures often offend equality of arms, the role of the inquisitorial system in ensuring equality of arms is also recognised. It measures and analyses the normative value, application and recognition of equality of arms in Botswana’s legal system, arguing for express recognition and a conceptual application of the principle by the courts. It is reasoned that express recognition of the principle will result in fuller protection and better realisation of accused-based rights. Exploring the adversarial-inquisitorial dichotomy, it recognises the need for convergence, but emphasises the principle of equality of arms and the right to adversarial proceedings as the foundation for fair trials. The second part analyses the investigation process and generally bemoans the great inequalities at this stage of the criminal process. It discusses procedural and evidential rules that serve to minimise the imbalances and the role that exclusionary rules play in ensuring fair trials and reliable verdicts. The third part identifies specific trial rights which are relevant to the principle of equality of arms. Central to the discussion are the right to legal representation and the presumption of innocence which are discussed in chapters 7 and 8 respectively. These two important rights are central to the protection of the accused but unfortunately are the most compromised due to lack of resources and legislative intervention. Chapter 9 deals with other rights that are relevant to the principle as well as the ability of the accused to present his case and effectively defend himself. It emphasises the need for the courts to engage in the trial, thereby enabling the unrepresented accused. The fourth part contains final conclusions which argue that the principle of equality of arms forms the basis for the full realisation of individual procedural rights and advocates for the recognition of the principle in the Botswana legal order. It is concluded that the constitutional enshrinement of fair trial rights and their basic application by the courts, without actual measures to ensure their realisation, are insufficient. Suggestions include legislative and institutional reforms, as well as a constitutional recognition of the principle of equality of arms. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die waarborg van ‘n billike verhoor is fundamenteel tot die strafprosesregstelsel van elke beskaafde gemeenskap. Soos in ander beskaafde lande, word die beskuldige in Botswana ook beskerm deur die reg op ‘n billike verhoor. In die Middeleeue was gelykheid van wapens (“equality of arms”) die sentrale kenmerk van die tweegeveg as geskilberegtigingsmetode. Dit blyk egter dat hierdie sentrale kenmerk afwesig is in moderne strafprosesregstelsels is. Die vraag ontstaan of hierdie toedrag van sake ‘n beskuldige se reg op ‘n billike verhoor op risiko plaas. In hierdie tesis word betoog dat die posisie in Botswana van so ‘n aard is dat “ongelyke bewapening” veroorsaak dat die reg op ‘n billike verhoor belemmer word. Die plaaslike institusionele bedeling onderskraag nie die beskerming van gelykheid van wapens nie en veroorsaak derhalwe dat prosessuele regte in “a basic state of application” is, met ander woorde, op ‘n eenvoudige en meganiese toepassingvlak is. Met die norm van gelyke bewapening as vertrekpunt, ondersoek hierdie tesis die beskerming van die reg op ‘n billike verhoor in Botswana. ‘n Ondersoek word geloods na die oorsprong en toereriese basis van die beginsel van gelyke bewapening. Die afwesigheid van uitdrukklike grondwetlike erkenning van die beginsel, word vergelyk met die praktiese implikasies en uitdruklike grondwetlike erkenning en toepassing in ‘n adversatiewe stelsel. Gelykheid van wapens behoort sentraal tot die strafproses te wees en geen party behoor ‘n onbillike voordeel bo die ander te geniet nie. In hierdie tesis word erken dat die vervolging bloot vanweë die feit dat dit deur die staatsmasjienerie ondersteun word, wesenlik bevoordeel word bo die individu as aangeklaagde. Dit gaan hier om toegang tot hulpbronne soos deskundigheid, asook die rol wat misdaadondersoekmagte en ander wetgewing speel. Ongelykhede byvoorbeeld in hulpbronne, in die vermoë om misdaad te ondersoek en in die toegang tot getuies, dra alles daartoe by dat ‘n wanbalans tussen die staat en die individu ontstaan. Die verlening van prosessuele regte aan die beskuldigde is ‘n metode om die balans te probeer herstel. Voorbeelde van sulke regte is die reg om onskuldig vermoed te wees, die reg op ‘n regsverteenwoordiger en die reg op insae in verklarings. In hierdie tesis word egter betoog dat alhoewel hierdie regte en ander grondwetlike strafprosedures die beskuldigde kan beskerm en die billikheid van die proses kan bevorder, dit absoluut noodsaaklik is dat voormelde regte en prosedures in lyn met die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens geïnterpreteer en toegepas moet word. Betekenisvolle afdwinging en toepassing van ‘n beskuldigde se regte verg versterking van bronne en die institusionele bedeling. Billikheid in die strafverhoor word gekenmerk aan die graad van balans wat bereik kan word tussen die oorvloedige hulpbronne van die staat teenoor die grondwetlike beskerming van die beskuldigde. In die afwesigheid van ‘n balans, word die beskuldigde benadeel. Die eerste gedeelte van hierdie tesis behandel die ontwikkeling van die beskuldigde se regte en bevat ‘n inleiding tot die konstitusionalisering van prossuele regte in Botswana. In Deel Een word die omvang en toepassing van die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens bespreek en word die relevantheid van hierdie beginsel in die adversatiewe proses identifiseer, veral wat Botswana betref. Die adversatiewe en inkwisitoriese modelle word vergelyk en bespreek met erkenning aan die moderne neiging dat die twee modelle besig is om in een te vloei – die sogenaamde verskynsel van “convergence”. Daar word aangetoon dat gelykheid van wapens die adversatiewe model onderlê. Hierteenoor is dit so dat die inkwisitoriese model ook erkenning aan gelykheid van wapens verleen. Daar word betoog dat gelykheid van wapens ‘n normatiewe waarde het en uitdruklik in Botswana deur die howe erken moet word. Uitdruklike erkenning sal tot groter beskerming en realisering van ‘n beskuldigde se regte lei. In Deel Een word ook tot die slotsom geraak dat alhoewel daar ‘n behoefte aan “convergence” is, dit onvermydelik tog ook so is dat gelykheid van wapens en die reg op ‘n adversatiewe proses die grondslag van ‘n billike verhoor vorm. In Deel Twee word die misdaadondersoekproses ontleed en word die grootskaalse ongelykhede wat hier onstaan en bestaan, bespreek. Daar word gelet op prosesregtelike en bewysregtelike reëls wat hierdie ongelykhede kan minimaliseer. Die rol van uitsluitingsreëls ter bevordering van ‘n billike verhoor en ‘n betroubare bevinding, word ook aangespreek. Deel Drie identifiseer spesifieke verhoorregte wat in ‘n besondere direkte verband met die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens staan. Hier is veral twee regte van besondere belang: die reg op ‘n regsverteenwoordiger (hoofstuk 7) en die reg om onskukdig vermoed te wees (hoofstuk 8). Ongelukkig is dit so dat hierdie twee regte erg ondermyn word. Die reg op resverteenwoordiging word ingekort deur ‘n gebrek aan finansiële bronne terwyl die vermoede van onskuld deur wetgewing ondergrawe word. In hoofstuk 9 word ander relevante regte bespreek en word die noodsaak van ‘n aktiewe hof in die geval van ‘n onverteenwoordigde beskuldigde bepleit Deel Vier bevat finale gevolgtrekkings. Daar word betoog dat die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens die basis vorm in die volle relisering van individuele regte en, verder, dat hierdie beginsel ten volle in die regstelsel van Botswana erken behoort te word. Blote grondwetlike verskansing van die grondwetlike reg op ‘n billike verhoor en ‘n blote basiese interpretasie daarvan deur die howe, is onvoldoende wanneer daar geen maatreels is om die haalbare realisering af te dwing nie. Wetgewende en institusionele hervorming is nodig, asook ‘n grondwetlike erkenning van die beginsel van gelykheid van wapens. / Research funds made available by Prof. S. E. van der Merwe

Thesis (LLM (Public Law))--University of Stellenbosch, 2006. / A worrying recent trend is the failure of national government and some provincial governments to comply with court orders. The prohibition on execution of court orders against the state (as contained in section 3 of the State Liabilities Act) has left judgement creditors in these cases without an effective remedy for execution. In contrast, in the absence of a provision prohibiting execution of judgement debt against local governments, creditors of such governments are able to attach all the assets of local governments in execution of such debt. This has resulted in these local governments being unable to fulfil their constitutional obligation to provide basic services. This study investigates the South African rules in respect of the execution of court orders against the state with the aim of proposing a solution for the above problems. First of all, the historical and ideological origins of section 3 are set out. Thereafter, the courts’ practical interpretation of section 3 is investigated. From the above inquiry it becomes apparent that, at present, section 3 prohibits all steps towards execution of judgement debt against both the national government and provincial governments. As against this, local governments are not protected by section 3 and as such, court orders (except in certain exceptional instances) may freely be executed against local governments. The constitutionality of this state of affairs is considered next. It is argued that section 3 is incompatible with the doctrines of the rule of law, the supremacy of the Constitution and the separation of powers. It is also submitted that section 3 is an unjustifiable limitation of sections 9 and 34 of the Constitution, in addition to being contrary to sections 165, 173 and 195(f) of the Constitution. In order to achieve a constitutionally acceptable approach to execution of court orders against the state, and as a consequence of the above findings, it is recommended that section 3 should be amended to (a) make it clear that the state is obliged to comply with court orders, (b) to ensure that creditors have effective means of executing judgement debt against the state and (c) to ensure that the government is not rendered impotent by such execution procedures. Thereafter, international approaches to execution of court orders against the state are investigated. These approaches are then measured against the above-mentioned guidelines for achieving a constitutionally acceptable dispensation for execution of court orders so as to evaluate the suitability of such remedies for South African law. In the light of this discussion, it is proposed that effective remedies for execution of judgement debt against the state should be made available. It is proposed that: (a) orders ad factum praestandum should be enforceable by contempt of court proceedings, (b) orders ad pecuniam solvendam should be enforceable by means of attachment of state assets for purposes of execution (suggestions are also made to counter the disruptive effect of this remedy) and (c) that courts should also be able to issue declaratory orders that an order of court has been disobeyed by the state.

Thesis (LLM)-- Stellenbosch University, 2012. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether an individual can and/or should be allowed to consent to objectifying treatment. This necessitated the determination of the meaning of dignity, the meaning of freedom and the relationship between dignity and freedom. It was found that both the right not to be objectified and the right to consent to objectification could be found within human dignity. This is due to the broad definition of dignity in terms of which dignity has two, sometimes contradicting, components. One component safeguards autonomy and the right to choose, which supports consent to objectification, whereas the other promotes individual self-worth by prohibiting objectifying treatment. By investigating the meaning of freedom it was found that freedom as a constitutional value, and possibly also a free-standing constitutional right, could incorporate the right to consent to objectifying treatment. Three possible solutions to this tension between human dignity and freedom were identified and critically analysed. The first was that an individual cannot and should not be allowed to consent to objectification. This solution is primarily based on the notion that dignity is supreme to freedom and that freedom should yield to communitarian dignity. Furthermore, it is contended that consent to objectification is often invalid due to economic coercion and undue influence. The second possible solution was that, although an individual might not be able to validly consent to objectifying treatment, such consent should still be allowed under certain circumstances. The example of invalid consent due to economic coercion introduced in the previous solution was examined in relation to prostitution. The contention regarding this approach is that, since our government is unable to fulfil the socio-economic needs of those who consent due to economic coercion, such consent should be allowed and strictly regulated. The third possible approach was that circumstances do exist in which individuals can give valid consent to objectification and that in these circumstances they should be allowed to do so. In this solution the grounds of the first approach is criticised by contending, for example, that dignity is not supreme to freedom, that a plural society should allow these type of choices and that consent to objectification is already allowed in some instances. The results of this study were that, although there are situations in which genuine consent is not possible, it can be given under certain circumstances. An individual who cannot give genuine consent to objectification should not be allowed to do so, unless transitional measures dictate otherwise. However, an individual who is capable of giving valid consent to objectification should be allowed to do so. Finally, regardless of whether such consent is genuine or not, strict regulation thereof is required. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die doel van hierdie studie was om vas te stel of 'n individu kan toestem en/of toegelaat behoort te word om toe te stem tot objektiverende behandeling. Dit genoodsaak dat die betekenis van menswaardigheid en vryheid, asook verhouding tussen hierdie twee begrippe vasgestel word. Daar is bevind dat beide die reg om nie te geobjektifeer te word nie en die reg om toe te stem tot objektivering gevind kan word binne die begrip van menswaardigheid. Hierdie is te danke aan die breë definisie van menswaardigheid in terme waarvan menswaardigheid uit twee, soms weersprekende, komponente bestaan. Een komponent beskerm outonomie en die reg om te kies, wat toestemming tot objektivering ondersteun, terwyl die ander komponent individuele waarde bevorder deurdat dit objektiverende behandeling verbied. Tydens die ondersoek aangaande die betekenis van vryheid is bevind dat vryheid as 'n grondwetlike waarde, en moontlik ook 'n vrystaande grondwetlike reg, die reg om toe te stem tot objektiverende behandeling kan inkorporeer. Drie moontlike oplossings vir hierdie spanning tussen menswaardigheid en vryheid is geïdentifiseer en krities ontleed. Die eerste is dat 'n individu nie kan toestem en ook nie toegelaat behoort te word om toe te stem tot objektivering nie. Hierdie oplossing is hoofsaaklik gebaseer op die veronderstelling dat vryheid onderworpe is aan menswaardigheid en dat individuele vryheid moet toegee tot die menswaardigheid van die gemeenskap. Verder word dit beweer dat toestemming tot objektivering dikwels ongeldig is as gevolg van die ekonomiese dwang en onbehoorlike beïnvloeding. Die tweede moontlike oplossing was dat, alhoewel 'n individu nie noodwendig instaat is om geldige toestemming tot objektiverende behandeling te verskaf nie, sodanige toestemming onder sekere omstandighede steeds toegelaat behoort te word. Die voorbeeld van ongeldig toestemming as gevolg van ekonomiese dwang wat in die vorige oplossing bekendgestel is, is ondersoek aan die hand van prostitusie. Die bewering ingevolge hierdie benadering is dat, aangesien ons regering is nie in staat is om die sosio-ekonomiese behoeftes van diegene wat toestem tot objektivering as gevolg van ekonomiese dwang te vervul nie, sodanige toestemming toegelaat en streng gereguleer behoort te word. Die derde moontlike benadering is dat daar wel omstandighede bestaan waar individue geldige toestemming kan gee tot objektivering en dat hulle in hierdie omstandighede toegelaat behoort te word om dit te gee. In terme van hierdie oplossing word die gronde waarop die eerste benadering gebaseer is gekritiseer, deur byvoorbeeld te argumenteer dat menswaardigheid nie verhewe is bo vryheid nie, dat in ons huidige diverse samelewing sulke soort keuses aanvaar behoort te word en dat toestemming tot objektivering reeds in sommige geval toegelaat word. Die resultate van hierdie studie was dat, alhoewel daar omstandighede bestaan waaronder geldige toestemming nie moontlik is nie, dit wel onder sekere omstandighede gegee kan word. 'n Individu wat nie daartoe instaat is om geldige toestemming tot objektivering te gee nie, behoort nie toegelaat word om dit te doen nie, tensy oorgangsmaatreëls anders bepaal. Waar 'n individu egter in staat is om geldige toestemming tot die objektivering te gee, behoort dit toegelaat word. Ten slotte is streng regulering van toestemming tot objektiverende behandeling nodig ongeag of sodanige toestemming geldig is of nie.