This study focuses on the role of the South African judiciary under an entrenched and justiciable Bill of Rights. The lack of an established human rights culture in South Africa results in uncertainty regarding the permissible extent to which judges are empowered, under the Bill of Rights, to employ judicial activism and creativity in order to protect the fundamental rights of citizens. Judicial activism is used in the sense that judges can and should, whenever expressly or impliedly sanctioned to do so by the Bill of Rights, ensure that the fundamental rights of the individual are protected to the extent of granting actual constitutional relief, where this is justified, instead of merely declaring the existence of a right. The essential aim of this study is to outline the parameters of, and the legal basis upon which judicial activism can be justified and accepted into a South African human rights culture. / Jurisprudence / LL. M.

Text in Afrikaans / Bophuthatswana het gedurende 1977 tot stand gekom as 'n onafhanklike staat. In die Grondwet daarvan is 'n uitvoerige menseregtehandves vervat wat as hoogste reg gegeld het - alle wetgewing in stryd daarmee was nietig. Die hoop was dat Bophuthatswana sou ontwikkel as 'n groeipuntvir die handhawing van menseregte in Suidelike Afrika. Aanvanklik het die howe gevolg gegee aan die bepalings van die menseregtehandves. Algaande is daar teruggekeer na 'n letterknegtige soeke na die wil van die wetgewer, wat daartoe gelei het dat die burger se menseregte deur die howe misken is. Die laaste beslissings van die howe verteenwoordig 'n terugkeer na die ware rol van die howe in 'n menseregtebestel. Die Wetgewende en Uitvoerende gesag was outokraties en het geen besef gehad van die essensie van menseregte nie. Die ondervinding in Bophuthatswana is grootliks dieselfde as elders in Afrika, waar menseregte vertrap is. Teen hierdie agtergrond word die grondwetlike toekoms van Suid-Afrika in oenskou geneem. / Bophuthatswana came into existence as an independent state during 1977. A justiciable bill of rights provided for judicial review. The hope existed that Bophuthatswana would be a growing point for the protection of human rights in Southern Africa. Although earlier judgments of the courts were promising and augured well for the future protection of human rights later judgments have reverted to the positivistic approach to constitutional interpretation. This led to the bill of rights being rendered inoperative. However, in the latest and most recent judgements there was a return to the bold and innovative interpretation of the first decisions. The legislative and executive branches of state was autocratic to the core as experienced elsewhere in Africa. The constitutional future of South Africa is evaluated against this background. / Law / LL.M.

Public International Law / LL.M. (Public International Law)

This study examines the compatibility of the Law of Criminal Procedure of 2001 in Saudi Arabia with the international human rights standards, and provides recommendations for criminal procedure reforms. The recent developments in the Saudi Arabian criminal justice system make it important to examine the right to a fair trial within the legal system of Saudi Arabia. This study starts by examining the international human rights standards related to the right to a fair trial and the right to a fair trial under the Saudi Arabian legal system. The study then examines the extent to which Shariah law recognizes the international human rights standards related to the right to a fair trial. This will involve the sources of Shariah and the school of thought in the Islamic jurisprudence as well as the crimes and punishments in Islamic law. The main argument is highlighted in Chapters Four and Five of this research, the former of which study the pre-trial process in the Saudi Law of Criminal Procedure in the light of international human rights standards, and the latter has evaluated the right to a fair trial under Saudi Arabia legal system. Various cases are examined in these two chapters, and the sources of those cases vary in terms of the level; for instance, some of them were provided by the General Court in Riyadh; others were provided by the Supreme Judicial Council; and others were obtained from the Modawanat-Al-Ahkam, which is the publication of the Ministry of Justice containing a variety of cases. Cases in the international domain were brought mainly from the Working Group of Arbitrary Detention in the HRC. The study provides suggestions necessary for the Law of Criminal Procedure in relation to specific articles.

The thesis seeks to enhance understanding of the recent reform of capital punishment law, policies and institutions in China by studying its causes, significance, and limits. The research surveys the reform initiated by China’s top judiciary – the Supreme People’s Court - around 2006-2007. It demonstrates a changing domestic socio-political context, within which the external and internal impetus to reform is inevitable. Drawn from elite interview evidence with penal policy makers including judges, prosecutors, and legislators, the thesis concludes that Europe-inspired, cross-border abolitionist sentiments created motivation for change in China through soft mechanisms of shaming and persuasion, albeit to a limited degree. In the domestic realm, the research identified three pairs of interrelated tensions – the contradiction between elites and the public, the conflict between political intervention and judicial autonomy, and the divergent interests and priorities between top judicial organs and lower courts. These tensions are useful social, political and legal indicators to explain why and how China reformed its capital punishment machinery.

This thesis examines the rationale for legal professional privilege (LPP) in relation to corporations, and seeks to identify the optimal scope of a corporate privilege at the beginning of the 21st century. It argues that there is a growing gap between the jurisprudence on LPP and the modern realities of corporate life. Too often courts explain the rationale for the privilege by reference to the needs and behaviour of individuals, and use questionable analogies to justify its extension to corporations. Accordingly, insufficient account is taken of the legal, economic and social realities in which corporations operate. This has resulted in a privilege rule that rests on questionable foundations and is uncertain in scope. Even when the privilege rules are clear, its scope is often out of alignment with its rationale. This is unacceptable because the cost of a corporate privilege is substantial. The thesis argues that while corporations are entitled to a right to prepare for litigation in private as part of the right to fair trial, the case for a corporate advice privilege unconnected with litigation is weak. Large private and public companies already have sufficient incentives to consult lawyers in order to obtain legal advice. Corporate governance rules effectively require directors to get advice on important legal matters affecting the company. Directors of small private corporations, and individual employees of companies, may still need some additional incentive to take advice or talk candidly to corporate counsel in the form of a privilege. The thesis looks at ways of structuring the privilege to protect these groups. Above all, the thesis argues that rules on corporate advice privilege should be formulated in such a way that it helps rather than hinders the goal of increasing corporate compliance.

No description available.

No description available.

This paper examines the intersection between human rights and security assistance in Mauritania. In American security assistance broadly, and within the Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership specifically, there has been an over-securitization of “whole of government” counterterrorism policy. While the United States recognizes the need to address the social, economic, and political roots of extremism, it has failed to do so in practice. If the United States continues to support Mauritania with conventional security assistance but does not tackle the root causes of extremism, it will ultimately fail in fighting terrorism in the Sahel. In order to succeed, the U.S. government must give greater authority to the Department of State and USAID, create greater accountability for human rights within the Department of Defense, and improve interagency coordination. In the long term, the U.S. government must change its paradigm regarding the relationship between security and human rights.

Thesis (MPhil)--Stellenbosch University, 2003. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: While most people acknowledge the dignity of fellow humans, atrocities that deny the dignity of people are rampant in our world. The ongoing ignorance and aberrations of the dignity of human beings in the world might mean that there is still not clarity on what respect for the dignity of others really mean, how it should be practiced and whether human dignity is an entitlement or a responsibility. Human dignity was not always bestowed to every individual. In ancient times dignity was reserved for the strongest individual in and later was extended to certain classes, groups and nations like the monarchy and clergy, the Egyptians and Romans. The Renaissance brought a new consciousness of the worth of man. But despite this awareness, and the advent of a human rights culture as is found in the writings of modem philosophers like John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Immanuel Kant, who all support the notion of human dignity, liberty and human rights, gross human rights violations still took place during the twentieth century. Stalin used the Russian people to create a successful socialistic state; Hitler exterminated all those who obstructed his ideal of creating a pure Aryan race, while Verwoerd legalized racial discrimination in South Africa and Namibia. As a result of the atrocities in Europe, especially during World War II, The United Nations was established with the aim to oversee and address human rights violations in the world. Human rights and respect for human dignity are included in the Bill of rights of the Constitutions of America, South Africa and Namibia. Health care providers acknowledge the rights of patients by respect for the autonomy of patients. Patients are autonomous persons and health care providers enable patients to take autonomous action. Autonomous action means that a patient will act with understanding, intention and without coercion. Paternalism is only justified when it serves to protect the patient or protect the rights of others. Health care providers practice autonomy by facilitating informed consent, by providing truthful information, by upholding confidentiality, to protect privacy of patients and to treat patients with respect. There is little uncertainty that people can claim the right to human dignity because persons have intrinsic worth as unique beings that are irreplaceable and exist as an end in themselves. Holy Scripture confirms that humans are created in the image of God. International human rights instruments and national constitutions provide people with the statutory right to human dignity and enable people to legally claim this right. But human dignity is also a responsibility because claiming a right has a reciprocal obligation on others not to violate the claimed right, but also requires from persons to value their own lives. Over reliance on science and rational thinking may negate human dignity because scientists do not always consider the needs of persons. The examples of world leaders like Gandhi, King and Mandela have also shown that one can earn human dignity through respectful conduct towards others. Protagoras of Abdera was aware of human worthiness as right and responsibility as long back as the fifth century Be, and this awareness still exists today. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Ten spyte daarvan dat meeste mense die menswaardigheid van ander erken, misken gruweldade in die wereld steeds die waardigheid van baie mense. Die miskenning van menswaardigheid mag beteken dat daar steeds onduidelikheid is oor wat respek vir die menswaardigheid van ander werklik beteken, hoe dit gepraktiseer moet word en of menswaardigheid 'n reg of 'n verantwoordelikheid is. Menswaardigheid was nie altyd aan alle persone verleen nie. In die antieke beskawing was menswaardigheid grootliks gereserveer vir die sterker persone, en later vir sekere klasse, groepe en nasies, soos die monargie en geestelikes, die Egiptenare en Romeine. Die Renaissance het 'n nuwe bewuswording van menswaardigheid gebring. Maar ten spyte van hierdie bewuswording en die koms van die menseregtekultuur is die werk van moderne filosowe soos John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau en Immanuel Kant, wat almal die gedagte van menswaardigheid, vryheid en menseragte ondersteun, het gruwellike menseregte skendings steeds plaasgevind gedurende die twintigste eeu. Stalin het die Russiese volk gebruik om 'n suksesvolle sosialistiese staat te skep, Hitler het probeer om almal wat sy ideaal bedreig het om 'n egte nie-Joodse Kaukasiese nasie te skep, te vermoor, terwyl Verwoerd rassediskriminasie gewettig het in Suid-Afrika en Namibië. As gevolg van die gruweldade in Europa, veral gedurende die Tweede Wereldoorlog, het die Verenigde Nasies tot stand gekom om die menseregteskendings in die wereld te monitor en aan te spreek. Die Konstitusies van Amerika, Suid-Afrika en Namibië, erken menseregte en die respek vir menswaardigheid. Ook in gesondheidsorg word die regte van die pasiënt beskerm deur die beginsel van respek vir die outonomie van pasiënte. Pasiënte is outonome persone en gesondheidsorg werkers maak dit moontlik vir pasiënte om outonome handelinge uit te voer. Outonome handelinge beteken dat die pasiënt sal handel met intensie en sonder dwang en dat die handeling ten volle verstaan word. Paternalisme is alleen geregverdig wanneer dit die regte van die pasiënt of ander persone beskerm. Gesondheidsorg werkers fasiliteer outonomie van pasiënte deur ingeligte toestemming te verkry, pasiënte nie te mislei nie, vertroulikheid te handhaaf, privaatheid van die pasiënt te verseker en deur pasiënte te respekteer. Daar is min onsekerheid dat persone op die reg tot menswaardigheid kan aanspraak maak want mense het inherente waarde as mense wat nie vervang kan word nie en wat in hulself 'n bestaansdoel het. Die Skrif bevestig dat die mens na die beeld van God geskape is. Internasionale menseregte instrumente en nasionale konstitusies maak voorsiening vir die wettige reg tot menswaardigheid en maak dit vir mense moontlik om wettiglik op hierdie reg aanspraak te maak. Mense het egter nie net 'n reg tot menswaardigheid nie maar ook 'n verantwoordelikheid. Aanspraak op 'n reg tot menswaardigheid impliseer 'n wedersydse verantwoordelikheid dat ander die reg nie mag skend nie, maar vereis ook die verantwoordelikheid dat persone waarde aan hul eie lewens sal heg. Oorwaardering van die wetenskap en rasionaliteit mag ook menswaardigheid ontken, omdat menslike behoeftes nie altyd in ag geneem word deur wetenskaplikes nie. Voorbeelde van wêreldleiers soos Gandhi, King en Mandela bewys dat menswaardigheid ook verwerf kan word deur ander respekvol te behandel. Protagoras of Abdera was reeds in die vyfde eeu voor Christus bewus van menswaardigheid as reg en verantwoordelikheid, en hierdie bewussyn is steeds geldig vandag.