No abstract available / Dissertation (MA (Old Testament Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / Old Testament Studies / unrestricted

In this research study, the researcher investigates obstacles faced by news journalists in investigative journalism in a democracy as experienced in Botswana. Investigative journalism and democracy have a symbiotic relationship. This relationship serves to make the public sensitive about, and aware of, injustices and undemocratic practices and it could, ultimately, contribute significantly to the process of democratization (Faure 2005: 155). Unfortunately, in their endeavor to keep up with the ethos of investigative journalism, journalists meet obstacles that range from legal to financial issues. The author investigates those factors that reporters in Botswana rate as having the greatest impact on their investigative efforts. The study also assesses the attitudes of journalists in the country towards the roles and responsibilities of the fourth estate, which supports investigative reporting. Investigative journalism is centered on disclosure, described by six elements: public interest, theme, accuracy, follow-up reports, consequences and questioning the status quo (Faure 2005:160; Marron 1995:1). The researcher interrogated the current practice of investigative journalism in newsrooms in the Botswana context, by means of a self-administered questionnaire. A cumulative sum of scores of each rank order for each obstacle was used to observe the one rated the most impeding by Botswana journalists. Elementary descriptive statistics in the form of percentages were used to assess attitudes of Botswana journalists towards investigative journalism. The same method was used to assess the proportion of investigative stories in four sampled Botswana newspapers. The contents of the respective newspapers were assessed against the five elements of investigative reporting that include: theme, public interest, questioning the status quo, accuracy, follow-up reports and consequences.

Maria Maori Motuhake or Maori self determination is developing into one of the most pressing political and legal issues in modern New Zealand. The Maori struggle for recognition of that right is a long one. It began with contact with British colonisers, and has continued in different forms throughout New Zealand's history. The following thesis suggests that that struggle is one which the Maori share with Indigenous peoples throughout the world. The recognition in law of Mana Maori Motuhake in New Zealand will come from an understanding, by both Maori and Pakeha, of the international nature of that struggle. Accordingly the essential purpose of this thesis is to put the issue of Maori rights into an international and colonial perspective. In Part I, the question of Indigenous self determination is discussed in the context of historical and contemporary developments in international law. It is concluded firstly that there is room for the proposition that a right of Indigenous self determination can be drawn from the current state of international law. Secondly, it is argued that recent developments in the United Nations suggest positive recognition of that right will occur in the near future. In Part II, the development of colonial law in the United States, Canada and New Zealand add a further dimension to this international perspective. In this part parallel developments in the three countries are highlighted to prove the 'indivisibility' of colonialism, and the inexorable development in modern law toward recognition of the 'colonial paradigm'- Native title and Native sovereignty. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Indian water rights regarding irrigation agriculture and the construction o f storage and hydroelectric dams took shape from the 1870s to the 1930s and largely determined economic activities on and near reserves and reservations in Western Canada and the American West respectively. Although historians recently have provided extensive studies of American cases, Indian water rights issues in Western Canada have gained scant attention. The present study focuses on this neglected part of the history placing particular emphasis on the interactive roles Native peoples, government officials, agricultural businesses, hydroelectric developers and homesteaders played in "reclaiming" aboriginal landscapes for irrigation and water storage or hydroelectric dam projects. I explore the jurisdictional debates over water rights that these projects generated. Recognizing the importance of inter-provincial and international contexts, the thesis examines the extent to which American reclamation laws and practices influenced Canadian policymakers, bureaucrats, and technocrats. It also focuses particular attention on the development of water laws and policies in British Columbia and Alberta to identify similarities and differences that subsequently affected Native peoples. I accomplish this by providing four case studies. I note that the differences between these two provinces with respect to the development of Indian water rights were particularly significant before 1930. A key reason was that the federal government held title to Crown lands in Alberta until the latter date, whereas British Columbia entered confederation holding that title. My dissertation demonstrates that the idea of Indian water rights emerged in the late-nineteenth-century from political and legal philosophies and practices of colonialism that attempted to transform the "primitive" Native populations into the mold of yeoman farmers. It was also shaped by modifications of the common law that sought to address the needs of industrialists, miners, and settlers who developed the semi-arid and arid North American west. The water rights regime that emerged was based on a perception o f this resource that was very different from the holistic one held by indigenous populations. I note that as the Native peoples increasingly relied on the agricultural economy in the early twentieth century, and as the competition with neighboring settlers for water intensified, the question o f the extent to which the Native peoples were entitled to water became the subject of serious political and legal wrangling. Native peoples demonstrated that they had a strong desire to maintain control over water at a local level by actively carrying out irrigation projects, protecting their own reclamation works from the obstruction of settlers, fighting against the construction of storage dams by neighboring ranchers, and by successfully negotiating the terms of agreements for surrendering reserve lands to facilitate on-reserve hydro-electric projects. My thesis closes with a reflection about how these historical events help us understand contemporary Indian water claims. / Arts, Faculty of / History, Department of / Graduate

When the Metis were included in section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982, Metis leaders were euphoric. With the constitutional recognition of the Metis as on of the three Aboriginal peoples of Canada and the protection of Metis Aboriginal rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982, it was thought that the battle for recognition was over. Surely the next step would be the federal government's recognition of its jurisdiction for the Metis and the recognition by the courts and the Crown that Metis have Aboriginal rights that can be exercised along with those of the Indians and the Inuit. But Metis expectations were short lived. More than twenty years later, Canada refuses to recognize it has legislative jurisdiction for the Metis, arguing that Metis are a provincial legislative responsibility. And both the federal and provincial governments have failed to conduct themselves in keeping with the principle of the "honour of the Crown" because they consistently deny that Metis have Aboriginal rights. Whenever Metis harvesters attempt to exercise their rights, the Crown is there as a game warden, prosecutor or jailor, but never as a fiduciary to maintain the Crown's honour. The Crown often argues that without a clear understanding of Metis definition and identity, Metis Aboriginal rights would be too difficult to administer. More importantly, the Crown has argued that if Aboriginal rights are linked with pre-contact customs practices and traditions, the Metis could not possibly meet the Aboriginal rights test that has been established by the courts. But then came the decision in R. v. Powley making it clear that the Metis are a distinct people, separate from the Indians and the Inuit, with Aboriginal rights flowing from the customs, practices and traditions of Metis communities that emerged subsequent to the period of first contact, and prior to the exercise of "effective control" by the Crown. The Supreme Court of Canada found in favor of Powley by using a "purposive" approach in the analysis of Metis Aboriginal rights and by not mechanically applying the section 35 justification analysis. The purpose of this thesis is to develop a core set of principles that can be used as a framework for a purposive analysis of Metis Aboriginal rights. The principles support the propositions that: Metis fall within the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the federal government; that Metis have Aboriginal rights that are recognized and affirmed by section 35; and, that Metis Aboriginal rights are immunized from the application of provincial wildlife regulations because of the doctrine of interjurisdictional immunity. / Law, Peter A. Allard School of / Graduate

Magister Legum - LLM / This paper sought to discuss the questions whether refugees have the right to return to their country of origin and whether their participation in the political life of that country may be used as a means to realise their right to return. / South Africa

This dissertation examines the association between immigrant legal status and several key indicators of socioeconomic wellbeing in the United States. The objective is to test whether estimates of these associations vary depending on the method used to infer legal status in survey data. Specifically, I compare estimates from the following legal status assignment approaches: (1) inferring legal status using a logical imputation method that ignores the existence of legal-status survey questions (logical approach); (2) defining legal status based on survey questions about legal status (survey approach); (3) using statistical models to assign multiple possible legal statuses in the framework of combined sample multiple imputation (CSMI approach); and (4) using administrative records from the Social Security Administration’s Numident database to assign “official” status information to survey respondents (Numident approach). Each chapter can be read as a stand-alone study that uses nationally representative survey data to compare estimates of the association between legal status and a given outcome between two or more assignment approaches. Results from these analyses show that methodological decisions about how to infer the legal status of survey respondents have significant impacts on conclusions about the association between legal status and socioeconomic outcomes. The findings call for a more cautious approach to interpreting research results based on legal status imputations and for greater attention to potential biases introduced by various methodological approaches to inferring individuals’ legal status in survey data. / Sociology

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.