The purpose of this research is to explore the need for, and the legal implications of, harmonising labour laws in the Southern African Development Community (SADC). Chapter One highlights a number of factors that call for the harmonisation of labour laws in the SADC region and discusses some of the reasons why labour laws are not well developed in the region. The influence of globalisation on labour standards in southern Africa and the influence of regionalism on the harmonisation of labour laws are discussed at length. The inference that could be drawn from this discussion is that for a regionalisation process in southern Africa to be successful, there is an urgent need to harmonise the region’s labour law system. This thesis confirms that Southern Africa has many lessons to learn from the regional harmonisation of labour law in the European Economic Community and the current European Union. The implementation of international labour standards in southern Africa is investigated. The main areas examined include (1) freedom of association, (2) collective bargaining, (3) forced labour and (4) discrimination. The findings of this investigation show that there is no uniformity in the implementation of International Labour Organisation (ILO) standards in the SADC region and, therefore, it is recommended labour law should be harmonised in terms of ILO standards. In respect of the benefits to be derived from the harmonisation process, an empirical investigation was conducted in the SADC region and the following is recommended: the harmonisation of labour law in the SADC region will help with the implementation of ILO standards, protection of workers against the economic power of employers in the workplace and maintaining similar benefits for migrants in the region. / Mercantile law / LL. D.

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The researcher conducted an in-depth analysis of the criminality and criminal behaviour of selected sample-specific, African, adult male Mozambican and Zimbabwean foreign offenders, incarcerated at South Africa’s Losperfontein Correctional Centre. The causes, contributory factors and motives of their crimes were determined, and their criminogenic needs and risks identified. The needs and risks of foreign offenders were found to differ from those of South African offenders significantly. To address criminogenic needs and risks of foreign offenders, and to enhance their self-development and rehabilitation, recommendations for each individual case study are made. / Boleng ka botlalo le tshetshereganyo ya thuto ya patlisiso ya boitsholo jwa bosenyi jwa monna wa mogodi wa Mozambique le basiamolodi ba boditshaba ba Zimbabwe ba ba golegilweng kwa Setheong sa Kgopololo sa Losperfontein mo Aforika Borwa (Brits, Porofense ya Bokone-Bophirima) e ne ya dirwa. Mabaka, dintlha tsa kabelo le maitlhomo a bosenyi jwa bona di tlhomamisitswe le ditlhokwa tsa keriminojeniki le ditekelelo di lemogilwe. Mokgwa wa basiamolodi o ne wa tlhaloswa mo letlhakoreng la ditiori tsa keriminoloji, tse di akaretsang karolo ya thanolo le tshetshereganyo ya data. Diphitlhelelo di tshitshinya gore ditlhokwa le ditekelelo tsa basiamolodi di farologana le tsa basiamolodi ba mo gae. Go sekaseka ditlhokwa tsa keriminojeki le ditekelelo tsa basiamolodi ba boditshaba le go oketsa boitlhabololo jwa bona le tsosoloso, dikatlenegiso tsa dithuto tsa patlisisio dingwe le dingwe di dirilwe. / Go dirilwe tshekatsheko ya nyakišišo ye e tseneletšego ya khwalithethifi ya maitshwaro a bosenyi a basenyi ba banna ba dinagašele ba Mozambique le Zimbabwe ba ba golegilwego ka Senthareng ya Tshokollo ya Losperfontein (Brits, Profenseng ya Bokone Bophirima) ya Afrika Borwa. Dibakwa, mabaka a seabe le mabaka a bosenyi bja bona di laeditšwe gomme go hlaotšwe le dinyakwa tša bona tša mabaka a tshenyo le dikotsi. Maitshwaro a basenyi a hlalositšwe go ya ka diteori tša bosenyi, tšeo di bopago karolo ya tlhathollo le tshekatsheko ya datha. Dikutullo di šišinya gore dinyakwa le dikotsi tša basenyi ba dinagašele di fapana le tša basenyi ba go belegelwa ka mono nageng. Go šogana le dinyakwa tša mabaka a tshenyo le dikotsi tša basenyi ba dinagašele le go matlafatša boihlabollo bja bona le tshokollo, go dirilwe ditšhišinyo tša nyakišišo ye nngwe le ye nngwe. / Criminology and Security Science / M. A. (Criminology)

The Southern African Development Community (SADC) is a regional economic community established by Treaty in 1992 and comprising fifteen southern African countries. The Tribunal, SADC’s judicial organ, is situated in Windhoek, Namibia and became operational in 2005. The Tribunal enjoys a wide mandate to hear and determine disputes between states, states and SADC, and between natural and legal persons and states or SADC. It is mandated to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to applicable treaties, general rules and principles of public international law, and principles and rules of law of member states. Being new in the field, the Tribunal has not as yet developed a significant jurisprudence although it has delivered a number of judgments some of which are referred to in the study. The Tribunal is expected to develop its own jurisprudence having regard to the jurisprudence developed by other international courts involved in the judicial settlement of disputes. The study offers a comparative review and analysis of the jurisprudence of two selected courts: the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ). The focus is on four selected areas considered crucial to the functioning of the Tribunal and the selected courts. The study discusses the parties with access to the Tribunal and compares this with access to the ICJ and ECJ. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal is contrasted with that of the two selected courts. The sources of law available to the Tribunal are discussed and contrasted to those of the two courts. Lastly, the enforcement of law in SADC is contrasted to what applies in relation to the selected courts. In each selected area, similarities and differences between the Tribunal and the two courts are noted and critically evaluated. Further, rules and principles developed by the two selected courts are explored in depth with a view to identifying those which could be of use to the Tribunal. Recommendations are made on rules and principles which could be of use to the Tribunal and on possible improvements to the SADC treaty regime. / Constitutional, International and Indigenous Law / LL.D.

The recent political conflict in Zimbabwe has attracted the attention of policymakers, academics and the media alike in the neighbouring countries of the region, across the African continent and internationally. While the story of an ageing African liberation hero turned dictator who, through autocratic rule, has governed his country and his people to the ground in order to maintain power is captivating, a key element of the fascination is the critical diplomatic role played by South Africa from 2000 onward. Foreign policy in post-apartheid South Africa on paper is driven by human rights and democracy, conflict prevention and conflict resolution through peaceful means, and the promotion of African interests in world affairs. However, after observing South Africa’s involvement in the Zimbabwe conflict between 2000 and 2009, South Africa’s foreign policy appears to be propelled more by African solidarity and sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and a softer interpretation of preventive diplomacy than its international counterparts. Thabo Mbeki’s preventive diplomacy toward Zimbabwe during his presidency was slow to produce results, lacked transparency and frustrated many, yet, when examined under a preventive diplomacy theoretical lens, Mbeki’s policy did eventually garner success through the signing of the Global Political Agreement (GPA) and the formation of an inclusive government in Zimbabwe. This dissertation examines the role of preventive diplomacy in South Africa’s foreign policy toward Zimbabwe under Mbeki’s leadership and determines the point at which South Africa switched from an approach of preventive diplomacy to one of conflict resolution and conflict management. The concept of ‘preventive diplomacy’ is often focused on government-to-government relations or the high level diplomacy of intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations (UN). Multi-track diplomacy expands on this traditional interpretation and considers the preventive diplomacy contributions of a variety of non-state actors to the practice of conflict prevention. This dissertation uniquely moulds the preventive diplomacy theoretical framework of Michael Lund with Kumar Rupesinghe’s concept of multi-track diplomacy to form a more comprehensive illustration of the role of preventive diplomacy in the approach of multiple actors towards the Zimbabwe conflict. The more inclusive preventive diplomacy theoretical framework is then applied to the conflict in Zimbabwe between 2000 and 2009. Through the application of a preventive diplomacy framework which incorporates the concept of multi-track diplomacy it is then possible to observe the South African government’s preventive diplomacy approach toward Zimbabwe first between 2000 and 2007 and then as mandated by SADC between 2007 and 2009 and finally compare it with the diplomacy of multi-track actors such as the UN, Zimbabwe-based and South African-based civil society organizations, the Zimbabwean Diaspora, religious groups, and financial institutions. The examination of the larger role of preventive diplomacy in the Zimbabwe conflict situation leads to the understanding that each diplomatic effort is interlinked. Therefore the culminating event of the South African government’s preventive diplomacy approach in the Global Political Agreement could not have been achieved without the preventive diplomacy efforts of a multitude of actors who were also committed to preventing violence and finding a lasting solution to the conflict in Zimbabwe. / Dissertation (MA)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / Political Sciences / unrestricted

Foreign investments in SADC are regulated by Annex 1 of the SADC Protocol on Finance and Investments (SADC FIP), as well as the laws of SADC Member States. At present, SADC faces the challenge that this regime for the regulation of foreign investments is unstable, unsatisfactory and unpredictable. Furthermore, the state of the rule of law in some SADC Member States is unsatisfactory. This negatively affects the security of foreign investments regulated by this regime. The main reasons for this state of affairs are briefly explained below. The regulatory regime for foreign investments in SADC is unstable, due to recent policy reviews and amendments of key regulatory instruments that have taken place. Major developments in this regard have been the suspension of the SADC Tribunal during 2010, the amendment of the SADC Tribunal Protocol during 2014 to bar natural and legal persons from access to the Tribunal, and the amendment of Annex 1 during 2016 to remove investor access to international investor-state arbitration, better known as investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS). The regulation of foreign investments in SADC has been unsatisfactory, among others because some SADC Member States have failed or neglected to harmonise their investment laws with both the 2006 and the 2016 Annex 1. Furthermore, SADC Member States such as Angola, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Malawi, Mauritius, Seychelles, Eswatini, Tanzania, Zambia, and Zimbabwe have multiple Regional Economic Community (REC) memberships. This places these Member States in a position whereby they have conflicting interests and treaty obligations. Finally, the future of the regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC is unpredictable, due to regional integration efforts such as the recent formation of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Free Zone (T-FTA) and the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA). The T-FTA is entitled to have its investment protocol, while the AfCFTA investment protocol will be negotiated from 2018 until 2020. These developments entail that the 2016 Annex 1 will soon be replaced by an investment protocol at either the T-FTA or AfCFTA levels, thereby ushering a new regime for the regulation of foreign investments in SADC. The unknown nature of the future regulations create uncertainty and instability among foreign investors and host states alike. This study analyses the regulation of foreign investments in terms of Annex 1 and selected laws of SADC Member States. In the end, it makes the three findings mentioned above. In order to address these findings, the study makes four recommendations. The first is that foreign investments in SADC must be regulated at African Union (AU) level, by means of an AfCFTA investment protocol (which incidentally is now the case). Secondly, investor-state disputes must be referred to the courts of a host state, optional ISDS, the African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJ&HR) or other agreed forum. Thirdly, an African Justice Scoreboard (AJS) must be established. The AJS will act as a gateway to determine whether an investor-state dispute shall be referred to the courts of a host state, ISDS, the ACJ&HR or other forums. Fourthly, the office of an African Investment Ombud (AIO) must be created. The AIO shall facilitate the early resolution of investor-state disputes, so as to reduce the number of disputes that may end-up in litigation or arbitration. / Mercantile Law / LL. D.