In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders (lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances. The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money. Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently, mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence, banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

In the environmental context banks face direct, indirect and reputational risks from their internal operations and their external business activities. The current specific focus on the protection of the environment makes it essential for banks and their directors to be aware and stay on top of potential risks and liabilities. This is especially so because banks’ directors can be criminally prosecuted for environmental crimes. The application and effect of the Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998 (POCA) on persons convicted of an environmental crime or crimes has been identified as a possible new or added risk for banks and their directors. Banks in addition to their normal environmental risk and liabilities also need to contend with the possibility of lender liability. Existing legislation pertinent to lender liability does not expressly or specifically deal with lender liability. Absence of judgements on lender liability further exacerbates the risks and the uncertainty for banks in South Africa. Therefore, banks remain subject to legal uncertainty and associated risks. The issue of lender liability specifically with regard to the implication of “the person in control” requires clarification. Hence, it is recommended that legislation relevant to lender liability (National Environmental Management Act 107 of 1998; National Water Act 36 of 1998 and the National Environmental Management: Waste Act 59 of 2008) be revised to specifically accommodate and protect lenders (lending banks) in certain distinct circumstances. The role of banks is that of an intermediary between borrowers and lenders of money. Therefore, it influences the direction and pace of economic development and by default steers and promotes either sustainable or non-sustainable development. Currently, mainstream banks are in effect financing a brown economy and hence subscribe to a weak form of sustainability. It would seem that mainstream banks are more concerned with managing the impact that environmental risk may have on bank lending than the impact of bank lending on the environment. The evolving nature of sustainability (from weak to strong and from a brown to green economy) demands a fundamental policy change for banks. It is expected that mainstream banks will be put under even greater pressure than before to make the transition from weak to strong sustainability. Hence, banks’ current environmental risk management systems will not be sufficient to cater for new environmental risks and liabilities that the move to stronger sustainability (in the form of the green economy) will present. Banks should adopt the stronger version of sustainability; formulate environmental principles that the bank will adhere to; incorporate these environmental principles into all aspects of its lending cycle, develop an environmental risk management system that should include as a minimum the identification of all the applicable legislation pertaining to the specific financing or lending of capital, risk identification, assessment of the specific risk, implementation of risk control measures, mitigation of the risk, risk monitoring and auditing. / LLM (Environmental Law and Governance), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2014

Text in Afrikaans / The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 1989. Included in the inherent rights set out in the Convention is the right to the highest attainable standard of health. In implementing the Convention states parties must refer to the requirements of article 2 of the Convention, which places them under a duty to respect and ensure the rights in the Convention to each child. The term “respect” implies a duty of good faith to refrain from actions which would breach the Convention. The “duty to ensure”, however, requires states parties to take whatever measures are necessary in order to enable children to enjoy their rights. A state party must also review its legislation in order to ensure that domestic law is consistent with the Convention. South Africa showed commitment to protecting and promoting children’s health when it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1995 and subsequently adopted the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which includes provisions guaranteeing the health rights of children. South Africa also showed commitment to give legislative effect to the protection and promotion of children’s health by reviewing the Health Act 63 of 1977 (reviewed as the National Health Act 61 of 2003) and the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 (reviewed as the Children’s Act 38 of 2005). The review of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 revealed that the act is virtually silent on the issue of child health. This led to the decision to identify and evaluate existing policy and legislation, as well as pending relevant law reform and policy affecting child health in order to assess how well South African legislation addresses the issue. The research showed that although much legislation exists, none provides comprehensively for child health rights. The legislation that does exist contains obvious gaps. Most importantly, there is no reference to the core minimum requirements for the state in providing for the health of children, particularly in the way of health services and nutrition. Further, there is a complete lack of legislation which protects the health needs of disabled children. A comparative study was also undertaken. Legislation of India and Canada were evaluated in order to make recommendations as to how the gaps in South African legislation can be rectified. However, the research showed that South Africa has made far more significant progress in promoting a rightsbased approach to children’s health in legislation. In order to ensure that the health rights of children are protected and promoted, I propose more comprehensive legislative protection. / Private Law / LL.D.

Text in Afrikaans / The Convention on the Rights of the Child was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 29 November 1989. Included in the inherent rights set out in the Convention is the right to the highest attainable standard of health. In implementing the Convention states parties must refer to the requirements of article 2 of the Convention, which places them under a duty to respect and ensure the rights in the Convention to each child. The term “respect” implies a duty of good faith to refrain from actions which would breach the Convention. The “duty to ensure”, however, requires states parties to take whatever measures are necessary in order to enable children to enjoy their rights. A state party must also review its legislation in order to ensure that domestic law is consistent with the Convention. South Africa showed commitment to protecting and promoting children’s health when it ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1995 and subsequently adopted the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, which includes provisions guaranteeing the health rights of children. South Africa also showed commitment to give legislative effect to the protection and promotion of children’s health by reviewing the Health Act 63 of 1977 (reviewed as the National Health Act 61 of 2003) and the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 (reviewed as the Children’s Act 38 of 2005). The review of the Child Care Act 74 of 1983 revealed that the act is virtually silent on the issue of child health. This led to the decision to identify and evaluate existing policy and legislation, as well as pending relevant law reform and policy affecting child health in order to assess how well South African legislation addresses the issue. The research showed that although much legislation exists, none provides comprehensively for child health rights. The legislation that does exist contains obvious gaps. Most importantly, there is no reference to the core minimum requirements for the state in providing for the health of children, particularly in the way of health services and nutrition. Further, there is a complete lack of legislation which protects the health needs of disabled children. A comparative study was also undertaken. Legislation of India and Canada were evaluated in order to make recommendations as to how the gaps in South African legislation can be rectified. However, the research showed that South Africa has made far more significant progress in promoting a rightsbased approach to children’s health in legislation. In order to ensure that the health rights of children are protected and promoted, I propose more comprehensive legislative protection. / Private Law / LL.D.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL.M.

Over the past decade, the regulation of mining in South Africa has undergone a fundamental transformation in order to promote equitable access to the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002, drastically changed the regulation of mining by placing the nation’s mineral and petroleum resources under the custodianship of the state. The transformative objectives of resource reform, as envisaged in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, could however not be achieved without a measure of sacrifice -- most notably, that which had to be shouldered by the owners of the land in which the minerals are contained. Under common law, minerals vested in the owners of land and no one could compel them to extract or consent to the extraction of these minerals. Landowners were able to safeguard their land from mining activities by refusing to consent to mining. The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002, changed this by providing that landowners could no longer prevent the state from granting qualifying applicants authorisation to mine. The transformative objectives of resource reform, have inevitably made great inroads into a landowner’s rights to use and enjoy his property optimally. The main focus of this study revolves around the limiting impact of South Africa’s current mineral-law dispensation on township development, and conversely, how township development impairs or limits the mining of coal. For a better understanding of the limitations which the current legislative provisions create in respect of the rights of landowners and holders of mining rights, a brief evaluation of the historical development of the right to mine coal is provided. The entitlements and reciprocal obligations of holders of mining rights and owners of the affected land are considered, and the parties’ legal remedies to resist interference in their respective rights are explored. In the process of considering possible remedies to resolve the conflict which inevitably arises, I explain why English-law principles governing lateral support (support owed by two adjacent properties [neighbour law]), and subjacent support (where the landowner may not be deprived of the vertical support his property derives from the sub-surface minerals) were incorrectly transplanted into our law. In Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates (Pty) Ltd, the South African Supreme Court of Appeal rejected the previously-held view that the right to subjacent support -- like the right to lateral support -- is a natural property right incidental to the ownership of the land. It was further held that conflict between holders of rights to minerals and owners of land should be resolved, not in accordance with English-law principles of neighbour law, but in terms of the law developed for rights relating to the use of servitudes. In summary, the court found that where the parties have not specifically contracted against the specific action (such as opencast or planned-subsidence mining), and provided that it was reasonably necessary for the mining right holder to use this invasive method, he may do so, so long as he does so in the manner least injurious to the entitlements of the surface owner. This decision, however, did not take into account the changes brought about by the comprehensive statutory framework of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act 28 of 2002 which I argue has replaced the earlier servitude construction. In this dissertation I consider whether possible solutions to resolve the conflict can be found in the principles relating to neighbour law, and whether the principles governing the use of servitudes remain relevant in resolving conflicts between landowners and holders of mining rights. I evaluate possible legal remedies and place special emphasis on the constitutionality of the curtailment of a landowner’s use and enjoyment of his property resulting from mining activities on or under his land. I further consider whether the exercise of a mining right, granted by the state, which results in a serious infringement of a landowner’s ownership, could in certain circumstances amount to a deprivation or possibly an expropriation in terms of section 25 of the Constitution. I discuss the position where the state’s regulatory interference is so severe that it deprives a landowner of the ability to exercise any, or a substantial portion of his ownership entitlements. I evaluate the possibility that such interference may constitute de facto expropriation for which compensation may be claimed. In the penultimate chapter I briefly mention how the relationship between landowners and holders of mining rights is managed and conflict is defused in other jurisdictions such as China, Australia, the United States of America, India, Germany and Swaziland. I conclude this dissertation with suggestions on possible ways in which the conflict may be resolved or at least minimised in future. / Die regulering van mynbou in Suid-Afrika het die afgelope dekade ‘n fundamentele verandering ondergaan ten einde breër toegang tot die nasie se minerale en petroleum hulpbronne te bevorder. Die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act,6 Wet 28 van 2002, het ‘n radikale ommekeer in die mynbou industrie meegebring deurdat die regulering van mynbou aktiwiteite onder die toesig en beheer van die nasionale regering geplaas is. Die transformatiewe oogmerk van hulpbron hervorming ingevolge die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika kon egter nie geskied sonder ‘n mate van opoffering nie. Die grootste aanslag van die nuwe mineraalreg bedeling word sonder twyfel gevoel deur die eienaars van grond ten opsigte waarvan mynregte deur die regering aan ‘n ander party toegeken word. Ingevolge die gemenereg was die eienaar van grond voorheen ook die eienaar van die minerale wat in die grond voorgekom het. Gevolglik was dit onder die uitsluitlike beheer van die eienaar om te bepaal of enigiemand anders die reg kon verkry om minerale op of in die betrokke grond te ontgin. Na aanvang van die inwerkingtreding van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act is hierdie posisie egter omvêrgewerp aangesien die regering voortaan die bevoegdheid het om te bepaal wie en op watter voorwaardes iemand die reg verkry om minerale te ontgin. Die toekenning van die reg om minerale te ontgin op ‘n ander se eiendom sonder die eienaar se toestemming, maak dus ernstige inbreuk op sy regte. Grondeienaars se bevoegdhede wat uit hul eiendomsreg voortvloei word in talle gevalle ernstig ingeperk ten einde die oogmerke van hulpbron transformasie te bereik. Die ondersoek wat hierna volg, is daarop toegespits om die beperkende aanslag van die regulering van steenkoolmynbou-aktiwiteite op die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiede asook dié van die ontwikkeling van dorpsgebiedie op steenkoolmynbou beter te verstaan. Ten einde hierdie invloed beter te verstaan, word die geskiedkundige ontwikkeling van die reg om minerale in Suid-Afrika te ontgin kortliks oorweeg. Die regte en verpligtinge van die houers van mynregte en die eienaars van die grond wat deur die uitoefening daarvan geraak word, asook die remedies waaroor die onderskye partye beskik ten einde hul regte teen inbreukmaking deur die ander party te beskerm, word daarna oorweeg. In genoemde ondersoek toon ek aan waarom die Engelsregtelike burereg- beginsels van laterale steun en onderstut nie toepassing in ons reg behoort te vind nie en waarom die botsing wat ontstaan vanweë die uitoefening van die grondeienaar en die houer van ‘n mynreg se regte liefs versoen moet word deur die Suid-Afrikaanse serwituutreg beginsels toe te pas soos aangetoon in die beslissing van Anglo Operations Ltd v Sandhurst Estates. Hiedie beslissing het egter nie die veranderinge wat meegebring is deur die nuwe bedeling van die Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act in ag geneem nie en daar word gevolglik aangevoer dat die serwituut beginsels vervang is deur ‘n breedvoerige wetgewende stelsel. Die grondwetlikheid van die beperking op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendom te gebruik en te geniet, word ondersoek, asook of daar enige gronde vir ‘n eis om skadevergoeding mag wees. In besonder word daar oorweeg of die leerstuk van konstruktiewe onteiening moontlik toepassing kan vind in gevalle waar die staat se regulering ‘n uitermatige beperkende effek het op die bevoegdhede van ‘n grondeienaar om sy eiendomsreg uit te oefen. In die voorlaaste hoofstuk ontleed ek baie kortliks hoe die verhouding tussen eienaars van grond in mynbougebiede en houers van regte om minerale te ontgin in Sjina, Australië, die Verenigde State van Amerika, Indië, Duitsland en Swaziland gereguleer word. Ter afsluiting word aandag gegee aan moontlike maniere om die belangebotsing tussen die betrokke partye uit die weg te ruim of te beperk. / Private Law / LL. M.