Thesis (LL M )--Stellenbosch University, 1990. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: According to Rumpf£ CJ in the Nduli decision, Roman-Dutch law is the fons et
origo of the statement that customary international law is part of South African
law. His sources, Fran~ois and Huber, are open to criticism because they are
not Roman-Dutch authorities on this specific question, but the decisions in
Ncumata v Matwa (1881-2), Du Toit v Kruger (1905), and Rex v Lionda (1944)
emphasise that the reception of customary international law in South African
law has taken place through Roman law. Various court decisions emphasise that
the term Roman-Dutch law should not be interpreted narrowly, as it includes
the common law of the whole of Western Europe and not only of the province
Holland. If this quotation is interpreted in an ius commune context, it is clear
why Rumpf£ CJ did not cite specific sources to prove his point: he accepted
it as a given fact- as the jurists did in the middle ages. Roman-Dutch law
serves only as a frame of reference out of which international law has developed.
The courts therefore apply international law as international law and not as, for
example, common law. Two important implications follow: firstly it means that
customary international law need not to be transformed before the courts can
apply the relevant rule and secondly that new rules of customary international
law automatically form part of the law of South Africa.
From the eighty South African court decisions discussed, it is clear that the
courts do take judicial notice of customary international law. This justifies the
statement that the judiciary regards customary international law as part of the
law of South Africa since 1879.
The influence of English law on this section of South African law must,
according to Rumpf£ CJ, also be taken into account. The reason is that English
law is the common law of the South African constitutional law which influences
the application of international law by the courts. This can extend the courts'
frame of reference. Only a fifth of the cases discussed refer to Roman-Dutch
writers, and then only in a comparative sense. The South African courts rely
mainly on Anglo-American decisions and tendencies. The South African courts
follow their English counterparts by accepting the same qualifications on the
general rule that customary international law forms part of the law of the land.
The willingness of the courts to apply customary international law has diminished
over the years especially in cases where state security features. It
seems that politically contentious questions play an inhibiting role on the readiness
of the courts to apply customary international law where conflict, real or
imaginary, between customary international law and municipal law appears.
Acts of state constitute the most important obstacle in the application of
customary international law, because they could lead to the court abandoning
its independent judicial function in favour of the executive. Because the South African courts follow the English law in this area also, it is assumed that safety
measures developed there would be adopted by the South African courts to
prevent their jurisdiction from being limited too easily.
It is recommended that more attention should be given to the existence
and application of customary international law principles and that a conscious
effort must be made by the judiciary to resolve conflict between customary
international law and municipal law and to do it in such a manner that due
account is taken of the fact that in South Africa customary international law is
part of the law of the land. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Volgens Rumpff HR se uitspraak in die Ndu/i-beslissing, is Romeins-Hollandse
reg die fons et origo van die stelling dat volkeregtelike gewoontereg dee! van
Suid-Afrikaanse reg is. Sy bronne, Fran<;ois and Huber, is vatbaar vir kritiek
omdat hulle nie Romeins-Hollandse gesag op hierdie spesifieke vraag is nie. Die
beslissings in Ncumata v Matwa (1881-2), Du Toit v Kruger (1905), en Rex
v Lionda (1944) beklemtoon egter dat die gelding van volkeregtelike gewoontereg
in die Suid-Afrikaanse reg we/ deur die Romeinse reg plaasgevind het.
Verskeie hofbeslissings beklemtoon verder dat die term Romeins-Hollandse reg
nie eng gei"nterpreteer moet word nie, aangesien dit die gemenereg van die hele
Wes-Europa omvat, en nie net die van die provinsie Holland nie. Indien hierdie
aanhaling in 'n ius commune konteks gei"nterpreteer word, is dit duidelik waarom
Rumpff HR nie spesifieke bronne aangehaal het om sy punt te bewys nie: hy
het dit as 'n gegewe feit aanvaar - soos ook die juriste in die middeleeue.
Romeins-Hollandse reg geld dus slegs as 'n verwysingsraamwerk waaruit die
volkereg ontwikkel het. Die howe pas dus volkereg toe as volkereg en nie as,
byvoorbeeld, gemenereg nie. Twee belangrike implikasies volg hieruit: eerstens
beteken dit dat volkeregtelike gewoontereg nie getransformeer hoefte word voordat
die howe die relevante reel toepas nie, en tweedens dat nuwe volkeregtelike
gewoonteregreels outomaties dee! vorm van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg.
Uit die tagtig Suid-Afrikaanse hofbeslissings wat bespreek is, is dit duidelik
dat die howe wei geregtelik kennis neem van volkeregtelike gewoontereg. Dit
regverdig dus die stelling dat die reg bank volkeregtelike gewoontereg reeds sedert
1879 as dee! van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg beskou.
Die invloed van die Engelse reg op hierdie dee! van die Suid-Afrikaanse reg
behoort volgens Rumpff HR ook in ag geneem te word. Die rede hiervoor is
dat die Engelse reg die gemenereg van die Suid-Afrikaanse staatsreg vorm. Dit
bei"nvloed die toepassing van die volkereg deur die howe- gevolglik kan dit die
howe se verwysingsraamwerk uitbrei.
Slegs 'n vyfde van die beslissings verwys na Romeins-Hollandse skrywers,
en dan slegs in 'n vergelykende sin. Die Suid-Afrikaanse howe steun hoofsaaklik
op Anglo-Amerikaanse beslissings en tendense. Die Suid-Afrikaanse howe
volg hulle Engelse ewekniee deur dieselfde beperkinge op die algemene reel dat
volkeregtelike gewoontereg dee! vorm van die reg van die land, te aanvaar.
Die bereidwilligheid van die howe om volkeregtelike gewoontereg toe te pas
het deur die jare afgeneerri, vera) waar staatsveiligheid ter sprake is. Dit blyk
dat polities-kontensieuse vrae 'n striemende faktor is by die toepassing van volkeregtelike
gewoontereg deur die howe, vera) waar daar 'n botsing tussen volkeregtelike
gewoontereg en munisipale reg voorkom.
Staatshandelinge is die verna.amste struikelblok by die toepassing van vol-keregtelike gewoontereg, aangesien dit daartoe kan lei dat die howe afstand kan
doen van hul onafhanklike regsfunksie ten gunste van die uitvoerende gesag.
Omdat die Suid-Afrikaanse howe die Engelse reg ook in hierdie gebied navolg,
kan dit aanvaar word dat die veiligheidsma.atreels wat reeds daar ontstaan bet,
deur die Suid-Afrikaanse howe gevolg sal word om te verhoed dat hul jurisdiksie
ligtelik beperk sou kon word.
Dit word dus aanbeveel dat aanda.g gegee word aan die bestaan en toepassing
van volkeregtelike gewoonteregbeginsels en dat 'n daadwerklike poging deur die
regbank gemaak moet word om botsings tussen volkeregtelike gewoontereg en
munisipale reg te vermy, en om dit op so 'n wyse te doen dat in ag gehou word
dat volkeregtelike gewoontereg in Suid-Afrika deel is van die Suid-Afrikaanse
reg.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:sun/oai:scholar.sun.ac.za:10019.1/68727 |
| Date | 12 1900 |
| Creators | Bezuidenhout, A. E. M. (Anna Elizabeth Martha) |
| Contributors | Erasmus, M. G., Stellenbosch University. Faculty of Law. Dept. of Public Law . |
| Publisher | Stellenbosch : Stellenbosch University |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | af_ZA |
| Detected Language | Unknown |
| Type | Thesis |
| Format | 164 p. |
| Rights | Stellenbosch University |
Page generated in 0.0018 seconds