Although many academic commentators have long argued that the World Trade Organization (WTO)-driven liberal rules of international agricultural trade regulation have a negative effect on the enjoyment of the human right to food, especially in developing countries, there is still a dearth of scholarship offering proposals to ameliorate the situation. This article fills this gap by presenting a discussion of the possible avenues for accommodating the food security-related human rights obligations of states in the extant legal framework for international agricultural trade regulation. It argues that such a development, among other measures, is a plausible response to the problem of food insecurity endemic in developing countries and which manifests in international agricultural trade regulation. The article contends that for the WTO to effectively address the human right to food concerns of developing countries, the free trade regulations, as practised in international agricultural trade, must be complemented with the human right to food as a supreme norm sine qua non lege. It is concluded that this eminently desirable outcome can be achieved through the assimilation of the human right to food into the ‘public morals clause’ of Article XX of the GATT, reading the human right to food into the Agreement on Agriculture, adopting some WTO Ministerial Conference proposals, re-configuring some WTO dispute settlement practices, and lastly, by adopting the proposal of the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to food.
South African law recognizes the common law right of the plaintiff to institute a claim for damages arising from loss caused by the delictual conduct of the defendant. In addition to the claim for common law damages for pain and suffering, insult, shock, past and future medical expenses, and loss of enjoyment of the amenities of life, depending on the nature of the delict, the plaintiff also has the right to claim constitutional damages for the infringement of constitutional rights. On that score, the South African Constitution, 1996 empowers the courts to ‘grant appropriate relief’ and to make ‘just and equitable’ orders in the context of common law and constitutional damages. This has resulted in the duplicity of damages in our law without clear guidance on how these two delictual “fellows” should interact in practical scenarios. Further, the courts have dragged their feet when it comes to the application of constitutional damages largely due to their orthodox approach which militates against the development of constitutional damages in South Africa. This article proposes avenues which enable the courts to take a coordinated approach in the application of these two remedies. It argues that in determining quantum for damages, the court should take a functional and pragmatic approach which is based on the ethos of fairness and equity over and above common law tenets.
The Protection from Harassment Act 17 of 2011 (the Act) seeks to protect victims of harassment. Despite this legislative development, the effectiveness of the Act has not been widely explored. This article fills this cavity. It argues that the broadly drafted definition of harassment, together with other concomitant shortcomings in the Act, makes it prone to abuse by unscrupulous litigants, thereby militating against its regulatory efficiency goals. The article further maintains that the Act is constructed in an unbalanced manner as it protects the rights of complainants, but unintentionally is open to abuse, allowing, unfathomably, an alleged victim of harassment to become the harasser. The article analyses the regulatory aptness of the Act in an age marked by an exponential increase in cyber-related harassment and makes a case for enhancing the regulatory approach of the Act to offer an effective means of protecting victims of harassment in a rapidly evolving society.
SUMMARY Recent calls to dewesternise the curricular are especially pertinent to the teaching of Social Security Law in South Africa, which has traditionally been dominated by the Eurocentric canon. This article argues that South African Social Security Law is a western-centric phenomenon and dewesternising it is necessary for the decolonisation of legal education. On this score, it provides a critique of the South African Social Security Law in search of pragmatic ideas that can advance the project of decolonising it and creating Third World perspectives. The article unsettles the dominant Eurocentric model on the origin of South Africa Social Security Law which marginalise the role that indigenous knowledge play in the development of this area of law. It argues that placing indigenous knowledge systems on the epicentre of the historiography of teaching South African Social Security Law will lead to some epistemic disruption of the current historic paradigm, a project necessary for the decolonisation of the legal mind and intellectual landscape. The article re-contextualising the orthodox social security theory in the historical scene of colonial and post-era; constructing alternative social security historiography; offering an Africanised dialogue on the origins of the informal strands of social security law; the elaboration of alternative methodologies of actualising the constitutionally protected right to have access to social security. The paper also contends with concepts and ideas such as the deemed trans-colonial importation of social security origins, decolonial philosophy as an epoch of transforming legal education in the context of South African Social Security Law.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.