‘Fishers’ rights are human rights’: George v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2005 (6) SA 297

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2021-10-15 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155
Anthea Christoffels-Du Plessis
{"title":"‘Fishers’ rights are human rights’: George v Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism 2005 (6) SA 297","authors":"Anthea Christoffels-Du Plessis","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><b>Abstract</b></p><p>In 2004, artisanal fishers, community-based and non-governmental organisations representing ∼5,000 artisanal fishers from various fishing communities sought relief <i>inter alia</i> under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 as a result of the unfair discrimination against them because of the fisheries legal framework. This case note focuses on this unique class action brought by the fishers in the Equality Court and the decisions resulting from the case. The relief sought by the fishers to remedy the discrimination and inequity was to compel the then Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to make proper and adequate provision for artisanal fishers in terms of the fisheries legal framework, giving them equitable access to marine resources alongside other marine resource users. This note evaluates the impact of the order of the Equality Court, as it served as the trigger to transform small-scale fisheries in South Africa. The note also discusses the human-rights-centred themes reflected in the South African Small-Scale Fisheries Policy and considers the extent to which this policy is aligned to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines of 2015.</p>","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"51 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2021.1987155","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 2004, artisanal fishers, community-based and non-governmental organisations representing ∼5,000 artisanal fishers from various fishing communities sought relief inter alia under the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 as a result of the unfair discrimination against them because of the fisheries legal framework. This case note focuses on this unique class action brought by the fishers in the Equality Court and the decisions resulting from the case. The relief sought by the fishers to remedy the discrimination and inequity was to compel the then Minister of Environmental Affairs and Tourism to make proper and adequate provision for artisanal fishers in terms of the fisheries legal framework, giving them equitable access to marine resources alongside other marine resource users. This note evaluates the impact of the order of the Equality Court, as it served as the trigger to transform small-scale fisheries in South Africa. The note also discusses the human-rights-centred themes reflected in the South African Small-Scale Fisheries Policy and considers the extent to which this policy is aligned to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s Small-Scale Fisheries Guidelines of 2015.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“渔民的权利是人权”:乔治五世环境事务和旅游部长,2005年(6)SA 297
2004年,代表来自不同渔业社区的约5000名个体渔民的个体渔民、社区和非政府组织根据2000年第4号《促进平等和防止不公平歧视法》寻求救济,原因是渔业法律框架对他们造成了不公平歧视。本案例说明侧重于渔民在平等法院提起的这一独特的集体诉讼以及案件的判决。渔民为纠正歧视和不平等而寻求的救济是迫使当时的环境事务和旅游部长在渔业法律框架方面为手工渔民作出适当和充分的规定,使他们与其他海洋资源使用者一样公平地获得海洋资源。本说明评估了平等法院命令的影响,因为它是改变南非小规模渔业的导火索。该说明还讨论了南非小规模渔业政策中反映的以人权为中心的主题,并考虑了该政策与联合国粮食及农业组织2015年《小规模渔业准则》的一致程度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Consulting citizens: Addressing the deficits in participatory democracy Ubuntu, human rights and sustainable development: Lessons from the African Arbitration Academy’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Research handbook on economic, social and cultural rights Augmentative and alternative communication in the South African justice system: Potential and pitfalls The importance of litigating the right to access sufficient food: Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1