Transformative Legal History and the (Re)Classification of the South African Law of Delict

E. Zitzke
{"title":"Transformative Legal History and the (Re)Classification of the South African Law of Delict","authors":"E. Zitzke","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15636","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The South African law of delict is traditionally classified as a private-law discipline. This classification is usually made with reference to the actor, power and interest theories. According to the actor theory, private law regulates disputes between non-state actors inter se while public law regulates disputes involving the state. The power theory maintains that private law regulates disputes between equals while public law brings equality where inequality exists. The interest theory dictates that there are some interests that are individualistic (where private law steps in) while other interests belong to the public at large (the playing field of public law). In this article honouring Prof Willemien du Plessis's contribution to legal history it is argued that none of the above traditional theories of classification can be used effectively to classify the South African law of delict as a purely private-law discipline. Instead, our law of delict fulfils a hybrid role, straddling public and private law, with much transformative potential. Actor theorists fail to account for the fact that the South African law of delict today regulates disputes between non-state actors inter see as well as the law on state liability. The power theory crumbles in the South African law of delict's private-law classification because oftentimes one of the strong reasons invoked to impose liability on a wrongdoer is that wrongdoer's position of relative power over the victim. The interest theory sheds doubtful light on the classification of the South African law of delict because it is difficult to justify how individual-rights infringements are either purely private or public. In the end, relaxing the absoluteness of the claim that the South African law of delict exclusively falls in the domain of private law could assist us in recognising the role that delict could play in transforming South African society in line with constitutional aspirations, fostering the responsible use of power, and working towards the collective wellbeing of our society.","PeriodicalId":55857,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"49 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a15636","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The South African law of delict is traditionally classified as a private-law discipline. This classification is usually made with reference to the actor, power and interest theories. According to the actor theory, private law regulates disputes between non-state actors inter se while public law regulates disputes involving the state. The power theory maintains that private law regulates disputes between equals while public law brings equality where inequality exists. The interest theory dictates that there are some interests that are individualistic (where private law steps in) while other interests belong to the public at large (the playing field of public law). In this article honouring Prof Willemien du Plessis's contribution to legal history it is argued that none of the above traditional theories of classification can be used effectively to classify the South African law of delict as a purely private-law discipline. Instead, our law of delict fulfils a hybrid role, straddling public and private law, with much transformative potential. Actor theorists fail to account for the fact that the South African law of delict today regulates disputes between non-state actors inter see as well as the law on state liability. The power theory crumbles in the South African law of delict's private-law classification because oftentimes one of the strong reasons invoked to impose liability on a wrongdoer is that wrongdoer's position of relative power over the victim. The interest theory sheds doubtful light on the classification of the South African law of delict because it is difficult to justify how individual-rights infringements are either purely private or public. In the end, relaxing the absoluteness of the claim that the South African law of delict exclusively falls in the domain of private law could assist us in recognising the role that delict could play in transforming South African society in line with constitutional aspirations, fostering the responsible use of power, and working towards the collective wellbeing of our society.
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
变革性法律史与南非侵权行为法的(重新)分类
南非的不法行为法传统上被归类为私法学科。这种分类通常参照行为者理论、权力理论和利益理论。根据行为者理论,私法调节非国家行为者之间的争端,而公法调节涉及国家的争端。权力理论认为,私法调节平等者之间的争端,而公法则在存在不平等的情况下带来平等。利益理论认为,有些利益是个人利益(私法介入),而另一些利益则属于广大公众(公法的竞技场)。为了纪念 Willemien du Plessis 教授对法律史的贡献,本文认为上述传统分类理论都不能有效地用于将南非的不法行为法归类为纯粹的私法学科。相反,我们的违法行为法发挥着混合作用,横跨公法和私法,具有很大的变革潜力。行为者理论者未能解释这样一个事实,即南非的违法行为法如今与国家责任法一样规范非国家行为者之间的纠纷。权力理论在南非不法行为法的私法分类中支离破碎,因为要求不法行为人承担责任的一个强有力的理由往往是该不法行为人对受害人的相对权力地位。利益理论对南非不法行为法的分类提出了疑问,因为很难证明侵犯个人权利的行为是纯粹的私人行为还是公共行为。最后,放宽南非不法行为法完全属于私法范畴的绝对化主张,有助于我们认识到不法行为在按照宪法愿望改造南非社会、促进负责任地使用权力以及努力实现社会集体福祉方面可以发挥的作用。
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
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
审稿时长
24 weeks
期刊介绍: PELJ/PER publishes contributions relevant to development in the South African constitutional state. This means that most contributions will concern some aspect of constitutionalism or legal development. The fact that the South African constitutional state is the focus, does not limit the content of PELJ/PER to the South African legal system, since development law and constitutionalism are excellent themes for comparative work. Contributions on any aspect or discipline of the law from any part of the world are thus welcomed.
期刊最新文献
Artificial Intelligence and Blockchain Technologies in Online Dispute Resolution: A Solution to Consumer Disputes in South Africa? Safeguarding the Rights of Children Living in Kinship Care in South Africa "Cause of Action": How Could the Supreme Court of Appeal Get it so Wrong? Olesitse v Minister of Police (SCA) (Unreported) Case No: 470/2021 of 15 June 2022 Navigating Reputational Risks: Cautionary Considerations for South African Banks in the Unilateral Termination of Bank-Customer Relationships An Overview of the Extent of the Powers of South African Competition Authorities in the Regulation of Price Discrimination under the Competition Act 89 of 1998 in the Context of Digital Transformation
×
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