A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?

Retselisitsoe Phooko
{"title":"A Call for Public Participation in the Treaty-making Process in South Africa: What can South Africa Learn from the Kingdom of Thailand?","authors":"Retselisitsoe Phooko","doi":"10.25159/0010-4051/6029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.","PeriodicalId":29899,"journal":{"name":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/0010-4051/6029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

On 2 August 2002 South Africa signed the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Protocol on Tribunal and the Rules of Procedure Thereof, thus effectively recognising and accepting the jurisdiction of the SADC Tribunal. Among the cases received by the SADC Tribunal was a complaint involving allegations of human rights violations by the government of Zimbabwe. It ruled that the government of Zimbabwe had violated human rights. Consequently, Zimbabwe mounted a politico-legal challenge against the existence of the Tribunal. This resulted in the review of the role and functions of the Tribunal in 2011 which resulted in the Tribunal being barred from receiving new cases or proceeding with the cases that were already before it. Furthermore, on 18 August 2014, the SADC Summit adopted and signed the 2014 Protocol on the Tribunal in the SADC which disturbingly limits personal jurisdiction by denying individual access to the envisaged Tribunal, thus reducing it to an inter-state judicial forum. This article critically looks at the decision of 18 August 2014, specifically the legal implications of the Republic of South Africa’s signing of the 2014 Protocol outside the permissible procedure contained in article 37 of the SADC Protocol on the Tribunal. It proposes that South Africa should correct this democratic deficit by introducing public participation in treaty-making processes in order to prevent a future situation where the executive unilaterally withdraws from an international treaty that is meant to protect human rights at a regional level. To achieve this, this article makes a comparative study between South Africa and the Kingdom of Thailand to learn of any best practices from the latter.
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
呼吁公众参与南非条约制定进程:南非能从泰王国学到什么?
2002年8月2日,南非签署了《南部非洲发展共同体法庭议定书》及其程序规则,从而有效地承认和接受了南部非洲发展共同体法庭的管辖权。在南部非洲共同体法庭收到的案件中,有一项申诉涉及对津巴布韦政府侵犯人权的指控。它裁定津巴布韦政府侵犯了人权。因此,津巴布韦对法庭的存在提出了政治和法律上的挑战。这导致2011年对法庭的作用和职能进行了审查,导致法庭被禁止接受新的案件或审理已经提交给它的案件。此外,2014年8月18日,南共体首脑会议通过并签署了《2014年南共体法庭议定书》,令人不安地限制了个人管辖权,拒绝个人进入设想中的法庭,从而使其沦为国家间司法论坛。本文批判性地审视了2014年8月18日的决定,特别是南非共和国在《南共体法庭议定书》第37条允许的程序之外签署2014年议定书的法律影响。它建议南非纠正这一民主缺陷,办法是让公众参与条约制定过程,以防止今后出现行政部门单方面退出旨在在区域一级保护人权的国际条约的情况。为了实现这一目标,本文对南非和泰王国进行了比较研究,以学习后者的最佳实践。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10
期刊最新文献
Corporate Social Responsibility as an Enabler of Socio-economic Restoration in Post-COVID-19 Business Environment in South Africa and Nigeria International Law’s Specialised Regime and Normative Conflict: A Reflection on International Criminal Law Accommodating New Modes of Work in the Era of the Fourth Industrial Revolution in Ghana: Some Comparative Lessons from the United Kingdom and South Africa A Flexible Approach to Enabling the Free Movement of People in Southern Africa Evaluating the Individual Criminal Responsibility of Gukurahundi Perpetrators under International Law
×
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