《家庭暴力法》中的强制和控制行为

Q3 Social Sciences South African law journal Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.47348/salj/v140/i4a4
Dakalo Singo
{"title":"《家庭暴力法》中的强制和控制行为","authors":"Dakalo Singo","doi":"10.47348/salj/v140/i4a4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article focuses on two definitions of domestic violence — ‘coercive behaviour’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ — which were formally introduced into South African law by the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 14 of 2021. It tracks the legislative process, including an overview of the different iterations of the definitions as they appeared in the preceding Bills. This is followed by an analysis of the definitions’ grammatical, conceptual and legal meanings (including considering applicable foreign case law), after which various indicators are formulated. The article then examines whether the definitions are fit for purpose by analysing whether they are constitutional. This investigation reveals that the definitions suffer from numerous deficiencies: they are vague, overbroad and ambiguous, rendering them potentially unconstitutional. However, despite these deficiencies, the importance of the definitions — informed by the legislature’s intentions and the prevailing societal context, amongst other things — is likely to deter any potential constitutional challenges disputing their validity. The article concludes by proposing alternative definitional formulations that, if implemented, may circumvent any potential constitutional challenges.","PeriodicalId":39313,"journal":{"name":"South African law journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Coercive and controlling behaviour in the Domestic Violence Act\",\"authors\":\"Dakalo Singo\",\"doi\":\"10.47348/salj/v140/i4a4\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article focuses on two definitions of domestic violence — ‘coercive behaviour’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ — which were formally introduced into South African law by the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 14 of 2021. It tracks the legislative process, including an overview of the different iterations of the definitions as they appeared in the preceding Bills. This is followed by an analysis of the definitions’ grammatical, conceptual and legal meanings (including considering applicable foreign case law), after which various indicators are formulated. The article then examines whether the definitions are fit for purpose by analysing whether they are constitutional. This investigation reveals that the definitions suffer from numerous deficiencies: they are vague, overbroad and ambiguous, rendering them potentially unconstitutional. However, despite these deficiencies, the importance of the definitions — informed by the legislature’s intentions and the prevailing societal context, amongst other things — is likely to deter any potential constitutional challenges disputing their validity. The article concludes by proposing alternative definitional formulations that, if implemented, may circumvent any potential constitutional challenges.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39313,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African law journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v140/i4a4\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47348/salj/v140/i4a4","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

摘要

本文侧重于家庭暴力的两种定义——“强制行为”和“控制行为”——这两种定义是由2021年《第14号家庭暴力修正案》正式引入南非法律的。它跟踪了立法过程,包括概述了在以前的法案中出现的定义的不同迭代。然后分析定义的语法、概念和法律含义(包括考虑适用的外国判例法),然后制定各种指标。然后,文章通过分析这些定义是否符合宪法来检验这些定义是否符合目的。这项调查显示,这些定义有许多不足之处:它们含糊不清、过于宽泛和模棱两可,可能违宪。然而,尽管存在这些缺陷,这些定义的重要性- -根据立法机关的意图和目前的社会背景,除其他外- -很可能阻止对其有效性提出任何潜在的宪法挑战。文章最后提出了其他的定义表述,如果实施,可能会规避任何潜在的宪法挑战。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Coercive and controlling behaviour in the Domestic Violence Act
This article focuses on two definitions of domestic violence — ‘coercive behaviour’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ — which were formally introduced into South African law by the Domestic Violence Amendment Act 14 of 2021. It tracks the legislative process, including an overview of the different iterations of the definitions as they appeared in the preceding Bills. This is followed by an analysis of the definitions’ grammatical, conceptual and legal meanings (including considering applicable foreign case law), after which various indicators are formulated. The article then examines whether the definitions are fit for purpose by analysing whether they are constitutional. This investigation reveals that the definitions suffer from numerous deficiencies: they are vague, overbroad and ambiguous, rendering them potentially unconstitutional. However, despite these deficiencies, the importance of the definitions — informed by the legislature’s intentions and the prevailing societal context, amongst other things — is likely to deter any potential constitutional challenges disputing their validity. The article concludes by proposing alternative definitional formulations that, if implemented, may circumvent any potential constitutional challenges.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
South African law journal
South African law journal Social Sciences-Law
自引率
0.00%
发文量
24
期刊最新文献
A legislative framework for shareholder approval of political donations and expenditure by companies in South Africa Reflecting on the tension between the development of the common law and the doctrine of separation of powers in Paulsen v Slip Knot Investments 777 (Pty) Ltd Notes: The Krugersdorp gang rapes — Another Tshabalala v S; Ntuli v S? Book Review: Tjakie Naudé & Daniel Visser (eds) The Future of the Law of Contract: Essays in Honour of Dale Hutchison (2021) The classification of a ‘maritime claim’ in South Africa under the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
×
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