南非宪法法院关于暂停南部非洲发展共同体法庭的判决:批评宪法法院的批评者

Mkhululi Nyathi, Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko
{"title":"南非宪法法院关于暂停南部非洲发展共同体法庭的判决:批评宪法法院的批评者","authors":"Mkhululi Nyathi, Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko","doi":"10.25159/2522-3062/9506","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses the various scholarly critiques of the South African Constitutional Court judgment in Law Society of South Africa & Others v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others. While we discuss and analyse the articles by some of the scholars who have critiqued the decision, we pay more attention to the criticism by Tladi in particular. We point out that Tladi failed to properly locate the main basis of the Constitutional Court’s decision. We also disagree with Tladi’s assertion that the SADC Treaty and the 2000 Tribunal Protocol could be amended through any means other than the three-quarters majority of the SADC Summit as required by the SADC Treaty. Further, we disagree with Tladi’s view that the doctrine of subsequent practice is applicable in this case and that it was correctly applied in the adoption of the 2014 Tribunal Protocol.","PeriodicalId":29899,"journal":{"name":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The South African Constitutional Court Judgment Concerning the Suspension of SADC Tribunal: Critiquing the Critics of the Constitutional Court\",\"authors\":\"Mkhululi Nyathi, Moses Retselisitsoe Phooko\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/2522-3062/9506\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses the various scholarly critiques of the South African Constitutional Court judgment in Law Society of South Africa & Others v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others. While we discuss and analyse the articles by some of the scholars who have critiqued the decision, we pay more attention to the criticism by Tladi in particular. We point out that Tladi failed to properly locate the main basis of the Constitutional Court’s decision. We also disagree with Tladi’s assertion that the SADC Treaty and the 2000 Tribunal Protocol could be amended through any means other than the three-quarters majority of the SADC Summit as required by the SADC Treaty. Further, we disagree with Tladi’s view that the doctrine of subsequent practice is applicable in this case and that it was correctly applied in the adoption of the 2014 Tribunal Protocol.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/9506\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/2522-3062/9506","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: 0

摘要

本文讨论了在南非律师会及其他人诉南非共和国总统及其他人一案中对南非宪法法院判决的各种学术批评。当我们讨论和分析一些批评这一决定的学者的文章时,我们更关注特拉迪的批评。我们指出,特拉迪未能正确定位宪法法院裁决的主要依据。我们也不同意特拉迪的主张,即《南共体条约》和《2000年法庭议定书》可以通过除《南共体公约》要求的南共体首脑会议四分之三多数之外的任何方式进行修正。此外,我们不同意特拉迪的观点,即嗣后惯例原则适用于本案,并且在通过2014年《法庭议定书》时得到了正确应用。
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
The South African Constitutional Court Judgment Concerning the Suspension of SADC Tribunal: Critiquing the Critics of the Constitutional Court
This article discusses the various scholarly critiques of the South African Constitutional Court judgment in Law Society of South Africa & Others v President of the Republic of South Africa & Others. While we discuss and analyse the articles by some of the scholars who have critiqued the decision, we pay more attention to the criticism by Tladi in particular. We point out that Tladi failed to properly locate the main basis of the Constitutional Court’s decision. We also disagree with Tladi’s assertion that the SADC Treaty and the 2000 Tribunal Protocol could be amended through any means other than the three-quarters majority of the SADC Summit as required by the SADC Treaty. Further, we disagree with Tladi’s view that the doctrine of subsequent practice is applicable in this case and that it was correctly applied in the adoption of the 2014 Tribunal Protocol.
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
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