事先证明是否有助于诉诸司法?

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2021-01-02 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2021.2000887
Georgina Jephson
{"title":"事先证明是否有助于诉诸司法?","authors":"Georgina Jephson","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2021.2000887","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Class actions advance both access to justice and judicial economy. In South Africa, class action law is developing incrementally in the courts. One aspect of class action procedure that is settled is that prior certification is a requirement. Prior certification requires class representatives to satisfy a court that the use of the class action mechanism is an appropriate way of adjudicating the class members’ claims. As such, prior certification is a preliminary procedural hurdle to be cleared before the class action can be instituted. The primary rationale for prior certification is that it prevents the inappropriate use or abuse of the class action mechanism. However, by postponing the institution of the class action, prior certification delays the determination of the class action claims, thereby limiting access to justice. This article analyses the adoption of prior certification in class action litigation procedure. It interrogates whether the way in which prior certification limits access to justice is reasonable and justifiable. It argues that the temporary limit that prior certification places on access to justice is a reasonable and justifiable limitation because it balances the protection of access to justice with the need to prevent misuse of the class action mechanism.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"37 1","pages":"83 - 101"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does prior certification advance access to justice?\",\"authors\":\"Georgina Jephson\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2021.2000887\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Class actions advance both access to justice and judicial economy. In South Africa, class action law is developing incrementally in the courts. One aspect of class action procedure that is settled is that prior certification is a requirement. Prior certification requires class representatives to satisfy a court that the use of the class action mechanism is an appropriate way of adjudicating the class members’ claims. As such, prior certification is a preliminary procedural hurdle to be cleared before the class action can be instituted. The primary rationale for prior certification is that it prevents the inappropriate use or abuse of the class action mechanism. However, by postponing the institution of the class action, prior certification delays the determination of the class action claims, thereby limiting access to justice. This article analyses the adoption of prior certification in class action litigation procedure. It interrogates whether the way in which prior certification limits access to justice is reasonable and justifiable. It argues that the temporary limit that prior certification places on access to justice is a reasonable and justifiable limitation because it balances the protection of access to justice with the need to prevent misuse of the class action mechanism.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"37 1\",\"pages\":\"83 - 101\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-02\",\"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/10.1080/02587203.2021.2000887\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2021.2000887","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

摘要

集体诉讼既促进了司法公正,又促进了司法经济。在南非,集体诉讼法在法庭上逐步发展。集体诉讼程序解决的一个方面是要求事先证明。事先证明要求集体代表向法院证明,使用集体诉讼机制是裁决集体成员索赔的适当方式。因此,在集体诉讼得以提起之前,事先证明是一个需要清除的初步程序障碍。事前认证的主要理由是防止集体诉讼机制的不当使用或滥用。然而,由于推迟集体诉讼的提起,事先证明推迟了集体诉讼索赔的确定,从而限制了诉诸司法的机会。本文对集体诉讼程序中先证制度的采用进行了分析。它询问事先证明限制诉诸司法的方式是否合理和正当。它认为,事先证明对诉诸司法的临时限制是一种合理和正当的限制,因为它平衡了保护诉诸司法与防止滥用集体诉讼机制的需要。
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
Does prior certification advance access to justice?
Abstract Class actions advance both access to justice and judicial economy. In South Africa, class action law is developing incrementally in the courts. One aspect of class action procedure that is settled is that prior certification is a requirement. Prior certification requires class representatives to satisfy a court that the use of the class action mechanism is an appropriate way of adjudicating the class members’ claims. As such, prior certification is a preliminary procedural hurdle to be cleared before the class action can be instituted. The primary rationale for prior certification is that it prevents the inappropriate use or abuse of the class action mechanism. However, by postponing the institution of the class action, prior certification delays the determination of the class action claims, thereby limiting access to justice. This article analyses the adoption of prior certification in class action litigation procedure. It interrogates whether the way in which prior certification limits access to justice is reasonable and justifiable. It argues that the temporary limit that prior certification places on access to justice is a reasonable and justifiable limitation because it balances the protection of access to justice with the need to prevent misuse of the class action mechanism.
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
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