Treaties apply in South African law — Now what? Analysing the courts’ interpretation of treaties over the last half-decade

Article

Treaties apply in South African law — Now what? Analysing the courts’ interpretation of treaties over the last half-decade

Authors: Andreas Coutsoudis

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Honorary Research Fellow, University of KwaZulu-Natal; Advocate, KwaZulu-Natal Bar
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 4, p. 703-747
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i4a5

Abstract

The application of treaties has become an ever more embedded feature of the South African courts’ jurisprudence. In light of that, this article offers a systematic descriptive assessment of the courts’ approach to the interpretation of treaties over the last halfdecade (2018–2023), so as to make critical proposals for charting the interpretative way forward. The article begins by considering how treaties ought to be interpreted, with particular regard to customary international law’s rules for interpretation, as codified in the Vienna Convention. The article then delineates the pertinent features of the courts’ approach to treaty interpretation by analysing the courts’ decisions over the last half-decade. This reveals that the courts’ approach to treaty interpretation has not generally been methodologically rigorous from an international-law perspective. Courts, with some notable exceptions, particularly in the most recent cases, tend to adopt a superficial approach that ignores international law’s interpretative rules and the materials they make applicable, notwithstanding the constitutional obligation to use these rules. Given these features or trends, the article makes recommendations to ensure that as South Africa starts its fourth decade of constitutionally enshrined integration of international law, treaty law’s interpretative neglect does not continue.

A statutory duty to provide financial information at an early stage in family-law matters

Article

A statutory duty to provide financial information at an early stage in family-law matters

Authors: Madelene de Jong & Elsje Bonthuys

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Research Associate, University of Limpopo; Professor of Law, University of the Witwatersrand
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 4, p. 748-770
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i4a6

Abstract

Many people lack current and accurate information about their spouse’s financial positions, or even of their marital estates, while they are married. This creates opportunities for spouses with exclusive access to financial information to secrete assets and hide information before and during divorce, resulting in increased animosity between divorcing spouses and even unfair orders for the division of marital assets or maintenance. This article investigates four recent initiatives to create duties to provide accurate financial information in divorce and maintenance litigation between spouses and former spouses. It also discusses similar disclosure mechanisms recently adopted in other jurisdictions. The article argues that there is a clear public policy basis for creating statutory duties of financial disclosure in litigation between spouses or former spouses.

The dignity and justice of common purpose in criminal law

Article

The dignity and justice of common purpose in criminal law

Authors: Khomotso Moshikaro & Catherine Willis-Smith

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Senior Lecturer in Private Law, University of Cape Town; Fellow in Criminal Law & Evidence, Edinburgh; Visiting Professor in the Common Law, Bochum; Lecturer in Private Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 4, p. 771-803
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i4a7

Abstract

Although the doctrine of common purpose is accepted and repeatedly applied by South African courts, it has acquired a certain infamy in South Africa’s academy. Some of that infamy is due to the doctrine being abused in the apartheid era. Most of the controversy, however, is because the Constitutional Court has defended the doctrine on consequentialist grounds of crime control. This has led some scholars to assume erroneously that there cannot be a non-consequentialist normative justification for the common purpose doctrine. This article aims to correct what has become an uncritical academic orthodoxy and to provide a non-consequentialist justification for the doctrine. We argue that common purpose is a necessary doctrine if the criminal law is to take the individual agency and dignity of an offender seriously. Much of the criticism of common purpose is anchored in a thin conception of collective agency, which fails to appreciate what the criminal theorist John Gardner terms an agent’s individual teamwork reason. This means that all sorts of ill-conceived objections are thrown at common purpose. Our Constitution rightly vindicates the dignity and justice of common purpose in criminal law.

Non-variation clauses

Article

Non-variation clauses

Author: Jacques du Plessis

ISSN: 1996-2177
Affiliations: Distinguished Professor, Faculty of Law, Stellenbosch University
Source: South African Law Journal, Volume 141 Issue 4, p. 804-838
https://doi.org/10.47348/SALJ/v141/i4a8

Abstract

The traditional approach in South African law is to give effect to non-variation clauses, subject to limited exceptions. While recent developments in local and foreign law suggest that there is no clear justification for deviating from this approach, they also indicate that the exceptions may benefit from further refinement. First, it is too readily assumed that estoppel has no role, or an exceedingly limited role, to play in protecting the reliance of a party on the binding nature of an oral modification. It is argued that there is room for a more nuanced approach towards applying the requirements of estoppel, thereby making it a more effective tool to counteract egregious cases of contradictory behaviour. Secondly, greater clarity is required on the application of the rule that a term or its enforcement may not be against public policy. It is argued, taking the lead from Beadica 231 CC v Trustees, Oregon Trust, that certain factors may guide courts when applying the public policy rule to non-variation clauses. Ultimately, the bar that has to be crossed for not enforcing these clauses will remain high, but hopefully it can be lowered sufficiently to ensure more just outcomes.