Search

Die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996, is 'n godsdiens-vriendelike manifes omdat vryheid van godsdiens nie alleen in die lewe van die gelowige van belang is nie, maar ook vir die staat van groot waarde kan wees. Die Grondwet maak onder meer voorsiening vir die reg op selfbeskikking van godsdiensgroepe, wat beteken dat lede van godsdienstige gemeenskappe hulle godsdiens kan beoefen sonder ongegronde staatsinmenging. Die reg op selfbeskikking is egter nie ' n absolute reg nie en is onder meer aan die bepalings van die Handves van Regte ondergeskik. Daar word in dié verband verwys na regspraak wat op godsdiensonderrig in skole, en die toepassing van gedragskodes in die onderwys wat met godsdienstige gebruike in stryd mag wees, van toepassing is, asook na 'n verset teen die verbod op lyfstraf, omdat die verbod sogenaamd met godsdienstige leerstelling in stryd sou wees. Suid-Afrika onderhou ook die soewereiniteit in eie kring van godsdiensorganisasies, wat daarop neerkom dat die staat nie sal inmeng in interne besluite en praktyke van kerke en ander godsdiens-gerigte organisasies nie. Regspraak wat in dié verband ter sprake kom, het betrekking op tugmaatreëls wat teen 'n lid van die Ortodokse Joodse gemeenskap van Johannesburg ingestel is omdat hy 'n kerklike onderhoudsbevel verontagsaam het, en die afdanking van 'n vroulike predikant van die Metodiste Kerk in Rondebosch omdat sy met 'n ander vrou in die huwelik getree het. Die afdanking van 'n orrelonderwyser in die Kunsakademie van die Moreletaparkse gemeente van die NG Kerk as gevolg van sy selfdegeslagverhouding is egter nie deur die Gelykheidshof gehandhaaf nie, omdat die dienste van die orrelonderwyser as 'n onafhanklike kontrakteur nie met die geestellike roeping van die Kerk te make gehad het nie. Die beleid van die staat ten opsigte van die kerk en godsdienstige praktyke kan as 'n beleid van objektiwiteit beskryf word. The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, is a religion-friendly manifesto, because freedom of religion is not only important in the lives of the faithful, but is also of great value to the state. The Constitution makes provision for the right to self-determination of religious communities, which means that members of such communities can exercise their religion without undue state interference. However, the right to self-determination is not an absolute right and is amongst other things subject to the provisions of the Bill of Rights. Mention is made in this regard of litigation relating to education of religion in schools, and implementation of religious codes of conduct in education, that might contradict doctrinal practices, as well as opposition to the prohibition of corporeal punishment, which prohibition is allegedly in conflict with religious principles. South Africa also upholds the sphere sovereignty of religious organisations, which means that the state will not interfere with internal decisions and practices of churches and other religion-orientated institutions. Litigation of relevance in this regard includes disciplinary action against a member of the Orthodox Jewish community of Johannesburg who declined to comply with a maintenance order of the church authorities, as well as the dismissal of a Minister of the Methodist Church in Rondebosch because she entered into a same-sex marriage. The firing ofan organ teacher in the Arts Academy of the Moreleta Park Congregation of the Dutch Reformed Church because of his same-sex relations, on the other hand, was not upheld by the Equality Court because the services rendered by the organ teacher as an independent contractor did not relate to the spiritual calling of the Church. The policy of the state in regard to churches and religious practices can be described as a policy of objectivity. In specifying the above constitutional principles, this essay in the first place contains an analysis of the historical origin, development and prominence of the right to self-determination in international law and in the South African context. In the section on application of the right to self-determination in South Africa special mention is made of religious practices in education, noting with reference to a case involving the German School in Pretoria that religion classes are no longer based on a particular denominational basis and attendance of those classes is therefore mandatory; but in a case involving loyalty of certain schools to the Christian faith it was decided that this cannot be upheld in state-sponsored schools, since the state may not afford preference to a particular religion but must treat all religions equally. South African courts have also rejected the supposition that the Bible demands corporeal punishment of children, most recently also condemning corporeal chastisement within parent-child relations.

Die gebruik van chemiese wapens deur die Siriese owerheid teen rebellegroepe in die land het dwarsoor die wêreld opslae gemaak. Die Amerikaanse, Britse en Franse owerhede het gedreig met gewapende ingrype teen ongedefinieërde teikens in Sirië, maar het regverdiging vir sodanige ingrype op verskillende gronde gebaseer. Die Britse Eerste Minister David Cameron het gewapende ingrype op grond van humanitêre intervensie probeer regverdig, President Barack Obama van die Verenigde State sou dit op grond van oorwegings van selfverdediging en die verdediging van Amerikaanse bondgenote in die Midde Ooste regverdig, terwyl die Franse Eerste Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault gewag gemaak het van die noodsaak om Sirië te straf vir sy vergrype teen die verbod van internasionele gewoontereg op die gebruik van chemiese wapens. In hierdie artikel word aangevoer dat hoewel oorlogsmaatreëls in heden-daagse humanitêre reg nie tot die gronde beperk is wat in artikels 42 en 51 van die Handves van die Verenigde Nasies vermeld word nie, die gronde ter regverdiging van gewapende ingrype in Sirië wat deur die staatshoofde van die Verenigde State, Britanje en Frankryk aangevoer is, nie regtens geoorloof is nie. Humanitêre intervensie is tradisioneel gemik op die omverwerping van 'n regering wat sy eie burgers se regte ondermyn, maar al drie lande het dit duidelik gestel dat hulle nie daarop ingestel is om die Siriese regering tot 'n val te bring nie; voorkomende selfverdediging is alleen geregverdig as 'n militêre aanval onmiddellik dreigend is, en nòg die Verenigde State nòg enige van sy bondgenote is met 'n militêre inval bedreig; en strafmaatreëls teen 'n staatsowerheid is 'n uitsluitlike prerogatief van die Veiligheidsraad van die Verenigde Nasies. Die Russiese Federasie het gevolglik die weg gebaan, naamlik om die aangeleentheid na die Veiligheidsraad te verwys. Dit het daarop uitgeloop dat Sirië verbied is om chemiese wapens te ontwikkel, te verkry of op te berg, en dat Sirië die 1993 Konvensie aangaande die Verbod op die Ontwikkeling, Vervaardiging en Opberging en Gebruik van Chemise Wapens en die Vernietiging van Sodanige Wapens op 14 September 2013 geratifiseer het.

This article deals with the failure of states to comply with their obligation to execute the warrant issued by the International Criminal Court for the arrest of President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al Bashir of Sudan. President Al Bashir is to stand trial on serious charges, including acts of genocide, based on action taken on instructions of President Al Bashir to eliminate nationals of Sudan who are not of Arab extraction. President Al Bashir may be depicted as the Adolph Hitler of Africa by virtue of his efforts to create a Sudanese Herrenvolk and, in the process, causing the death of between 200 000 and 400 000 members of African tribes in the Sudanese province of Darfur and the displacement of approximately 2,5 million people. A special focus of the article is the hosting of President Al Bashir by the South African government in June 2015 at a summit of the African Union in johannesburg, in blatant defiance of the rule of law, and escorting him out of the country in contempt of an order of the High Court, Gauteng Division. South Africa claimed that its obligations as a member state of the African Union prevented it from executing the warrant of arrest. However, South Africa was compelled to execute the warrant of arrest (a) as a state party to the ICC Statute; (b) because the Security Council had instructed all member states of the United Nations to do so, and (c) because South Africa's own Rome Statute Implementation Act, 2002 requires it of South African authorities. Claiming that President Al Bashir as a head of state enjoyed sovereign immunity is also based on a false premise, since sovereign immunity does not apply to prosecutions in international tribunals. Maintaining that President Al Bashir is immune from prosecution in the ICC is criticised in the article.

Die Wet op die Ontwikkeling van Minerale en Petroleum Hulpbronne, Wet 28 van 2002, het grondeienaars van hulle eiendomsreg ten aansien van onontginde minerale en petroleum produkte ontneem en bepaal nou dat minerale en petroleum hulpbronne "die gemeenskaplike erfenis van die hele bevolking van Suid-Afrika" is met die Staat as die bewaarder daarvan. Prospekteer- en mynregte ten aansien van "ongebruikte ou orde regte" en met betrekking tot die oorskakeling van "ou orde prospekteerregte" en "ou orde mynregte" na "nuwe orde" prospekteer en/of mynregte is onderworpe gestel aan ingrypende tydsbeperkings en veeleisende substantiewe voorwaardes wat deur die Minister van Minerale en Energie Aangeleenthede goedgekeur moet word. Terwyl die Staat in die verlede prospekteer- en mynregte gereguleer het, hoofsaaklik met die doel om veiligheid en omgewingsbewaring te bevorder, het die wetgewer nou streng vereistes gestel vir die vergunning van prospekteer en/of mynregte omdat dit eienaar geword het van minerale en petroleum hulpbronne - of as personifikasie van "die bevolking van Suid-Afrika" of as 'n openbare trustee van "die erfenis van die hele bevolking van Suid-Afrika". Artikel 25 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika maak 'n onderskeid tussen ontneming van eiendom, wat nie die betaling van vergoeding deur die Staat vereis nie, en onteiening, waarvoor wel vergoeding betaal moet word. Dit word algemeen aanvaar dat onteiening bestaan uit ontneming plus 'n bykomstige element of bykomstige elemente. Daar is twee moontlike faktore wat 'n ontneming in onteiening kan omskep: of die verkryging van eiendomsreg ten aansien van dit wat ontneem is deur 'n ander entiteit, byvoorbeeld die Staat, öf soos wat in Artikel 25 aangedui word, deur die ontneming van die eienaar se regte in die openbare belang of vir 'n openbare doel. In hierdie artikel word geargumenteer dat die ontneming van minerale en petroleum hulpbronne onder enigeen van die twee persepsies op onteiening neerkom.

The indictment of the President of Sudan has provoked negative responses from the African Union, including a resolution that instructed member states of the AU not to co-operate with the ICC in arresting the President and surrendering him for trial in the ICC. The AU relied on article 98(2) of the ICC Statute in terms of which the ICC may not proceed with a request for surrender that would require a state to act inconsistently with its obligations under international law with respect to the sovereign immunity of, inter alia, heads of state. However, it has been decided that under the rules of international law, sovereign immunity applies only to prosecutions in national courts and not to prosecutions in an international tribunal, and article 27(2) of the ICC Statute accordingly provides that sovereign immunity shall not bar the ICC from exercising jurisdiction over persons enjoying such immunity. It is argued in this article that article 98(2) contradicts article 27(2): If a head of state does not enjoy immunity against prosecution in the ICC, there is no immunity to be waived by the national state. A pre-trial chamber of the ICC did not base the obligation of state parties (Kenya and Chad) to arrest and surrender the Sudanese President for prosecution in the ICC on the provisions of article 27, but on the fact that the situation in Sudan was referred to the ICC by the Security Council of the United Nations and a passage in the Security Council resolution calling on Sudan and all other parties to the conflict in Darfur to co-operate fully in bringing the President of Sudan to justice. The exact implications of article 98(2) therefore remain unresolved.

On 23 September 2010 the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) handed down unanimous judgments in two similar cases, but reached completely opposite conclusions. Both cases dealt with dismissal of church employees based on aspects of their private lives. In Obst v Allemagne the ECHR ruled that the German Constitutional Court correctly upheld the dismissal of the Public Relations Director of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints due to adultery. On the other hand, the ECHR ruled that the German Constitutional Court violated Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights when it upheld the dismissal of an organist and choir master of a catholic congregation due to adultery, despite the constitutional guarantee of religious autonomy in the German Basic Law. In South Africa, the Equality Court held that dismissal of an organist due to a homosexual relationship constituted unfair discrimination. While all forms of unfair discrimination must be rejected, legal compulsion may not be the answer to change the prejudices of religious groups. Persuasion should rather be based on ethical arguments, which may hold better results in the long term.