Accountability and transparency deficits and the problem of non-tariff barriers in the Southern African Development Community : a critical assessment of intra-regional trade promotion initiatives
- Authors: Muleza, Charles
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Southern African Development Community Non-tariff trade barriers
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/18812 , vital:42735
- Description: The Southern African Development Community (SADC) was established with a view to pursuing economic growth and development in the region. However, even after the establishment of the Free Trade Area (FTA), the presence of significant non-tariff barriers (NTBs) has contributed to the lack of progress in achieving these objectives. Therefore, the premise of this study is that the successful realisation of the economic goals of SADC can only be accomplished on the basis of a legal and institutional framework that promotes accountability and transparency at the national and regional level. It is undeniable that this approach is gaining prominence worldwide as more attention is directed towards the removal of NTBs. For the purposes of advancing trade liberalisation within the context of a more transparent and predictable trade regime, this study analyses the strengths and weaknesses of the SADC legal and institutional framework. To that end, it addresses pertinent issues such as, inter alia, the effectiveness of supranational or intergovernmental approaches in regional institutions, the appropriate status of community law within Member States’ jurisdictions and the role of state sovereignty in regional integration. To achieve a clearer understanding of these issues, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is assessed to obtain insights on the multilateral standards that it sets for the accountability and transparency measures of regional trade agreements (RTAs). The comparative analysis of the European Union (EU), which is viewed as the gold standard for regional integration, also assists in enabling this study to draw lessons for SADC, particularly in the determination of recommendations for legal and institutional reform.
- Full Text:
Does the directors' fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company undermine other stakeholders' interests? : a comparative assessment of corporate sustainability
- Authors: Hamadziripi, Friedrich
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Corporate governance -- Law and legislation Social responsibility of business Sustainable development
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/5916 , vital:29419
- Description: This study sets out to answer the question whether compliance with the directors’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company undermines other stakeholders’ interests and corporate sustainability. It adopts a comparative approach whereby the South African legal system is compared to that of the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States of America where corporate scandals in the last two decades resulted in the collapse of some large companies. Qualitative research methods namely the critical and evaluation, comparative and legal historical approaches are employed. The adoption of the comparative and historical approach to this study makes it significant for company law literature. The study is hinged on two company law principles. The first one is that a company is a juristic and fictitious person. The second one is the separation of ownership and control of a company. To effectively understand how the directors’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company has evolved over time, a historical overview of fiduciary obligations is presented. Four different views about the origins of fiduciary obligations are examined. It is submitted that the old English case of Keech v Sandford1 and the South Sea Company Bubble are very significant to the development of fiduciary obligations and their assimilation into company law. Thereafter, a discussion on the nature and scope of the directors’ duty in question is presented. An analysis of the relationship between directors and the company and how rights and duties between the two legal subjects arise is also undertaken. It will be shown that the directors’ fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company is broken down into a number of mandatory rules. After outlining some selected company stakeholders, an argument is presented on who the legitimate beneficiaries of directors’ fiduciary obligations should be. Further, the study provides an explanation of the concept of ‘the best interests of a company’ before addressing the tension between the pursuit of sustainability and the best interests of the company. An important question in the context of this study is how can directors’ fiduciary obligations be enforced? Identifying that there is public and private enforcement of fiduciary obligations, this study focusses on private enforcement which mainly consists of judicial and administrative remedies. Judicial remedies especially the derivative action and oppression remedies will be examined. A greater part of the discussion will dwell heavily on whether the available remedies are relevant and/or effective in protecting various stakeholders’ interests. Due to the nature of the office of director, it can be contended that directors should not be held liable for every decision they make. As such, American courts have come up with what has come to be known as the business judgment rule. This rule protects directors from civil liability if they act in good faith, with due care, without any personal interest and within the director’s authority. It will be shown that the rule manifests or operates either as an abstention doctrine, as a standard of liability or as an immunity doctrine. As an abstention or standard of liability doctrine, the rule requires the plaintiff to rebut a presumption that directors acted in good faith in the best interests of the company. As an immunity doctrine, the rule requires the director to prove that s/he qualifies for the immunity.
- Full Text:
Taking gendered harms seriously : the utility of rape trauma syndrome evidence in dispelling rape myths in criminal trials
- Authors: Nkala, Amanda Nothabo
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Rape trauma syndrome Women -- Crimes against Rape -- Psychological aspects
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/13458 , vital:39668
- Description: Rape is a violent crime marked by underreporting and low conviction rates. Notwithstanding the fact that most rape laws have been made to be gender-neutral, the statistics of rape are still devastatingly high even on a global scale. The majority of the victims are still predominantly females especially in the context of acquaintance rape. It is an uncontestable fact that rape usually occurs in secret making it possible for one to falsely accuse another and effectively rendering it difficult to refute. In light of this, victims who have managed to reach the courts have come face to face with a myriad of stereotypical beliefs and rape myths about rape victims. These have dealt a blow to their cases once their credibility is doubted because they may have exhibited behaviour that does not match with the classic or real rape victim as expected by the society. However rape is an egregiously unique crime that presents with serious psychological issues for the victim. As such it is possible for a rape victim to exhibit counterintuitive behaviour that can only be sensibly explained by an expert who has delved in human behavioural sciences. The alleged victim will be questioned on things like lengthy delay in reporting, returning to the scene of the crime, asking for taxi money the morning after the rape or even failing to scream and fight off the alleged assailant. Unfortunately, the psychological effects of rape have more often than not been overlooked in our criminal justice system giving way for blame shifting in that the female victim is called upon to account for why the rape may have happened to her. These psychological reactions, responses and counterintuitive behaviour have been characterized as Rape Trauma Syndrome by specialists in psychology and psychiatry. In the context of this study, Rape Trauma Syndrome is a form of expert opinion evidence which is relevant, helpful and necessary because it can dispel rape myths and stereotypical beliefs about rape victims by educating the courts about the psychological reactions of rape victims. Against this backdrop, this research project investigates the utility of Rape Trauma Syndrome evidence in dispelling rape myths in rape trials, focusing especially on the admissibility and use of that syndrome as evidence in other jurisdictions at the level of comparative analysis in order to establish whether it can be utilised in the South African context.
- Full Text:
The legal protection of foreign direct investment in the new millennium :a critical assessment with a focus on South Africa and Zimbabwe
- Authors: Chidede, Talkmore
- Date: 2016
- Subjects: Investments, Foreign -- Law and legislation Economic policy
- Language: English
- Type: Thesis , Masters , LLM
- Identifier: http://hdl.handle.net/10353/7919 , vital:30814
- Description: The increasing investment gap and reduction in foreign aid has made several developing countries to turn to foreign investment as a mechanism to circumvent their financial constraints among other things. There is substantial empirical evidence that foreign direct investment enhances economic development, employment creation, national competitiveness and diffusion of technology from foreign firms to local firms and workers of the host states. As a result, this study firstly argues that foreign investment is much needed in South Africa and Zimbabwe to improve economic growth and development, create employment and increase their competitiveness in the global market. However, these benefits do not accrue automatically but the host states need to create an enabling environment to exploit such benefits. The legal protection of foreign investment has become a fundamental issue in both international and national law. Efforts have been and are still being made in law as well as in practice to implement national investment legal regimes which are in line with international norms or standards. This study undertakes a contemporary assessment of the legal protection of foreign investment in South Africa and Zimbabwe with a view of examining their compliance with international minimum norms, standards and/or best practices. More recently, both South Africa and Zimbabwe have crafted and implemented investment laws and related policies which are perceived to be somewhat hostile towards foreign investment. To achieve this, selected investment laws and related policies in both jurisdictions are critically analysed. This study puts forward an argument and recommendations for policy makers in both South Africa and Zimbabwe for strategic refinements of investment laws and related policies such that they become flexible, friendly and certain to foreign investors while at the same time advancing their respective national policies aimed at the economic empowerment of local citizens.
- Full Text: