The article argues that South African law has lagged behind in the sphere of passport law and the recognition of a general freedom to travel. While a common-law right to freedom of movement recognised the wider concept of a right to travel abroad and to return has received little attention even though this right has enjoyed international status since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The fact that South Africa is not a signatory should be no excuse for ignorance of developments in the international field. Perhaps, when the bill of rights which has been mooted for South Africa does indeed come to fruition, a right to travel will feature in it. In the meantime, there should be no reason why the heritage of both English and Roman-Dutch law should not be put to good use. It is a basic precept of our law that everything which is not forbidden is permitted, and that legislative encroachment on individual freedom should be interpreted in favour of the individual. E
In this article the question whether anti-South African divestment by private (as opposed to public) fiduciaries is legal, is investigated in view of the obligations American law imposes on such fiduciaries. Some writers have argued that in most cases decisions to divest, when they are costly, involve a transgression of the standards of conduct applicable to those who administer the particular funds concerned. Others, however, lean in the opposite direction, and argue that decisions to divest from some or any South African related investments - even when costly - more often than not are within the scope of the discretion of fiduciaries. The merits of these different views are investigated.
In South Africa, the debate surrounding property rights is particularly relevant, given the massive imbalance in the distribution of wealth. The fear exists that property rights will perpetuate the power of property owners over employees and non-owners of property. Any future South African government will have to address the problem of poverty and the need for a more equitable distribution of income. Although the South African situation may be somewhat exceptional, the arguments with regard to the protection of property rights which have been raised in the United States and West German are not without relevance and South Africa may learn from the experiences in these countries.
In 1984 Prof Devenish praised Bophuthatswana's human rights record which, he believed, reflected "the high priority accorded by both its president and its executive in general, to both the substance and spirit of a constitution protecting fundamental rights." The fundamental rights, to which he referred, were embodied in a Declaration of Fundamental Rights contained in chapter 2 of the territory's Constitution. This article traces the subsequent fate of those rights and concludes that they were, especially during the later years, severely denuded in the face of legislative meddling and judicial restraint. The article includes a brief sketch of the Declaration of Fundamental Rights.
Administrative laws and powers are rather limited when it comes to the need to protect vital values and basic environmental issues. If the protection of the environment is taken seriously - as it indeed now is in the Federal Republic of Germany - the functional limitations of administrative law require support from the criminal law. While administrative decisions tend to seek a compromise between divergent interests, the criminal law can provide a much clearer protection of interests against serious non-compliance and infractions, thus securing the absolute minimum standards of any social order. Since the Federal Republic is one of the countries with the greatest stress on the environment because of both its intensive economic development and its geographical situation in central Europe, the necessity for complementary criminal measures to protect values of vital importance is both obvious and generally acknowledged. This is a fairly recent development; the actual environmental criminal provisions were incorporated into the Criminal Code by way of the 18th Criminal Law Amendment Act of 28 March 1980. They came into force on 1 July of the same year. This is generally considered to be a great step forward as in certain areas the criminal sanctions as well as regulatory sanctions were taken out of the subsidiary criminal law and the Administrative Infraction Act and incorporated into the basic criminal law.
In this contribution the current legal developments in Bophuthatswana, Ciskei, Lesotho, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa, Swaziland, Transkei, Venda and Zimbabwe with regards to principal legislation, government notices and judicial decisions are briefly descriptionbed.