Suchergebnisse

The impartiality of judges often expressed in the Latin maxim nemo iudex in propria causa interpreted to mean that no man should be a judge in his own cause together with the right of fair hearing make up the right to natural justice. This principle is recognized by a number of provisions of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. Section 165 (4) provides that the organs of state shall through legislative and other measures assist and protect the courts to ensure their independence, impartiality, dignity, accessibility and effectiveness. Furthermore, section 34 of the same Constitution provides that everyone has the right to have any dispute resolved by the application of law by a court or, where appropriate another independent and impartial tribunal or forum. Article 6(1) of the European Convention of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 as incorporated in the Human Rights Act 1988, applicable in England since 2000 provides that: "In the determination of his civil rights and obligations … everyone is entitled to a fair hearing … by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law." The independence of courts and impartiality of judges are closely related in that they operate to sustain public confidence in the administration of justice. This article advocates a return to the use of the manifest justice principle enshrined as the proper contextfor the application of the tests of "reasonable apprehension of bias" adopted by South African courtsand "real possibility of bias" adopted by English courtsin the consideration of allegation of apparent bias. This paper argues that the tests are differentand that while the English test is a move of English courts from the real danger/likelihood test in consonance with an overwhelming global jurisprudence the South African test is a move away from this global jurisprudence and arguably back to the real danger/likelihood test. This paper also argues that the reasonable apprehension test as applied by the minority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing)is a more acceptable interpretation of the reasonable apprehension test than the test laid down in President of the Republic of South Africa v South Africa Rugby Football Union (2) and its interpretation by the majority in SACCAWU v Irvin & Johnson Ltd (Seafoods Division Fish Processing). More importantly there is an examination of cases where the tests have been applied which hopefully shows that there are considerable problems and inconsistency in their application and argue that the manifest justice principle provides the proper context for the tests to be properly applied.

AbstractTo analyze moral notions in conflict dynamics, several conceptions of negotiation, moral notions in conflict perspectives, and elements of moral compromise are examined. Together, these indicators provide a framework for analyzing the moral dimensions of the mediator's role in complex negotiations. These ideas are illustrated through a discussion of the actions of two mediators in the Bosnia conflict during the 1990s. The analysis considers why these mediators were so different in their effectiveness and capacity to reach compromise. It also becomes clear when moral compromise is feasible.

Machine generated contents note: Contents page Acknowledgments Chapter One: Introduction Chapter Two: Constellations of Liveness Chapter Three: Liveness and Institutionalization Chapter Four: "Live" as an Evaluative Category Chapter Five: Social TV and the Multiplicity of the Live Chapter Six: Social Media's New Relation to the Live Conclusions.

This book explores how stereotypes of "oppressed Muslim women" feed into the self-representations of women with a Muslim background. The focus is on women active in, and speaking on behalf of, a wide variety of minority self-organisations in the Netherlands and Norway between 1975 and 2010. The author reveals how these women have internalised and appropriated particular stereotypes, and also developed counter-stereotypes about majority Dutch or Norwegian women. She demonstrates, above all, how they have tried time and again to change popular perceptions by providing alternative images of themselves and of Islam, paying particular attention to their attempts to gain access to media debates. Her central argument is that their efforts to undermine stereotypes can be understood as an assertion of belonging in Dutch and Norwegian society and, in the case of women committed to Islam, as a demand for their religion to be accepted. This innovative work provides a "history from below" that makes a valuable contribution to scholarly debates about citizenship as a practice of inclusion and exclusion. Providing new insights into the dynamics between stereotyping and self-representation, it will appeal to scholars of gender, religion, media, and cultural diversity