Suchergebnisse

The insertion of sec. 38 in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, has seen substantial broadening of standing opportunities for litigants since the advent of the country's constitutional dispensation. Amongst others, it has led to the development of public-interest litigation in terms of sec. 38(d), which is in line with the constitutional mandate of societal transformation. The full impact of the latter constitutional provision has recently been illustrated by the public and legal controversy surrounding the South African government's failure to arrest Sudanese President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir while he was attending an AU summit in Johannesburg. The Southern African Litigation Centre's application to enforce the International Criminal Court's warrant of arrest against Al-Bashir was brought in the centre's own name, but was supplemented by public interest. Currently, however, there is neither case law nor legislation explicitly dealing with a pure public-interest action in South Africa, which leaves litigants and the judiciary without any guiding principles. Therefore, this article draws on the South African Law Commission's 1998 proposals on class and public-interest actions, as well as the substantial case law dealing with sec. 38(a) own-interest actions combined with a strong element of public interest, to formulate proposals on how 'public interest' as well as standing for public-interest litigants should be interpreted and determined.

From text: This article is a commentary on the judgement of the North Gauteng High Court on 24 June 2015 in the matter of The Southern Africa Litigation Centre v Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, which dealt with the recent controversy surrounding the South African government's failure to arrest Mr Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir, president of the Republic of Sudan, to be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the world's first and only permanent court for the investigation and prosecution of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity committed after 1 July 2002, has been hailed as the greatest event since the advent of the United Nations (UN). The relationship between some African states and the ICC has however becomefragile and strained. The situation has worsened since the Al-Bashir controversy,(in particular South Africa's failure to arrest the former Sudanese President on visit in South Africa) to the extent that, in 2016, the South African government announced its intention to withdraw from the ICC. This, in South Africa, was followed by the publication of the Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act Repeal Bill (B23-2016) (which was later withdrawn) and the International Crimes Bill (B37-2017) (which later lapsed in terms of National Assembly rules). The bills provide important insights into the South African government's approach to international crimes and criminal justice, revealing an awkward U-turn in terms of immunity granted to heads of state and senior state officials. Against that backdrop, and further with reference to the African scholarship concerning both the strained relationship between Africa, generally and the extended jurisdiction of the ACJHR, this article examines the most cited reasons for this precarious relationship. Some explanations seem more valid than others: African states' claims that the ICC targets Africans and threatens state sovereignty on the continent simply do not hold water. On the other hand, Africa's unease with the UN system, particularly the vexed veto system, might carry more weight, suggesting that the continent's discontent with the ICC is less about the court itself, and more about the UN and Security Council system and composition. The article, in the last part, turns to an evaluation of the prospects of the extended African Court of Justice and Human Rights (ACJHR), ...

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle-income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.

The global nephrology community recognizes the need for a cohesive strategy to address the growing problem of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). In March 2018, the International Society of Nephrology hosted a summit on integrated ESKD care, including 92 individuals from around the globe with diverse expertise and professional backgrounds. The attendees were from 41 countries, including 16 participants from 11 low- and lower-middle–income countries. The purpose was to develop a strategic plan to improve worldwide access to integrated ESKD care, by identifying and prioritizing key activities across 8 themes: (i) estimates of ESKD burden and treatment coverage, (ii) advocacy, (iii) education and training/workforce, (iv) financing/funding models, (v) ethics, (vi) dialysis, (vii) transplantation, and (viii) conservative care. Action plans with prioritized lists of goals, activities, and key deliverables, and an overarching performance framework were developed for each theme. Examples of these key deliverables include improved data availability, integration of core registry measures and analysis to inform development of health care policy; a framework for advocacy; improved and continued stakeholder engagement; improved workforce training; equitable, efficient, and cost-effective funding models; greater understanding and greater application of ethical principles in practice and policy; definition and application of standards for safe and sustainable dialysis treatment and a set of measurable quality parameters; and integration of dialysis, transplantation, and comprehensive conservative care as ESKD treatment options within the context of overall health priorities. Intended users of the action plans include clinicians, patients and their families, scientists, industry partners, government decision makers, and advocacy organizations. Implementation of this integrated and comprehensive plan is intended to improve quality and access to care and thereby reduce serious health-related suffering of adults and children affected by ESKD worldwide.