Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T01:04:28.071Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Should the South African Constitutional Court Consider German Sources? Comment on Du Plessis and Rautenbach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Francois Venter

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. As you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Part C: Case Studies
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 14 , Issue 8: Special Issue - Constitutional Reasoning , 01 August 2013 , pp. 1579 - 1589
Copyright
Copyright © 2013 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 For further demonstration of this point, see Lourens W.H. Ackermann, Equality Under the 1996 South African Constitution, in Gleichheit und Nichtdiskriminierung im nationalen und internationalen Menschenrechtsschutz 105 (Rüdiger Wolfrum ed., 2003); David M. Beatty, The Ultimate Rule of Law (2004); Comparative Constitutionalism: Cases and Materials (Norman Dorsen et al. eds., 2003); Heinz Klug, Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa's Political Reconstruction (2000); Björn Gerd Schubert, Affirmative Action und Reverse Discrimination: zur Problematik von Frauenquoten im öffentlichen Dienst am Beispiel der Bundesrepublik Deutschland unter Einbeziehung des Rechts der Europäischen Gemeinschaft, der Vereinigten Staaten von Amerika und der Republik Südafrika (2003); The Migration of Constitutional Ideas (Sujit Choudhry ed., 2006); Hilke Thiedemann, Judicial Independence: Eine rechtsvergleichende Untersuchung der Sicherung unabhängiger Rechtsprechung in Südafrika und Deutschland (2007); Francois Venter, Constitutional Comparison: Japan, Germany, Canada and South Africa as Constitutional States (2000) [hereinafter Constitutional Comparison]; Francois Venter, Global Features of Constitutional Law (2010) [hereinafter Global Features]; Francois Venter, Human Dignity As a Constitutional Value: A South African Perspective, in Recht, Staat, Gemeinwohl: Festschrift für Dietrich Rauschning 335 (Jörn Ipsen et al. eds., 2001); Susanne Baer, Verfassungsvergleichung und reflexive Methode: Interkulturelle und intersubjektive Kompetenz, 64 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [ZaöRV] 735 (2004); Sarah Davis, United States, Germany, and South Africa: Constitutional Legislation and Judicial Decisions on Abortion—Testing Judicial Globalization, 16 Temp. Int'l & Comp. L.J. 175 (2002); Dennis Davis & Hugh Corder, Globalisation, National Democratic Institutions and the Impact of Global Regulatory Governance on Developing Countries, in Acta Juridica 68 (Jan Glazewski ed., 2009); Andrew Foster, The Role of Dignity, in Canadian and South African Gender Equality Jurisprudence, 17 Dalhousie J. Legal Studs. 73 (2008); Thomas M. Franck & Arun K. Thiruvengadam, International Law and Constitution-Making, 2 Chinese J. Int'l L. 467 (2003); Andrea Lollini, Legal Argumentation Based on Foreign Law. An Example from Case Law of the South African Constitutional Court, 3 Utrecht L. Rev. 60 (2007); Frank I. Michelman, Reflection, 82 Tex. L. Rev. 1737 (2004); Felix Oelkers, Die Gleichheitsrechtsprechung des südafrikanischen Verfassungsgerichts, 58 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [ZaöRV] 899 (1997); Francois Venter, The Politics of Constitutional Adjudication, 65 Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht [ZaöRV] 129 (2005); Anne-Carolin Seidler, Grundrecht auf Umweltschutz - am Beispiel der Republik Südafrika: verfassungsrechtlicher Umweltschutz in der Republik Südafrika als Beispiel zur Weiterentwicklung des deutschen Umweltverfassungsrechts (2007).Google Scholar

2 See e.g., L. du Plessis, Learned Staatsrecht from the Heartland of the Rechtsstaat, 8 Potchefstroom Elec. L.J. 106 (2005), available at http://www.nwu.ac.za/p-per/2005volume8.html.Google Scholar

3 The author personally witnessed the process closely: First as technical advisor to the government, then as convener of a technical committee responsible for the formulation of the largest part of the 1993 Constitution, and finally as a member of one of the official technical teams supporting the writing of the 1996 Constitution. Some of what is reflected in this comment is based upon observations made during those and subsequent experiences.Google Scholar

4 See, e.g., Dugard, John, The Judicial Process, Positivism and Civil Liberty, 88 S. Afr. L.J. 181 (1971).Google Scholar

5 See, e.g., Stern, Klaus, 40 Jahre Grundgesetz 235 (1990). See also Hans-Peter Schneider, Das Grundgesetz als Vorbild? Sein Einfluß auf ausländische Verfassungen, in Das Grundgesetz in interdisziplinärer Betrachtung 159 (Hans-Peter Schneider ed., 2001).Google Scholar

6 For brief indications of this impact, and its background in Germany's own constitution-writing history, see Wolfgang Benz, Die Neugestaltung Deutschlands zwischen Weststaat und Provisorium, in Das Grundgesetz in interdisziplinärer Betrachtung 9 (Hans-Peter Schneider ed., 2001); Friedhelm Hufen, Entstehung und Entwicklung der Grundrechte, in Das Grundgesetz in interdisziplinärer Betrachtung 41 (Hans-Peter Schneider ed., 2001); Jörg-Detlef Kühne, Verfassungsvorbilder für das Grundgesetz. Von der Paulskirchenverfassung zum Grundgesetz, in Das Grundgesetz in interdisziplinärer Betrachtung 57 (Hans-Peter Schneider ed., 2001).Google Scholar

7 Ackerman, Bruce & Golove, David, Is NAFTA Constitutional?, 108 Harv. L. Rev. 799 (1995); Bruce Ackerman & Neal Katyal, Our Unconventional Founding, 62 U. Chi. L. Rev. 475 (1995).Google Scholar

8 For this narration of the history, see 1 Klaus Stern, Das Staatsrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland 49–50 (1977).Google Scholar

9 See, e.g., Derleder, Peter, Rechtsstaat—Sozialstaat—Kulturstaat. Überlegungen zur Fortentwicklung alter Theorien, 40 Kritische Justiz [KJ] 110 (2007).Google Scholar

10 For further information dealing with the constitution-writing process in South Africa in the early 1990's, see Lourens M. du Plessis & Hugh Corder, Understanding South Africa's Transitional Bill of Rights (1994); Hassen Ebrahim, The Soul of a Nation: Constitution-making in South Africa (1998); Heinz Klug, Constituting Democracy: Law, Globalism and South Africa's Political Reconstruction (2000).Google Scholar

11 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - FederaI ConstitutionaI Court], Case No. 2 BvG 1/60, 12 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 205, 254 (Feb. 12, 1961) (Ger.).Google Scholar

12 Johannesburg Metro. Mun. v. Gauteng Dev. Tribunal 2010 (6) SA 182 (CC) at para. 43 (S. Afr.).Google Scholar

13 In the vernacular of legal comparison the choice of metaphors to describe this process is wide, including migration, borrowing, transplantation, etc.Google Scholar

14 Seibert-Fohr, Anja, The Rise of Equality in International Law and Its Pitfalls: Learning from Comparative Constitutional Law, 35 Brook. J. Int'l L. 1, 21–22 (2010).Google Scholar

15 Ackermann, , supra note 1 at 107–08.Google Scholar

16 President of S. Afr. v. Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC) at para. 41 (S. Afr.).Google Scholar

17 See Venter, Francois, South Africa: A Diceyan Rechtsstaat?, 57 McGill L.J. 721 (2012).Google Scholar

18 S. Afr. Const., 1996, § 39(1)(c) (“When interpreting the Bill of Rights, a court, tribunal or forum … may consider foreign law.”).Google Scholar

19 See, e.g., Hirschl, Ran, From Comparative Constitutional Law to Comparative Constitutional Studies, 11 Int'l J. Const. L. 1, 1 (2013) (“There is no doubt that comparative constitutional law has enjoyed a certain renaissance since the mid-1980s.”).Google Scholar

20 Thint (Pty) Ltd. v. Nat'l Dir. of Pub. Prosecutions, Zuma v. Nat'l Dir. of Pub Prosecutions 2008 (1) SA 1 (CC) at para. 375 (S. Afr.).Google Scholar

21 Bundesverfassungsgericht [BVerfG - FederaI ConstitutionaI Court], Case No. 1 BvR 400/51, 7 Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts [BVerfGE] 198, 204 (Jan. 15, 1958) (Ger.) (establishing “eine objektive Wertordnung”).Google Scholar

22 Carmichele v. Minister of Safety & Sec'y 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) at para. 54 (S. Afr.); see also Du Plessis v. De Klerk 1996 (3) SA 850 (CC) at para. 94 (S. Afr.).Google Scholar

23 See, e.g., Sir Sydney Kentridge, Comparative Law in Constitutional Adjudication: The South African Experience, 80 Tul. L. Rev. 245 (2005).Google Scholar

24 See, e.g., Catherine Valcke, Comparative Law As Comparative Jurisprudence—The Comparability of Legal Systems, 52 Am. J. Comp. L. 713 (2004).Google Scholar

25 Zweigert, Konrad & Kötz, Hein, Introduction to Comparative Law 34 (Tony Weir trans., 3d ed. 1998).Google Scholar

26 Venter, , Global Features, supra note 1, at 47–51.Google Scholar

27 Venter, , Constitutional Comparison, supra note 1, at 44–45.Google Scholar

28 The South African Constitution does not have a provision similar to Article 23 of the Basic Law.Google Scholar