Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 3 - The Indirect Application Model

  • from Part I - Legal Doctrinal Models for Addressing the Substantive Obligations of Non-State Actors for Fundamental Rights
  • David Bilchitz, University of Johannesburg
  • Book:
    Fundamental Rights and the Legal Obligations of Business
    Published online:
    29 October 2021
    Print publication:
    11 November 2021, pp 99-134

  • Summary

    This chapter examines the ‘indirect application model’ in constitutional law whereby fundamental rights do not apply ‘directly’ to the relations between individuals but nevertheless influence the content of the private law legal rules that apply between non-state actors. The legal rules though articulate the obligations of non-state actors and, if fundamental rights affect those rules, they affect the obligations of non-state actors. I argue that the indirect application model has several drawbacks – including weakening rights and undermining their relational dimension - but ultimately collapses into a form of direct application model. I thus examine, through this lens, seminal cases in Germany and South Africa, seeking to understand what approach courts utilize to construct the substantive content of the obligations of non-state actors. The analysis highlights that courts draw on a number of factors together with an amorphous balancing process to determine those obligations – similar to the other models analysed in the book.