Cultural Expertise in Litigation in South Africa: Can the Western World Learn Anything from a Mixed, Pluralistic Legal System?

Christa Rautenbach
{"title":"Cultural Expertise in Litigation in South Africa: Can the Western World Learn Anything from a Mixed, Pluralistic Legal System?","authors":"Christa Rautenbach","doi":"10.1108/S1059-433720190000078009","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract \nSouth Africa’s mixed, pluralistic legal order demands a nuanced approach to cultural expertise in litigation. Culture in general and cultural expertise in particular have always played an important role in all areas of law, both state and non-state, and a rich collection of jurisprudence is available to serve as illustration. Even though both the common law and the customary law are both recognized legal systems, they are treated differently by the judiciary. The general rule is that judicial notice must be taken of the common law rules and that judicial notice of customary law may only be taken “in so far as such law can be ascertained readily and with sufficient certainty.” The ascertainment of customary law provides a challenge to the judiciary because of its adaptive inherent flexibility and indeterminate nature, especially where the rules are oral or so-called “living” customary law. Cultural expertise also plays an important role in the case of non-state law. A considerable quantity of case law exists where the courts have considered expert evidence regarding the content of certain religious legal systems to provide protection to litigants claiming that they are subject to those systems. The aim of this contribution is to investigate the diverse approaches of the South African courts when it comes to the admissibility of expert evidence in cases where culture (both custom and religion in both state and non-state law) is relevant. The fact that the South African legal system has its roots firmly in Western law and has been confronted with cultural diversity for a very long time might provide some lessons to the Western world, even if those lessons are only to prevent it from making the same mistakes as the South African legal system has made or might still be doing.","PeriodicalId":304111,"journal":{"name":"Cultural Expertise and Socio-Legal Studies","volume":"19 2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cultural Expertise and Socio-Legal Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1108/S1059-433720190000078009","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract South Africa’s mixed, pluralistic legal order demands a nuanced approach to cultural expertise in litigation. Culture in general and cultural expertise in particular have always played an important role in all areas of law, both state and non-state, and a rich collection of jurisprudence is available to serve as illustration. Even though both the common law and the customary law are both recognized legal systems, they are treated differently by the judiciary. The general rule is that judicial notice must be taken of the common law rules and that judicial notice of customary law may only be taken “in so far as such law can be ascertained readily and with sufficient certainty.” The ascertainment of customary law provides a challenge to the judiciary because of its adaptive inherent flexibility and indeterminate nature, especially where the rules are oral or so-called “living” customary law. Cultural expertise also plays an important role in the case of non-state law. A considerable quantity of case law exists where the courts have considered expert evidence regarding the content of certain religious legal systems to provide protection to litigants claiming that they are subject to those systems. The aim of this contribution is to investigate the diverse approaches of the South African courts when it comes to the admissibility of expert evidence in cases where culture (both custom and religion in both state and non-state law) is relevant. The fact that the South African legal system has its roots firmly in Western law and has been confronted with cultural diversity for a very long time might provide some lessons to the Western world, even if those lessons are only to prevent it from making the same mistakes as the South African legal system has made or might still be doing.
南非诉讼中的文化专长:西方世界能从一个混合、多元的法律体系中学到什么吗?
南非的混合,多元的法律秩序需要一个微妙的方法来文化专业知识的诉讼。一般的文化,特别是文化专业知识,在国家和非国家法律的所有领域一直发挥着重要作用,有丰富的判例可以作为例证。尽管普通法和习惯法都是公认的法律体系,但司法部门对它们的待遇却有所不同。一般规则是,司法通知必须采用普通法规则,而习惯法的司法通知只有在“能够容易地、有足够的确定性地确定”的情况下才可以采用。习惯法的确定对司法机关提出了挑战,因为习惯法固有的适应性灵活性和不确定性,特别是在规则是口头或所谓“活的”习惯法的情况下。在非国家法律的情况下,文化专业知识也起着重要作用。在相当数量的判例法中,法院考虑了关于某些宗教法律制度内容的专家证据,以便为声称自己受这些制度约束的诉讼当事人提供保护。这一贡献的目的是调查南非法院在涉及文化(国家和非国家法律中的习俗和宗教)相关案件中专家证据的可采性时的不同方法。南非法律制度牢固地植根于西方法律,并长期面临文化多样性,这一事实可能为西方世界提供一些教训,即使这些教训只是为了防止它犯南非法律制度已经犯或可能仍在犯的同样错误。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信