Reflecting on Evictions and Unlawful Occupation of Land in South Africa: Where Do Some Gaps Still Remain?

Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, S. Mahomedy
{"title":"Reflecting on Evictions and Unlawful Occupation of Land in South Africa: Where Do Some Gaps Still Remain?","authors":"Zsa-Zsa Boggenpoel, S. Mahomedy","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14687","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The issue of unlawful occupation and homelessness has been a very prominent topic for many decades. While our approach to evictions and unlawful occupation has clearly shifted from a draconian approach under the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 51 of 1951 (hereafter PISA) to an approach that focusses on human rights under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (hereafter PIE), there are still various aspects that potentially fall short in protecting the rights of the various stakeholders involved in these disputes. In particular, this paper focusses on three areas where PIE potentially falls short. In this regard we examine cases of the impossibility of eviction orders, our current understanding of the notion of \"home\", and whether or not PIE applies to both occupied and unoccupied structures. We also briefly explore issues relating to the non-implementation of PIE, especially in relation to the government's goal of preventing unlawful occupation. Central to these discussions is whether our current approach is sufficient and in line with constitutional obligations or whether we need to rethink our approaches to ensure that we do not undo the progress made since apartheid.","PeriodicalId":510405,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"51 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2023/v26i0a14687","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The issue of unlawful occupation and homelessness has been a very prominent topic for many decades. While our approach to evictions and unlawful occupation has clearly shifted from a draconian approach under the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act 51 of 1951 (hereafter PISA) to an approach that focusses on human rights under the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act 19 of 1998 (hereafter PIE), there are still various aspects that potentially fall short in protecting the rights of the various stakeholders involved in these disputes. In particular, this paper focusses on three areas where PIE potentially falls short. In this regard we examine cases of the impossibility of eviction orders, our current understanding of the notion of "home", and whether or not PIE applies to both occupied and unoccupied structures. We also briefly explore issues relating to the non-implementation of PIE, especially in relation to the government's goal of preventing unlawful occupation. Central to these discussions is whether our current approach is sufficient and in line with constitutional obligations or whether we need to rethink our approaches to ensure that we do not undo the progress made since apartheid.
反思南非的驱逐和非法占地行为:差距还在哪里?
几十年来,非法占有和无家可归问题一直是一个非常突出的话题。虽然我们处理驱逐和非法占有问题的方法已明显从 1951 年第 51 号《防止非法寮屋法》(以下简称《防止非法寮屋法》)规定的严厉方法转变为 1998 年第 19 号《防止非法驱逐和非法占有土地法》(以下简称《防止非法占有土地法》)规定的注重人权的方法,但在保护这些纠纷所涉各利益攸关方的权利方面,仍有许多方面可能存在不足。本文特别关注了《禁止非法占有土地法》可能存在不足的三个方面。在这方面,我们研究了不可能发出驱逐令的案例、我们目前对 "住宅 "概念的理解以及《实践指南》是否同时适用于有人居住和无人居住的建筑。我们还简要探讨了与不执行《个人隐私保护法》有关的问题,特别是与政府防止非法占有的目标有关的问题。这些讨论的核心问题是,我们目前的方法是否充分,是否符合宪法义务,或者我们是否需要重新思考我们的方法,以确保我们不会抹杀自种族隔离以来所取得的进展。
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信