国王诉德雅格案(CCT 315/18)[2021] ZACC 4中公共政策的作用(2021年2月19日)

Rika Van Zyl
{"title":"国王诉德雅格案(CCT 315/18)[2021] ZACC 4中公共政策的作用(2021年2月19日)","authors":"Rika Van Zyl","doi":"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a15845","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In King v De Jager (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4 (19 February 2021), the Constitutional Court considered whether a discriminatory out-and-out disinheritance clause in a private will could be declared unenforceable in terms of public policy. This opened private wills with disinheritance clauses to the scrutinising evaluation of public values despite freedom of testation. Although public policy has always been an elusive concept, South African public policy is infused with constitutional values to give more clarity on the content of public policy. In King a conflation emerged between constitutional rights, legislative violations and public policy values, however. The court grappled with the question of whether to apply the Constitution directly based on a violation in terms of section 9(4) or whether the section 8 of the Equality Act should be applied directly through the subsidiarity principle, or whether the discriminatory clause should be evaluated through the public policy lens. Where the conflicting values were weighed up there seem to be hints of subjective views to tip the scales in favour of one value over another. This is a concern when public policy is used to advance a subjective view of what the community values more, especially when it involves the disruption of the devolvement of a deceased's estate. This underlines the difficult application of public policy values, even in a constitutional democracy, when competing values are at play.","PeriodicalId":510405,"journal":{"name":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","volume":"25 9","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Role of Public Policy in King v De Jager (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4 (19 February 2021)\",\"authors\":\"Rika Van Zyl\",\"doi\":\"10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a15845\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In King v De Jager (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4 (19 February 2021), the Constitutional Court considered whether a discriminatory out-and-out disinheritance clause in a private will could be declared unenforceable in terms of public policy. This opened private wills with disinheritance clauses to the scrutinising evaluation of public values despite freedom of testation. Although public policy has always been an elusive concept, South African public policy is infused with constitutional values to give more clarity on the content of public policy. In King a conflation emerged between constitutional rights, legislative violations and public policy values, however. The court grappled with the question of whether to apply the Constitution directly based on a violation in terms of section 9(4) or whether the section 8 of the Equality Act should be applied directly through the subsidiarity principle, or whether the discriminatory clause should be evaluated through the public policy lens. Where the conflicting values were weighed up there seem to be hints of subjective views to tip the scales in favour of one value over another. This is a concern when public policy is used to advance a subjective view of what the community values more, especially when it involves the disruption of the devolvement of a deceased's estate. This underlines the difficult application of public policy values, even in a constitutional democracy, when competing values are at play.\",\"PeriodicalId\":510405,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"25 9\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-01\",\"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/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a15845\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2024/v27i0a15845","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在 King 诉 De Jager(CCT 315/18)[2021] ZACC 4(2021 年 2 月 19 日)一案中,宪法法院审议了是否可以从公共政策的角度宣布私人遗嘱中的歧视性剥夺继承权条款不可执行。这使得带有剥夺继承权条款的私人遗嘱尽管有作证自由,但仍需接受公共价值的严格评估。尽管公共政策一直是一个难以捉摸的概念,但南非的公共政策注入了宪法价值,使公共政策的内容更加明确。然而,在 King 案中,宪法权利、违反立法行为和公共政策价值之间出现了混淆。法院努力解决的问题是,是根据第 9(4)条的规定直接适用《宪法》,还是通过辅助性原则直接适用《平等法》第 8 条,抑或是通过公共政策视角评估歧视性条款。在对相互冲突的价值观进行权衡时,似乎存在主观意见的暗示,使天平倾向于一种价值观而非另一种价值观。当公共政策被用来推动对社会更看重什么的主观看法时,尤其是当它涉及到对死者遗产继承的干扰时,这是一个令人担忧的问题。这突出表明,即使在民主宪政体制下,当相互竞争的价值观发生作用时,公共政策的价值也很难适用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Role of Public Policy in King v De Jager (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4 (19 February 2021)
In King v De Jager (CCT 315/18) [2021] ZACC 4 (19 February 2021), the Constitutional Court considered whether a discriminatory out-and-out disinheritance clause in a private will could be declared unenforceable in terms of public policy. This opened private wills with disinheritance clauses to the scrutinising evaluation of public values despite freedom of testation. Although public policy has always been an elusive concept, South African public policy is infused with constitutional values to give more clarity on the content of public policy. In King a conflation emerged between constitutional rights, legislative violations and public policy values, however. The court grappled with the question of whether to apply the Constitution directly based on a violation in terms of section 9(4) or whether the section 8 of the Equality Act should be applied directly through the subsidiarity principle, or whether the discriminatory clause should be evaluated through the public policy lens. Where the conflicting values were weighed up there seem to be hints of subjective views to tip the scales in favour of one value over another. This is a concern when public policy is used to advance a subjective view of what the community values more, especially when it involves the disruption of the devolvement of a deceased's estate. This underlines the difficult application of public policy values, even in a constitutional democracy, when competing values are at play.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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