AB诉Pridwin预备学校:横向人权法的进展与问题

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW
Tom Lowenthal
{"title":"AB诉Pridwin预备学校:横向人权法的进展与问题","authors":"Tom Lowenthal","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School is a welcome recognition of the obligations which independent schools owe to their learners under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. However, the decision creates (or at least fails to resolve) a number of uncertainties in the application of s 8(2) of the Constitution. In particular, it leaves vague what the test for duty-bearing under that provision is; it recentres but (further) obscures the distinction between positive and negative obligations; it raises questions about the role of s 8(3) and how private interferences with constitutional rights are to be justified; and it leaves the practical status of the decision in Barkhuizen v Napier unclear.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"36 1","pages":"261 - 274"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"AB v Pridwin Preparatory School: progress and problems in horizontal human rights law\",\"authors\":\"Tom Lowenthal\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School is a welcome recognition of the obligations which independent schools owe to their learners under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. However, the decision creates (or at least fails to resolve) a number of uncertainties in the application of s 8(2) of the Constitution. In particular, it leaves vague what the test for duty-bearing under that provision is; it recentres but (further) obscures the distinction between positive and negative obligations; it raises questions about the role of s 8(3) and how private interferences with constitutional rights are to be justified; and it leaves the practical status of the decision in Barkhuizen v Napier unclear.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"volume\":\"36 1\",\"pages\":\"261 - 274\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"South African Journal on Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2020.1867484","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

摘要宪法法院在AB诉Pridwin Preparation School一案中的裁决是对独立学校根据1996年《南非共和国宪法》对其学生承担的义务的认可。然而,该决定在适用《宪法》第8(2)条方面造成(或至少未能解决)许多不确定性。特别是,该条款对承担责任的测试是什么含糊其辞;它最近强调但(进一步)模糊了积极义务和消极义务之间的区别;它提出了关于第8(3)条的作用以及如何证明私人干涉宪法权利的正当性的问题;这使得Barkhuizen诉Napier一案中的裁决的实际地位不明确。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
AB v Pridwin Preparatory School: progress and problems in horizontal human rights law
Abstract The Constitutional Court’s decision in AB v Pridwin Preparatory School is a welcome recognition of the obligations which independent schools owe to their learners under the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996. However, the decision creates (or at least fails to resolve) a number of uncertainties in the application of s 8(2) of the Constitution. In particular, it leaves vague what the test for duty-bearing under that provision is; it recentres but (further) obscures the distinction between positive and negative obligations; it raises questions about the role of s 8(3) and how private interferences with constitutional rights are to be justified; and it leaves the practical status of the decision in Barkhuizen v Napier unclear.
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
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
×
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