纠正南非水法中的法律多元主义

IF 0.6 Q2 Social Sciences
B. van Koppen, B. Schreiner, Patience Mukuyu
{"title":"纠正南非水法中的法律多元主义","authors":"B. van Koppen, B. Schreiner, Patience Mukuyu","doi":"10.1080/07329113.2021.2016266","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT During apartheid, South Africa formalized legal pluralism as territorial and institutional segregation that legitimized the white minority’s grab of most land, water and mineral resources. In the homelands on the remaining 13% of the country, allied tribal chiefs controlled second-class customary land and water rights. Under the democratic dispensation, the new Constitution (1996) and National Water Act (1998) aim at redressing this racial discrimination. However, these goals have not been achieved. Building on literature, field research and ongoing policy and legal debates, this paper traces causes for this failure and examines whether and how a different interpretation of statutory law can decolonize past legal pluralism. A main cause of this failure is the continued power by white large-scale water users and their consultants and lawyers. Monopolizing technical and legal knowledge, they fiercely defend apartheid era’s Existing Lawful Uses by 1998 and relatively easily obtain administrative licences for post-1998 water uptake, while claiming excessive monetary values of entitlements to water resources that the state, with tax payers, as custodian holds. In contrast, black water users’ pre-1998 Existing Lawful Uses have not been defined as yet and burdensome licences processes for new water uptake are inaccessible to the many smaller-scale black water users. The paper concludes that, in former homelands, the legal status of living customary water tenure should be elevated and protected. Inclusive facilitated processes can further clarify the “sharing in” of water resources flowing over or under the communities’ territories inside the boundaries of former homelands, also to enable gradual alignment with constitutional rights. However, in “sharing out” these water resources with powerful third parties, including foreign investors, customary water tenure should be fully protected. As a core minimum of highest priority water resource rights across the country, the current Basic Human Needs Reserve should include all water-related constitutional rights, so also water for sufficient food, and be implemented.","PeriodicalId":44432,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Redressing legal pluralism in South Africa’s water law\",\"authors\":\"B. van Koppen, B. Schreiner, Patience Mukuyu\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/07329113.2021.2016266\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT During apartheid, South Africa formalized legal pluralism as territorial and institutional segregation that legitimized the white minority’s grab of most land, water and mineral resources. In the homelands on the remaining 13% of the country, allied tribal chiefs controlled second-class customary land and water rights. Under the democratic dispensation, the new Constitution (1996) and National Water Act (1998) aim at redressing this racial discrimination. However, these goals have not been achieved. Building on literature, field research and ongoing policy and legal debates, this paper traces causes for this failure and examines whether and how a different interpretation of statutory law can decolonize past legal pluralism. A main cause of this failure is the continued power by white large-scale water users and their consultants and lawyers. Monopolizing technical and legal knowledge, they fiercely defend apartheid era’s Existing Lawful Uses by 1998 and relatively easily obtain administrative licences for post-1998 water uptake, while claiming excessive monetary values of entitlements to water resources that the state, with tax payers, as custodian holds. In contrast, black water users’ pre-1998 Existing Lawful Uses have not been defined as yet and burdensome licences processes for new water uptake are inaccessible to the many smaller-scale black water users. The paper concludes that, in former homelands, the legal status of living customary water tenure should be elevated and protected. Inclusive facilitated processes can further clarify the “sharing in” of water resources flowing over or under the communities’ territories inside the boundaries of former homelands, also to enable gradual alignment with constitutional rights. However, in “sharing out” these water resources with powerful third parties, including foreign investors, customary water tenure should be fully protected. As a core minimum of highest priority water resource rights across the country, the current Basic Human Needs Reserve should include all water-related constitutional rights, so also water for sufficient food, and be implemented.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44432,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-09-02\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.2016266\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07329113.2021.2016266","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

在种族隔离时期,南非将法律多元主义形式化为领土和制度隔离,使白人少数民族对大部分土地、水和矿产资源的攫取合法化。在剩下13%的国土上,结盟的部落首领控制着次等的传统土地和水权。在民主体制下,新《宪法》(1996年)和《国家水法》(1998年)旨在纠正这种种族歧视。然而,这些目标尚未实现。在文献、实地研究和正在进行的政策和法律辩论的基础上,本文追溯了这种失败的原因,并探讨了对成文法的不同解释是否以及如何能够使过去的法律多元主义非殖民化。造成这种失败的一个主要原因是大规模用水的白人及其顾问和律师的持续权力。由于垄断了技术和法律知识,他们极力捍卫种族隔离时代到1998年的现有合法用水,并相对容易地获得1998年后用水的行政许可,同时对国家(纳税人)作为保管人持有的水资源权利提出过高的货币价值要求。相比之下,1998年以前黑水使用者的现有合法用途尚未得到界定,许多小规模的黑水使用者无法办理繁重的新用水许可证程序。本文的结论是,在原家园中,应提高和保护生活习惯水权的法律地位。包容性的促进进程可以进一步澄清在前家园边界内流经社区领土或在其领土下流动的水资源的“共享”,也可以使其逐步与宪法权利保持一致。然而,在与包括外国投资者在内的强大第三方“分享”这些水资源时,应充分保护惯常的水权。作为全国最优先的水资源权利的核心最低限度,现行的人类基本需求储备应包括所有与水有关的宪法权利,也包括充足食物的水,并得到实施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Redressing legal pluralism in South Africa’s water law
ABSTRACT During apartheid, South Africa formalized legal pluralism as territorial and institutional segregation that legitimized the white minority’s grab of most land, water and mineral resources. In the homelands on the remaining 13% of the country, allied tribal chiefs controlled second-class customary land and water rights. Under the democratic dispensation, the new Constitution (1996) and National Water Act (1998) aim at redressing this racial discrimination. However, these goals have not been achieved. Building on literature, field research and ongoing policy and legal debates, this paper traces causes for this failure and examines whether and how a different interpretation of statutory law can decolonize past legal pluralism. A main cause of this failure is the continued power by white large-scale water users and their consultants and lawyers. Monopolizing technical and legal knowledge, they fiercely defend apartheid era’s Existing Lawful Uses by 1998 and relatively easily obtain administrative licences for post-1998 water uptake, while claiming excessive monetary values of entitlements to water resources that the state, with tax payers, as custodian holds. In contrast, black water users’ pre-1998 Existing Lawful Uses have not been defined as yet and burdensome licences processes for new water uptake are inaccessible to the many smaller-scale black water users. The paper concludes that, in former homelands, the legal status of living customary water tenure should be elevated and protected. Inclusive facilitated processes can further clarify the “sharing in” of water resources flowing over or under the communities’ territories inside the boundaries of former homelands, also to enable gradual alignment with constitutional rights. However, in “sharing out” these water resources with powerful third parties, including foreign investors, customary water tenure should be fully protected. As a core minimum of highest priority water resource rights across the country, the current Basic Human Needs Reserve should include all water-related constitutional rights, so also water for sufficient food, and be implemented.
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
期刊介绍: As the pioneering journal in this field The Journal of Legal Pluralism and Unofficial Law (JLP) has a long history of publishing leading scholarship in the area of legal anthropology and legal pluralism and is the only international journal dedicated to the analysis of legal pluralism. It is a refereed scholarly journal with a genuinely global reach, publishing both empirical and theoretical contributions from a variety of disciplines, including (but not restricted to) Anthropology, Legal Studies, Development Studies and interdisciplinary studies. The JLP is devoted to scholarly writing and works that further current debates in the field of legal pluralism and to disseminating new and emerging findings from fieldwork. The Journal welcomes papers that make original contributions to understanding any aspect of legal pluralism and unofficial law, anywhere in the world, both in historic and contemporary contexts. We invite high-quality, original submissions that engage with this purpose.
×
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