Hague Journal on the Rule of Law ( IF 1.682 ) Pub Date : 2020-03-25 , DOI: 10.1007/s40803-020-00142-2 Isabeau Steytler
In their article ‘Striking Back’ and ‘Clamping down’: An Alternative Perspective on Judicial Review, Carol Harlow and Richard Rawlings consider the ways in which an executive may respond to judicial decisions which find against it. They organize such responses or ‘tactics’ into ‘striking back’ according to which the executive attempts to nullify the effect of the judgment, and ‘clamping down’ in terms of which the government attempts to prevent future adverse judgments. Harlow and Rawlings consider such tactics in the context of the United Kingdom and find that there has not been a significant change in tactics in the country’s transition from a system of pure parliamentary sovereignty to one influenced by European law and the Human Rights Act 1998. In this paper I consider the practices of ‘striking back’ and ‘clamping down’, identified by Harlow and Rawlings, in the context of South Africa. I pose the question whether there has been a change of tactics in South Africa moving from a system of parliamentary sovereignty to one of constitutional supremacy. I also consider how effective these tactics have been under each system. My finding is that there has been a significant change in tactics in South Africa, as the Constitution has placed restraints on the tactics available to the government in striking back and clamping down, leading the government to resort to more extreme measures which in turn threaten South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
中文翻译:
南非的“后退”与“压制”:在议会主权和宪法至上制度下对不利的司法裁决作出回应
在他们的文章《打击》和《钳制》中:司法审查的另一种观点,Carol Harlow和Richard Rawlings考虑了高管人员可能会对不利于其的司法裁决做出回应的方式。他们将这种回应或“策略”组织成“反击”,行政人员据此试图使判决的效果无效,而“钳制”则是政府试图防止将来做出不利判决的依据。哈洛和罗林斯在联合王国的背景下考虑了这种策略,发现该国从纯粹的议会主权制度向受欧洲法律和1998年《人权法》影响的国家过渡的策略并未发生重大变化。在南非的背景下,本文考虑了哈洛和罗林斯(Harlow and Rawlings)提出的“向后打击”和“向下钳制”的做法。我提出一个问题,即南非的策略是否已从议会主权制度转变为宪法至上制度之一。我还考虑了这些策略在每个系统下的有效性。我的发现是,南非的策略发生了重大变化,因为宪法限制了政府在打击和压制方面可以采取的策略,导致政府诉诸更极端的措施,进而威胁到南方非洲的宪政民主。