Refugee Rights in South Africa: Addressing Social Injustices in Government Financial Assistance Schemes

The political debate on exclusion of refugees and asylum-seekers from socio-economic benefits and opportunities is arguably underpinnned by assumptions, fallacies and misconceptions that a higher number of refugees are not “genuine.” Rather they are bogus refugees who are in South Africa to seek a better life. That belief has a dire consequence of treating refugee students as ‘international students” at higher learning institutions, resulting in depriving refugees and asylum-seekers of the right to education and training and of other social opportunities. These assumptions fly in the face of international refugee law principles that refugees and asylum-seekers are to be accorded ‘treatment as favourable as possible’ with respect to tertiary education. Thus, the main objective of the paper is to argue for favourable extension of student financial aid and assistance to refugees and asylum-seekers in South Africa for educational purpose in line with the principles of fair and equitable treatment under international law. The paper depends largely on the concept of social justice and the philosophy of Ubuntu (which means to be humane toward others). It argues that practicalizing Ubuntu demands a distributive justice system to ensure that the most vulnerable people have access to certain primary goods and they are afforded social opportunities to realise the most fulsome life. In so doing, the paper draws legal distinctions between two often-confused concepts vis a refugee student and an international student though the discussion of the two distinct regimes that regulate their sojourn in South Africa, namely the Refugees Act 130 of 1998, as amended and the Immigration Act 13 of 2002, as amended.Keywords: Refugee, Ubuntu, social justice, rights, immigration, asylu

Marriages of convenience through the immigration lens: concepts, issues, impact and policies

This article examines the attempts made by both the Executive and Parliament to curb marriages of convenience through the revision of refugee and immigration laws. Asylum seekers or economic migrants use marriages of convenience largely to legitimise their stay in South Africa. South African authorities regard these marriages of convenience as a threat both to South African society as they violate pro-marriage policies and anti-irregular migrant policies, and to national security as they defeat the object of the institution of marriage. In this context, the article explores the complexities of combating marriages of convenience on the basis of the principle of consent on which a valid marriage is fundamentally constructed, and also on the basis of an analysis of judicial opinions holding that a marriage of convenience must be terminated by a decree of divorce

THE DISAPPEARANCE OF REFUGEE RIGHTS IN SOUTH AFRICA

This article critically examines the nature and scope of the type of refugee protection offered by South Africa to people fleeing their home countries. It offers an analytical demonstration of how South Africa has gradually developed conflicted and ambivalent attitudes towards the protection of refugees and asylum seekers. South Africa’s conflicted and ambivalent attitudes towards refugee protection are evident in several amendments made to the refugee regime, to restrict the enjoyment of refugees’ socio-economic protection. The purpose of this article is therefore to demonstrate that the ongoing amendments to the refugee legal framework – without harmonisation with socio-economic laws – increasingly result in the disappearance of refugee rights. This, in turn, results in the creation of disgruntled refugees; through protests, they express their dissatisfaction with ineffective protection, and consequently demand to be resettled or relocated to other countries for better and effective protection

EXPLORING THE FULL LEGAL PROTECTION OF REFUGEES AND ITS LIMITATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO NATURAL AND POSITIVE LAW

This article seeks to explore the limitation of the theory of full legal protection by illustrating with facts that the theory does not lack legal force, but rather that various concepts such as citizenship, national security, sovereignty, affirmative action, legal positivism, and democratic governance severely limit the application of theory. In particular, the limitation of full legal protection is analysed through the lens of legal positivism and the natural law doctrines whereby it is argued that the laws of South Africa are framed in the context of legal positivism which does not take cognisance of the moral values on which the natural law doctrine is based. As a result, the full legal protection of constitutional rights of refugees remains in theory. In order to convert this theory into an effective protection, it is argued that although the state has the power inherent in its sovereignty to design and frame laws as it deems best, South Africa should, with the natural law in mind, develop social transformative or remedial measures in such a way that extends constitutional socio-economic rights to refugees in a more favourable way. The article concludes by suggesting the manner in which the severe limitations imposed on the concept of full legal protection can conceptually and rationally be addressed

HOUSING AND INTEGRATING REFUGEES: SOUTH AFRICA’S EXCLUSIONARY APPROACH

The article seeks to illuminate South Africa’s exclusionary approach towards housing refugees and asylum seekers, and to integrating them into the economy. To this end, this article argues that the exclusionary approach conflicts with and is in violation of the constitutional values of human dignity, equality and freedom on which South Africa’s refugee law is based. The article employs a qualitative research methodology to illustrate that policy issues are acting as barriers to accessing housing programmes. It makes recommendations on how to close the gaps in housing law to ensure that future planning and implementation of housing policies are in harmony with refugee policies. Finally, innovative and creative solutions to the challenges that refugees and asylum seekers face in the housing sector are drawn from the learning processes acquired from past experience

Refugees’ access to socio-sconomic rights: Favourable treatment for the protection of human dignity

Thesis (LLD)--Stellenbosch University, 2018.ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The thesis deals with the question whether and to what extent refugees and asylumseekers are entitled to socio-economic rights and benefits. This is a controversial question, which is complicated by the co-existence of different bodies of law which apply to the treatment of non-citizens, in general, and refugees and asylum-seekers, in particular. On the one hand, South Africa has acceded to international refugee treaties and incorporated these treaties into its legal system through the Refugees Act 130 of 1998 (as amended) (―Refugees Act‖). This Act provides that refugees are entitled to all rights in the Bill of Rights, except those rights that are expressly reserved for citizens. Sections 26 and 27 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provide that ―everyone‖ has the right of access to adequate housing, and access to health care services, sufficient food and water, and social security. This seems to indicate that refugees and asylum-seekers are entitled to the socioeconomic rights enshrined in the Constitution. The Refugees Act, read through the lens of these constitutional provisions, signals South Africa‘s intention to offer effective protection to refugees and asylum-seekers, to respond to their suffering and to restore their self-reliance, participation, and agency. It does so, inter alia, by extending to them the right to have access to subsidised socio-economic goods and services. On the other hand, refugees and asylum-seekers are, in practice, excluded from certain socio-economic rights. This exclusion stems from a number of factors. First, they are treated as temporary residents in terms of the Immigration Act 13 of 2002. For this reason, the twin principles of self-sufficiency and exclusivity are often applied to them. In terms of these principles, non-citizens are generally admitted into South Africa on the condition that they are self-supportive and self-reliant. Moreover, they are precluded from accessing socio-economic programmes designed to support citizens who are vulnerable to poverty. Secondly, legislation conferring socioeconomic rights and benefits often restricts those rights to citizens and permanent residents. The legislation is thus not aligned with the Refugees Act. Thirdly, the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, 1951 (―the Geneva Refugee Convention‖) provides, in certain respects, for the same treatment of refugees as accorded to non-citizens in the same circumstances as refugees, or as accorded to non-citizens generally. Fourthly, the OAU Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa, 1969 (―the African Refugee Convention‖) requires a host state to alleviate refugees‘ misery and suffering as well as to offer them opportunities to achieve a better life and future. The thesis criticises the idea that refugees and asylum-seekers are entitled to socio-economic rights on the basis of the standard of the same treatment accorded to non-citizens. This standard is problematic, in so far as there is no other group of non-citizens whose circumstances correspond to those of refugees and asylumseekers. Moreover, the standard legitimises the application of the twin principles of exclusivity and self-sufficiency, as contemplated by immigration law, to refugees and asylum-seekers. The thesis criticises the exclusionary approach on the basis of emerging theories, norms, standards and practices, as emanating from international refugee law, human rights law, constitutional law, domestic refugee law and foreign and international jurisprudence. It examines the vulnerability of refugees, and argues that the rights flowing from refugee status demand special and differentiated treatment from that accorded to non-citizens generally. The Refugees Act was specifically adopted to exempt refugees and asylum-seekers from the emphasis, in immigration law, on exclusion and self-reliance, and to afford them special, favourable or differentiated treatment to ensure the protection of their well-being, health and dignity. For that reason, refugee principles should be given priority over immigration principles. The thesis examines refugees and asylum-seekers‘ entitlement to socio-economic rights through the prism of the constitutional rights and values of human dignity and equality, and with reference to the standards of same treatment and favourable treatment, as used in the Geneva Refugee Convention . It argues, first, that the right and value of human dignity requires that all human beings should be in a position to live their lives in accordance with the ends that they freely chose, or as autonomous agents who have the ability to define their own destiny. No-one should be reduced to a mere object of state power, or be left without the resources needed to pursue reasonable choices or to meet their own needs. Given the unique position and vulnerability of refugees and asylum-seekers, the state is under both a negative obligation to desist from conduct that would interfere with the exercise of their rights, and a positive obligation to create conditions in which they can participate in economic and social life. Secondly, the thesis draws on the distinction between formal and substantive equality, and argues that the rights of refugees and asylum seekers should be read through the prism of substantive equality. This could help enable an approach which recognises their vulnerability, and affords them differentiated and favourable treatment. The thesis focuses on three rights: the right of access to public relief and assistance, healthcare and adequate housing. A detailed analysis is offered of the extent to which refugees and asylum-seekers are given these rights, or are excluded from their protection. The national laws granting and regulating these rights are examined, in view of refugee law, international human rights, the South African Constitution, and foreign law. To the extent that these laws exclude refugees and asylum-seekers from socio-economic rights and benefits, the thesis analyses the constitutionality of these exclusions. Recommendations are also made for the amendment of certain distributive laws, to harmonise them with the Constitution and the Refugees Act. These laws include the Housing Act 107 of 1997, the National Health Act 61 of 2003, the Social Assistance Act 13 of 2004, and related policies and strategies.AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: Die proefskrif handel oor die vraag of en in watter mate vlugtelinge en asielsoekers op sosio-ekonomiese regte en voordele geregtig is. Dit is 'n omstrede vraag, wat bemoeilik word deur die bestaan van verskillende vertakkinge van die reg wat van toepassing is op die behandeling van nie-burgers, in die algemeen, en veral vlugtelinge en asielsoekers. Aan die een kant het Suid-Afrika internasionale vlugtelingeverdrae geratifiseer en hierdie verdrae in sy regstelsel geïnkorporeer deur die Wet op Vlugtelinge 130 van 1998 (soos gewysig) ("Wet op Vlugtelinge"). Hierdie Wet bepaal dat vlugtelinge op alle regte in die Handves van Regte geregtig is, behalwe die regte wat uitdruklik vir burgers gereserveer word. Artikels 26 en 27 van die Grondwet van die Republiek van Suid-Afrika, 1996 bepaal dat "elkeen" die reg het op toegang tot voldoende behuising, en toegang tot gesondheidsorgdienste, voldoende voedsel en water en maatskaplike sekerheid. Dit blyk dat vlugtelinge en asielsoekers geregtig is op die sosio-ekonomiese regte wat in die Grondwet vervat is. Die Wet op Vlugtelinge, gelees deur die lens van hierdie grondwetlike bepalings, dui op Suid-Afrika se voorneme om effektiewe beskerming aan vlugtelinge en asielsoekers te bied, om te reageer op hul lyding en om hul selfstandigheid, deelname en agentskap te herstel. Dit doen dit onder meer deur hulle die reg te gee om toegang te verkry tot gesubsidieerde sosio-ekonomiese goedere en dienste. Aan die ander kant word vlugtelinge en asielsoekers in die praktyk uitgesluit van sekere sosio-ekonomiese regte. Hierdie uitsluiting kom voort uit 'n aantal faktore. Eerstens word hulle ingevolge die Immigrasiewet 13 van 2002 as tydelike inwoners beskou. Om hierdie rede word die dubbele beginsels van selfversorgendheid en eksklusiwiteit dikwels op hulle toegepas. Ingevolge hierdie beginsels word nieburgers gewoonlik in Suid-Afrika toegelaat op voorwaarde dat hulle selfonderhoudend en selfstandig is. Daarbenewens is hulle uitgesluit van toegang tot sosio-ekonomiese programme wat ontwerp is om burgers wat kwesbaar vir armoede is, te ondersteun. Tweedens beperk wetgewing wat sosio-ekonomiese regte en voordele toeken, dikwels daardie regte tot burgers en permanente inwoners. Die wetgewing is dus nie in lyn met die Wet op Vlugtelinge nie. In die derde plek maak die Konvensie oor die Status van Vlugtelinge, 1951 ("die Geneefse Vlugtelinge Konvensie") in sekere opsigte voorsiening vir dieselfde behandeling van vlugtelinge as die behandeling wat aan nie-burgers wat in dieselfde omstandighede as vlugtelinge verkeer, of aan nie-burgers in die algemeen, verleen word. Vierdens vereis die OAE Konvensie oor die Spesifieke Aspekte van Vlugtelingeprobleme in Afrika, 1969 ("die Afrika Vlugtelingekonvensie"), dat 'n gasheerstaat die ellende en lyding van vlugtelinge verlig, asook aan hulle geleenthede bied om 'n beter lewe en toekoms te bewerkstellig. Die proefskrif kritiseer die idee dat vlugtelinge en asielsoekers op sosioekonomiese regte geregtig is op grond van die standaard van dieselfde behandeling wat aan nie-burgers verleen word. Hierdie standaard is problematies, want daar is geen ander groep nie-burgers wie se omstandighede ooreenstem met dié van vlugtelinge en asielsoekers nie. Daarbenewens verleen dié standaard legitimiteit aan die toepassing van die dubbele beginsels van eksklusiwiteit en selfversorging, soos beoog in die Immigrasiewet, op vlugtelinge en asielsoekers. Die proefskrif kritiseer die uitsluitingsbenadering op grond van opkomende teorieë, norme, standaarde en praktyke, wat voortspruit uit die internasionale reg ten aansien van vlugtelinge, menseregteverdrae, staatsreg, munisipale reg ten aansien van vlugtelinge, buitelandse reg en volkeregtelike beginsels. Dit ondersoek die kwesbaarheid van vlugtelinge, en argumenteer dat die regte wat uit vlugtelingstatus voortspruit, spesiale en gedifferensieerde behandeling vereis, met ander woorde behandeling wat verskil van dié wat aan nie-burgers in die algemeen verleen word. Die Wet op Vlugtelinge is spesifiek aangeneem om vlugtelinge en asielsoekers vry te stel van die klem wat in immigrasiewetgewing op uitsluiting en selfstandigheid geplaas word, en om hulle spesiale, gunstige of gedifferensieerde behandeling te bied om die beskerming van hul welsyn, gesondheid en waardigheid te verseker. Om hierdie rede moet vlugtelinge-beginsels prioriteit kry bo immigrasie-beginsels. Die proefskrif ondersoek vlugtelinge en asielsoekers se aanspraak op sosioekonomiese regte deur die prisma van die grondwetlike regte en waardes van menswaardigheid en gelykheid, en met verwysing na die standaarde vir dieselfde behandeling en gunstige behandeling, soos gebruik in die Vlugtelinge Konvensie. Dit argumenteer in die eerste plek dat die reg en waarde van menswaardigheid vereis dat alle mense in staat moet wees om hul lewens te leef ooreenkomstig die doelwitte wat hulle vryelik verkies het, of as outonome agente wat die vermoë het om hul eie lot te definieer. Niemand moet verminder word tot 'n blote voorwerp van staatsmag, of gelaat word sonder die nodige hulpbronne om redelike keuses te maak of om in hul eie behoeftes te voorsien nie. Gegewe die unieke posisie en kwesbaarheid van vlugtelinge en asielsoekers, is die staat onder beide 'n negatiewe verpligting om hom te weerhou van optrede wat met die uitoefening van hul regte inmeng, en 'n positiewe verpligting om omstandighede te skep waarin hulle kan deelneem aan ekonomiese en sosiale lewe. Tweedens steun die proefskrif op die onderskeid tussen formele en substantiewe gelykheid, en argumenteer dat die regte van vlugtelinge en asielsoekers deur die prisma van substantiewe gelykheid gelees moet word. Dit kan help om 'n benadering daar te stel wat hul kwesbaarheid erken, en hulle gedifferensieerde en gunstige behandeling bied. Die proefskrif fokus op drie regte: die reg op toegang tot openbare verligting en hulp, gesondheidsorg en voldoende behuising. 'n Gedetailleerde analise word gebied oor die mate waarin vlugtelinge en asielsoekers hierdie regte kry, of uitgesluit word van hul beskerming. Die nasionale wette wat hierdie regte verleen en reguleer, word ondersoek in die lig van die reg insake vlugtelinge, internasionale menseregte, die Suid-Afrikaanse Grondwet en buitelandse reg. In soverre hierdie wette vlugtelinge en asielsoekers uitsluit van sosio-ekonomiese regte en voordele, ontleed die proefskrif die grondwetlikheid van hierdie uitsluitings. Aanbevelings word ook gemaak vir die wysiging van sekere wette wat met die verdeling van hulpbronne te doen het, om hulle te harmoniseer met die Grondwet en die Wet op Vlugtelinge. Hierdie wette sluit in die Wet op Behuising 107 van 1997, die Wet op Nasionale Gesondheid 61 van 2003, die Wet op Maatskaplike Bystand 13 van 2004, en verwante beleid en strategieë

Refugees and asylum seekers : barriers to accessing South Africa’s labour market

CITATION: Kavuro, C. 2015. Refugees and asylum seekers : barriers to accessing South Africa’s labour market. Law, Democracy and Development , 29: 232-260, doi:10.4314/ldd.v19i1.1.The original publication is available at http://www.ldd.org.zaPublication of this article was funded by the Stellenbosch University Open Access Fund.This article demonstrates that the employment of those who are seeking or granted asylum in South Africa is very challenging. The challenges range from ill-sentiment towards non-citizens to legal and procedural barriers, such as, measures that are taken by different role players to protect citizens with regards to accessing the labour market.http://www.ldd.org.za/by-type/refereed-articles/175-articles-vol-19/450-refugees-and-asylum-seekers-barriers-to-accessing-south-africa-s-labour-market-pg-232.htmlPublisher's versio

Penal rehabilitation in the jurisprudence of the international criminal tribunal of Rwanda: pardon and commutation of sentence

This paper seeks to critique the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda’s (ICTR) application of sentencing theory that justifies retribution and general deterrence as a means of contributing to the Rwandan reconciliation processes. Moral justification based on desert is founded on the notion of inflicting pain on the perpetrators so as to condemn and express social disapproval for heinous crimes in the strongest terms while deterrent moral justification is about deterring others from committing similar crimes. The purpose of this article is to illustrate that the application of these theories results in the violation of the right to rehabilitation and pardon, on one hand, and has a negative impact on reconciliation, on the other, and that, in order to avoid this, punishments should comprise of rehabilitative theories so as to transform detainees thereby making them conform. This includes pardoning certain detainees