Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 99Legal Issues in South AfricaComparative constitutional jurisprudence studiesJudicial and Constitutional Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Transformative Constitutionalism and the Common and Customary Law

Open access
Davis, Dennis M, Klare, Karl·2010·South African Journal on Human Rights

Abstract

A basic assumption of the Constitution, which finds expression in its ‘development clauses’ (ss 8(3) & 39(2)), is that South Africa cannot progress toward a society based on human dignity, equality, and freedom with a legal system that rigs a transformative constitutional superstructure onto a common and customary law base inherited from the past and indelibly stained by apartheid. We examine South African judges’ performance in implementing the development clauses through the lens of legal culture. A central concern is the potential of traditional South African legal culture to constrain the transformative project. South Africa has an advanced Constitution informed by the values of social interdependence and ubuntu, but its jurists continue to deploy traditional methods of legal analysis. Ironically, the United States has a classical liberal and individualist charter, but the Legal Realist tradition bequeathed American lawyers a storehouse of modernist legal methods well suited to South Africa’s transformative project. Surveying the cases over the first 15 years of the new dispensation, we find some leading judgments that demonstrate the capability of the courts to transform the common law and that provide glimpses of a more egalitarian, inclusive, and caring legal infrastructure. The chief disappointments are the absence thus far of a coherent exploration of the Constitution’s values or an explicit and sustained effort to develop new legal methodologies appropriate to transformative constitutionalism; the reluctance to interrogate the distributive consequences of private law rules in the routines of economic life; the emergence of a neo-liberal strand in constitutional application; and the lack of critical sharpness with respect to separation-ofpowers vissues. The inhibiting effect of mainstream legal culture is not entirely responsible for these difficulties, but concerns expressed a decade ago that the courts would be held back by the traditionalism of South African legal culture were well taken.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/19962126.2010.11864997

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Davis, D. M., & Klare, K.
Affiliations
  • University of Cape Town (ZA)
  • Northeastern University (US)
Venue
South African Journal on Human Rights
Published
2010-01
Volume
26
Issue
3
Pages
403-509
ISSN
  • 0258-7203 (ISSN-L)
  • 1996-2126
OpenAlex
W1795398978
Cited by
99
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
17.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • South African Journal on Human Rights (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository Service (Northeastern University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Law › Legal Issues in South Africa
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Comparative constitutional jurisprudence studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
Keywords
transformative constitutionalism, common law, customary law, South African Constitution, legal culture, Ubuntu, legal realism, judicial interpretation, separation of powers, neoliberalism

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.