The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Transformative Constitutionalism and the Common and Customary Law
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“Fifth is a contextual approach to the realisation of rights, which considers poverty and inequality, and its real-life effect (Davis and Klare 2010, 494-496).”
From The Coloniality and Evolution of African Customary Law (2025) · cites this paper as Davis and Klare 2010, 494-496
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
The Coloniality and Evolution of African Customary Law
Gayoye, M. (2025) · Oñati Socio-Legal Series · doi:10.35295/osls.iisl.1976 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Davis, D. M., & Klare, K.
- Affiliations
- University of Cape Town (ZA)
- Northeastern University (US)
- ORCID
- Davis, Dennis M
- Venue
- South African Journal on Human Rights
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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
- green
- papers.ssrn.com
- 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.