Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorKawadza, Herbert
dc.date.accessioned2018-07-16T14:27:13Z
dc.date.available2018-07-16T14:27:13Z
dc.date.issued2018
dc.identifier.citationKawadza, H. 2018. Attacks on the judiciary: undercurrents of a political versus legal constitutionalism dilemma? Potchefstroomse elektroniese regsblad = Potchefstroom electronic law journal, 2018(21)1-23. [https://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a1696]
dc.identifier.issn1727-3781
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10394/28482
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a1696
dc.description.abstractA number of landmark judicial review decisions and the resultant political backlash are arguably to supportive of the claim that political and legal constitutionalism are entrenched in South Africa. The common thread in the legislature and executive's reaction to judicial review decisions is that government supremacy is under threat from legal constitutionalism. More specifically, there is a perception that courts are meddling in the political space through judgments that are aimed at weakening the government's authority and power. Nonetheless, such decisions have had an effect of reinforcing the judiciary's legal constitutional role of reviewing the lawfulness of the other branches' activities. There is need for strategies to minimize this tension as the continued antagonism can have unintended consequences such as the delegitimisation of the judiciary.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherPER /PELJen_US
dc.subjectJudicialisationen_US
dc.subjectpolitical constitutionalismen_US
dc.subjectlegal constitutionalismen_US
dc.subjectjudiciaryen_US
dc.subjectexecutiveen_US
dc.subjectconstitutionen_US
dc.subjectgovernmenten_US
dc.subjectpoliticisationen_US
dc.titleAttacks on the judiciary: undercurrents of a political versus legal constitutionalism dilemma?en_US
dc.typeOtheren_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record