Quote of the week

As seductive as certain perspectives of international law may appear to those who disagree with the outcome of the interpretative exercise conducted by this Court in the contempt judgment, sight must not be lost of the proper place of international law, especially in respect of an application for rescission. The approach that my Brother adopts may be apposite in the context of an appeal, where a court is enjoined to consider whether the court a quo erred in its interpretation of the law. Although it should be clear by now, I shall repeat it once more: this is not an appeal, for this Court’s orders are not appealable. I am deeply concerned that seeking to rely on articles of the ICCPR as a basis for rescission constitutes nothing more than sophistry.

Khampepe J
Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud in the Public Sector Including Organs of State and Others (CCT 52/21) [2021] ZACC 28 (17 September 2021)
28 March 2007

Now Sweden to get same-sex marriage?

In Sweden, the special commissioner for consideration of the possibility of making marriage available to same-sex couples presented his report to the Minister for Justice 21 March 2007. The report contains proposals for a draft bill amending the Swedish Marriage Code, making it gender neutral. In his report the commissioner also proposes the repeal of the Swedish Registered Partnership Act. Registered partnerships that have not been dissolved at the time of entry into force of the amended Marriage Code would take effect as marriages. Representatives of religious communities would have the legal capacity but not the obligation to perform marriages irrespective of the gender of the future spouses. The amendments are proposed to take legal effect 1 January 2008.
SHARE:     
BACK TO TOP
2015 Constitutionally Speaking | website created by Idea in a Forest