Separation of powers in the South African context: Is there space for the political question doctrine?
Loading...
Date
2019
Authors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
In a constitutional democracy the courts are usually given the power of judicial review. This
power allows the courts to review legislative and executive conduct and test it against the
constitution. If the conduct in question is found to be unconstitutional, then the courts can
declare that conduct to be invalid. However, this power gives rise to some difficult questions
and one of these is how can the courts exercises their powers without overreaching and thereby
infringe the separation of powers principle. The courts have tried not to overreach their powers
by adopting different approaches to judicial review. In the United States the courts have
adopted a political question doctrine approach or the non-justiciable approach. In South Africa
the courts have adopted the judicial self-restraint approach. Each of these will be discussed in
this dissertation. The dissertation will also consider the advantages and disadvantages of each
of these reviews. Furthermore, it will consider some of the criticism that have been levelled
against the judicial self-restraint approach. This dissertation aims to critically examine the
political question doctrine and determine whether it could contribute to the development of the
South African separation of powers. However, this dissertation does not call for the political
question doctrine to replace the judicial self-restraint approach adopted by the Constitutional
Court.
Description
Masters Degree. University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban.