{"id":{"repo_id":"pretoria","oai_identifier":"oai:repository.up.ac.za:2263/5322"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/pretoria/oai:repository.up.ac.za:2263/5322","repository":{"repo_id":"pretoria","name":"University of Pretoria","base_url":"https://repository.up.ac.za/server/oai/request"},"display":{"title":"Judicial activism in South Afica's Constitutional Court : minority protection or judicial illegitimacy?","abstract":"This study examines the effect of judicial protection of minority rights on the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy. The framing of the Marriage Act shows that Parliament intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. By nullifying section 30(1) of the Act and making the order above, the Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate of upholding fundamental human rights. At the same time, it negated the intention of Parliament which represents majoritarian interests. The Constitutional Court is, in contra-distinction with Parliament, unelected. By voiding section 30(1) of the Marriage Act and arousing public opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions, it raised a ‘countermajoritarian difficulty.’ This ‘countermajoritarian difficulty’ has elicited intense scholarly debate.17 The study examines how the Court’s negation of majoritarian interests in order to protect minority rights affects its legitimacy.","abstract_html":"This study examines the effect of judicial protection of minority rights on the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy. The framing of the Marriage Act shows that Parliament intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. By nullifying section 30(1) of the Act and making the order above, the Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate of upholding fundamental human rights. At the same time, it negated the intention of Parliament which represents majoritarian interests. The Constitutional Court is, in contra-distinction with Parliament, unelected. By voiding section 30(1) of the Marriage Act and arousing public opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions, it raised a ‘countermajoritarian difficulty.’ This ‘countermajoritarian difficulty’ has elicited intense scholarly debate.17 The study examines how the Court’s negation of majoritarian interests in order to protect minority rights affects its legitimacy.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":[],"institution":"University of Pretoria","degree_name":null,"degree_level":null,"degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":[],"advisors":["Sylvia, Tamale"],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2007,"date_issued":"2007","date_published":"2007","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:52:26Z","subjects":["UCTD","South African Constitutional Court","Judicial activism","Judicial illegitimacy","South African Marriage Act","Minority rights","Majoritarian interests","Countermajoritarian difficulty"],"languages":["en"],"rights":["Centre for Human Rights, Law Faculty, University of Pretoria"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2263/5322","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier.uri"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Sylvia, Tamale"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.accessioned","label":"Dc Date Accessioned","values":["2008-05-19T06:52:45Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2008-05-19T06:52:45Z"]},{"key":"dc:date.issued","label":"Date","values":["2007"]},{"key":"dc:publisher","label":"Institution","values":["University of Pretoria"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["Mini Dissertation"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["UCTD","South African Constitutional Court","Judicial activism","Judicial illegitimacy","South African Marriage Act","Minority rights","Majoritarian interests","Countermajoritarian difficulty"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language.iso","label":"Language (ISO)","values":["en"]},{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["Centre for Human Rights, Law Faculty, University of Pretoria"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier.uri","label":"Identifier URI","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2263/5322"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007.","A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Associate Prof. Tamale Sylvia of the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda"]},{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This study examines the effect of judicial protection of minority rights on the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy. The framing of the Marriage Act shows that Parliament intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. By nullifying section 30(1) of the Act and making the order above, the Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate of upholding fundamental human rights. At the same time, it negated the intention of Parliament which represents majoritarian interests. The Constitutional Court is, in contra-distinction with Parliament, unelected. By voiding section 30(1) of the Marriage Act and arousing public opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions, it raised a ‘countermajoritarian difficulty.’ This ‘countermajoritarian difficulty’ has elicited intense scholarly debate.17 The study examines how the Court’s negation of majoritarian interests in order to protect minority rights affects its legitimacy."]},{"key":"dc:description.degree","label":"Dc Description Degree","values":["LLM"]},{"key":"dc:format.mimetype","label":"Dc Format Mimetype","values":["application/pdf"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Judicial activism in South Afica's Constitutional Court : minority protection or judicial illegitimacy?"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor.advisor":["Sylvia, Tamale"],"dc:date.accessioned":["2008-05-19T06:52:45Z"],"dc:date.available":["2008-05-19T06:52:45Z"],"dc:date.issued":["2007"],"dc:description":["Thesis (LLM (Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa)) -- University of Pretoria, 2007.","A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Law University of Pretoria, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree Masters of Law (LLM in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa). Prepared under the supervision of Associate Prof. Tamale Sylvia of the Faculty of Law, Makerere University, Kampala, Uganda"],"dc:description.abstract":["This study examines the effect of judicial protection of minority rights on the Constitutional Court’s legitimacy. The framing of the Marriage Act shows that Parliament intended marriage to be between a man and a woman. By nullifying section 30(1) of the Act and making the order above, the Court fulfilled its constitutional mandate of upholding fundamental human rights. At the same time, it negated the intention of Parliament which represents majoritarian interests. The Constitutional Court is, in contra-distinction with Parliament, unelected. By voiding section 30(1) of the Marriage Act and arousing public opposition to legal recognition of same-sex unions, it raised a ‘countermajoritarian difficulty.’ This ‘countermajoritarian difficulty’ has elicited intense scholarly debate.17 The study examines how the Court’s negation of majoritarian interests in order to protect minority rights affects its legitimacy."],"dc:description.degree":["LLM"],"dc:format.mimetype":["application/pdf"],"dc:identifier.uri":["http://hdl.handle.net/2263/5322"],"dc:language.iso":["en"],"dc:publisher":["University of Pretoria"],"dc:rights":["Centre for Human Rights, Law Faculty, University of Pretoria"],"dc:subject":["UCTD","South African Constitutional Court","Judicial activism","Judicial illegitimacy","South African Marriage Act","Minority rights","Majoritarian interests","Countermajoritarian difficulty"],"dc:title":["Judicial activism in South Afica's Constitutional Court : minority protection or judicial illegitimacy?"],"dc:type":["Mini Dissertation"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:52:26Z"}