The study also found that there is usually lack of co-ordination in refugee education, including complex power dynamics which limit the productivity of partnerships amongst service providers and between the states and civil society organisations. These challenges include amongst others the lack of awareness of the right to basic education amongst refugees language barrier accessing basic educational institutions absenteeism of learners shortage of infrastructure negative cultural, religious barriers and ethnic groups’ issues corporal punishment availability of resources teacher-student ratios and shortage of quality teachers and lack of structures including remuneration and training to retain them, to mention but just a few. The study found that there are a number of challenges that act as barriers to the right to basic education for refugee children.
Purposive and snowball sampling methods were used to select the respondents relevant for the purposes of data collection for this research. Additionally, it examines the compliance level of South Africa and Zimbabwe with international and regional human rights standards. Fundamentally, this dissertation identifies and explores the legal mechanisms and policies that have been put in place by the governments of South Africa and Zimbabwe to practically realise the right to basic education for refugee children. Using the Human Rights-Based Approach as a theoretical base this study examines the factors which militate against the best efforts of the stakeholders to make the right to basic education a reality for refugee children. The research is presented through the ‘lived realities’ of the affected refugee children in Musina town and Tongogara Refugee Camp.
It argues that despite the existence of national, regional and global human rights standards that seek to protect, respect and fulfill refugee children’s rights, this vulnerable group of persons in South Africa and Zimbabwe, particularly in Musina town and Tongogara Refugee Camp, are still victims of a wide range of constraints to their socio-economic rights, especially their right to basic education. Judgment: Mogoeng CJ (Moseneke DCJ, Froneman J, Mhlantla AJ, Nkabinde J, Skweyiya J, Van der Westhuizen J and Zondo J except to concurring).This research examines generally the challenges and palliatives to the right to basic education for refugee children. The Court held that the High Court and Supreme Court of Appeal were correct in enforcing the decision of the Tribunal.
Article 32 of the Tribunal Protocol enjoins SADC Member States, including South Africa, to take all execution-facilitating measures, including the development of the common law, necessary to “ensure execution of decisions of the Tribunal.” In the light of section 39 (interpretation of the Bill of Rights), section 1 (the rule of law) and section 34 (the right of access to courts) of the Constitution, courts are obliged to develop the common law to promote access to courts. The Court held that the development of the common law was driven by the need to ensure that lawful judgments are not evaded with impunity by States. Thus, there was a need to develop the common law to pave the way for the enforcement of judgments or orders made in international tribunals. The Court held that the South African common law on the enforcement of foreign civil judgments only provided for the execution of judgments of domestic courts of a foreign state. The main issue was whether South African courts have jurisdiction to register and thus facilitate the enforcement of a costs order made by the Tribunal against a state. Application for leave to appeal against the enforcement of a costs order made by the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Tribunal (Tribunal) against the Republic of Zimbabwe.
0 kommentar(er)
