Law and Mobilization against State Capture

This paper examines an important feature of the night before the “New Dawn” – the phenomenon of state capture in South Africa. It is primarily interested in analyzing the civil society mobilization against such state capture, specifically the legal and organizational aspects. After exploring the phenomenon of state capture, this paper investigates the use of legal mobilization theory to describe and contextualize the organization of South African civil society against state capture, with attention to the more general phenomenon of corruption. Section One covers state capture, drawing on the 2017-2018 work of the academic network, the State Capacity Research Project, to analyze and attempt to give a definition of the term. It is argued here that the term serves to identify a particular political project, one extant during the Zuma administration and drawing a degree of its force from the apparent failure of black economic empowerment. Section Two outlines the civil society mobilization against the state capture project, noting two significant features of such mobilization: that it formed to a significant degree around legal actions and that these actions were undertaken by a second generation of post-apartheid public interest law organizations. Then, Section Three describes two significant and representative instances of such legal mobilization. The first consists of litigation engaged in by a second-generation South African public interest law organization, the Council for the Advancement of the South African Constitution (CASAC), in order to ensure the impartiality of the national prosecuting authority. The second instance of litigation took place from 2009 in the social grants payments sector, aiming at ensuring the provision of social assistance, a socio-economic rights benefiting nearly one-third of the South African population. Section Four uses legal mobilization theory from socio-legal studies to explore in further depth the mobilization of law against corruption in South African society. Here, it is significant to make the distinction between institutional anti-corruption mechanisms and impact litigation on the one hand and collective legal mobilization against state capture on the other. The Conclusion offers some reflections on topics for further research including the place of business in the mobilization against state capture and the emergence of new civil society actors.

SEPARATE ISSUES OF PROVIDING LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN PROTECTING THE PUBLIC INTEREST

Актуальность исследования обусловлена активизацией на международном уровне деятельности, связанной с защитой коллективных и групповых интересов, о чем свидетельствует целый ряд принятых международных актов. Указанное обстоятельство обусловливает необходимость введения соответствующих механизмов в национальную правовую систему. В статье предпринята попытка обратить внимание на особенности предоставления правовой помощи при защите общественного интереса, опираясь на зарубежный опыт. С учетом анализа научной литературы автор делает вывод, что на доктринальном уровне сформировалось два подхода к пониманию правовой категории «право общественного интереса»: широкий и узкий. Также указывается на необходимость решить ряд вопросов практического характера: определить субъектов, уполномоченных на ее предоставление, включая формы подтверждения их полномочий, а также лиц, имеющих право на ее получение и урегулировать особенности несения судебных расходов. The relevance of the study is due to the activation at the international level of activities related to the protection of collective and group interests, as evidenced by a number of adopted international acts. This circumstance necessitates the introduction of appropriate mechanisms into the national legal system. The article attempts to draw attention to the specifics of providing legal assistance in protecting public interest, based on foreign experience. Taking into account the analysis of scientific literature, the author concludes that at the doctrinal level, two approaches to understanding the legal category of «public interest law» have been formed: broad and narrow. It also points to the need to resolve a number of practical issues: to determine the entities authorized to provide it, including the forms of confirmation of their powers, as well as persons entitled to receive it and to settle the peculiarities of incurring legal costs.

“Weirdness in the West”

Unlike the Sagebrush Rebellion, which remained largely regional, the War for the West enjoyed national support through a conservative infrastructure of media, think tanks, public interest law firms, foundations, advocacy organizations, and militias. Frustrations over federal land management were knit into a broader, civil religious story of the American paradise lost, in which the federal government was portrayed as a tyrant bent on trampling the US Constitution, particularly Bill of Rights. The War for the West was led by the mainstream Wise Use Movement, which linked property rights to gun rights and religious freedom, and by the more extreme militia movement, driven by dark conspiracy theories and a profound antagonism toward the federal government. In the Republican Revolution, led by Newt Gingrich, the Republican Party struggled to hold together these mainstream and extreme factions to gain and retain power. This further integrated conservative, Western anger with federal land management into national politics.

Public Interest and EU Competition Law

While European Union (EU) competition law has long been understood as a variety of public interest law, the extent to which the rules can be applied directly to advance noneconomic public interest-oriented goals is more contentious. This contribution considers whether and how such concerns can be accommodated within the framework of Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It considers both the conventional approach to addressing public interest concerns within the analytical structure of the antitrust rules and also how broader public interest objectives have shaped recent EU-level enforcement efforts in three key sectors: the liberalizing public utilities markets, the pharmaceutical sector, and the digital economy.