Symposium 1: Constitutional Courts as Hedges against Democratic Authoritarianism
1. Lead Essay: Samuel Issacharoff: (New York University): The Democratic Risk to Democratic Transitions 1
2. Reply: Theunis Roux (University of New South Wales): The South African Constitutional Court’s
Democratic Rights Jurisprudence
3. Reply: Martin Krygier (University of New South Wales): What About the Rule of Law? 74
4. Dikgang Moseneke (Deputy Chief Justice, Constitutional Court): Courage of Principle 91
5. Anton Fagan (University of Cape Town): Causation in the Constitutional Court: Lee v Minister of Correctional Services 104
6. Stu Woolman (University of the Witwatersrand) & Brahm Fleisch (University of the Witwatersrand): The Problem of the ‘Other’ Language 135
Symposium 2: Socio-Economic Rights: Competing Models of Constitutional Review
7. Lead Essay: Brian Ray (Cleveland Marshall College of Law): Evictions, Aspirations and Avoidance 173
8. Reply: Katharine Young (Boston College): The Avoidance of Substance in Constitutional Rights 223
9. Reply: David Landau (Florida State University): Aggressive Weak-Form Remedies 244
10. Reply: Jackie Dugard (University of the Witwatersrand): Beyond Blue Moonlight: The Implications of Judicial Avoidance in Relation to the Provision of Alternative Housing 265
11. Reply: Stuart Wilson (Socio-Economic Rights Institute): Curing the Poor: State Housing Policy in
Johannesburg after Blue Moonlight
12. Reply: David Bilchitz (University of Johannesburg): Avoidance Remains Avoidance: Is It Desirable in
Socio-Economic Rights Cases?
Comments and Replies
13. Comment: James Fowkes (Yale University): Managerial Adjudication, Constitutional Civil Procedure and Maphango v Aengus Lifestyle Properties 309
14. Reply: Michael Dafel (South African Institute for Advanced Constitutional, Public, Human Rights and
International Law): On the Flexible Procedure of Housing Eviction Applications
15. Comment: Mia Swart (University of Johannesburg) & Thomas Coggin (University of the Witwatersrand):
The Road Not Taken: Separation of Powers, Interim Interdicts, Rationality Review and
E-Tolling in National Treasury v Opposition to Urban Tolling
16. Reply: Ngwako Raboshakga (Edward Nathan Sonnenbergs): The Separation of Powers in Interim
Interdict Applications
Symposium 3: Constitutional Courts as Hedges against Democratic Authoritarianism
17. Vanessa Barolsky (Human Sciences Research Council): Glenister at the Coalface: Are the Police Part of an Effective Independent Security Service? 377
18. Bonita Meyersfeld (University of the Witwatersrand): Domesticating International Standards:The
Direction of International Human Rights Law in South Africa<

19. Franziska Sucker (University of the Witwatersrand): Approval of an International Treaty in Parliament: How Does Section 231(2) ‘Bind the Republic’? 417
20. Juha Tuovinen (European University Institute): What to Do with International Law? 3 Flaws in Glenister 435
21. Comment: Karthy Govender (University of Kwa-Zulu Natal): The Risk of Taking Risky Decisions: Democratic Alliance v President of the Republic of South 451
22. Comment: Okyerebea Ampofo-Anti (Webber Wentzel) & Ben Winks (Webber Wentzel): There and Back Again: The Long Road to Access to Information in M&G Media v President of the Republic of South Africa 466


The Constitutional Court Review is an annual double-blind, peer-reviewed international journal of record that tracks the work of the Constitutional Court of South Africa. For further details, and for opportunities to contribute to this journal, contact Professor Stu Woolman at


Chips all in. If you can find a better single volume on South African constitutional law in any South African law journal, then I will buy you a bottle of your favourite scotch. I’m not playing with house money.

Can you sight a finer constellation of legal theorists than those authors ruminating on the virtues and vices of many, though not all, of the constitutional democracies
that have sprouted up in the last quarter century? Read more