State Responsibility and the Question of Expropriation: A Preliminary to the “Land Expropriation without Compensation” Policy in South Africa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Expropriation is a right granted to States under international law; however this right does not guarantee States to abuse their power to unlawfully seize properties without following due process or paying the right compensation. In August 2018, the president of South Africa proposed a bill that would allow the government to expropriate land without compensation and this bill has attracted the attention of both scholars of international law and foreign investors. With a qualitative approach and a cross sectional analysis of data, this article seeks to analyze the nature of this bill to determine whether it infringes on the principles and practice of international law, as well as the likely consequences that the bill could have on the global image of South Africa and foreign direct investment in the country. The research approach allowed the authors to analyze important literature while making inferences to cases of expropriation in different parts of the world and juxtaposing them with South Africa’s intended policy. The article concludes that one of the main critical issues for determining the lawful nature of expropriation is that it should be accompanied by an appropriate, adequate, effective, and prompt compensation, and as such not only does this bill constitute to a breach of international law but it will also damage the economy by scaring foreign investors away. In addition, the State would be compelled to spend millions of the already limited resources of the country in defending itself against international lawsuits that will be filed by affected individuals. It is thus suggested that a much better approach for land reform should be adopted by the government in its quest for development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".