The ‘Thing’ Called ‘Mineral Right’ Re-examining the nature, content and scope of a rather confounding concept in South African law

Hanri Mostert

doi:10.5771/2363-6270_2014_1_28

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- 1–2 Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1–2
- 3–5 Vorwort 3–5
- 6–86 Abhandlungen • Articles • Articles 6–86
  - 6–27 L’Etat de droit et la démocratie en Afrique – Le « jurisfascismepositiviste » en question Adalbert Sango Mukalay Adalbert Sango Mukalay 6–27
  - 28–51 The ‘Thing’ Called ‘Mineral Right’ Re-examining the nature, content and scope of a rather confounding concept in South African law Hanri Mostert Hanri Mostert 28–51
  - 52–63 Combatting Insider Trading in Tanzania: The Adequacy of the Capital Markets and Securities Act of 1994 and the Companies Act of 2002 Hanifa T. Massawe, Mwajuma Kadilu Hanifa T. Massawe, Mwajuma Kadilu 52–63
  - 64–86 Les évolutions récentes du droit public économique sénégalais Ibrahima Diallo Ibrahima Diallo 64–86
- 87–116 Berichte • Reports • Rapports 87–116
  - 87–97 “They do something!” Verfassungsgerichtsbarkeit und Demokratisierung im frankophonen Westafrika Lisa Heemann, Chadidscha Schoepffer, Anne Winter Lisa Heemann, Chadidscha Schoepffer, Anne Winter 87–97
  - 98–109 Das Tansanisch-deutsche Fachzentrum für Rechtswissenschaft (TGCL): Ausbildung künftiger Führungseliten für das östliche Afrika Johannes Döveling Johannes Döveling 98–109
  - 110–112 Neues Fundament für die Partnerschaft zwischen Baden-Württemberg und Burundi – juristische Fragen Sebastian Ambros Sebastian Ambros 110–112
  - 113–116 Förderung der Justiz in Afrika: Austauschprogramm zwischen Baden-Württemberg und zentralafrikanischen Staaten Harald Sippel Harald Sippel 113–116
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY Access

RiA Recht in Afrika | Law in Africa | Droit en Afrique , page 28 - 51

The ‘Thing’ Called ‘Mineral Right’ Re-examining the nature, content and scope of a rather confounding concept in South African law

Autoren

Hanri Mostert

DOI
- doi.org/10.5771/2363-6270_2014_1_28
- ISSN: 1435-0963
- ISSN online: 2363-6270
Abstract

The nature of a right to minerals is controversial in South Africa. With the recent coming into force of new legislation governing mineral resources, the conventional view is that there has been a drastic shift of control over the country’s mineral wealth from private individuals to the state. However, in this article, the author explains that the conceptualisation of the mineral right in South Africa has always been inconsistent and contested, at least partly due to South Africa being a mixed legal system with conflicting theoretical foundations. With reference to Underkuffler’s theoretical framework of the legitimate regulatory powers of the state over property, the author demonstrates that the orthodox view in South Africa has historically emphasised the powers of private parties over mineral resources and viewed the state’s legitimate regulatory role as limited. However, the author argues, both historically and conceptually it is more accurate to acknowledge that the state has always exercised significant control over mining in South Africa, and the right to minerals has always been a flexible one which has varied across different legislative periods. The article outlines the evolution of the mineral right in South Africa, discusses the conflicting theoretical conceptions of the right (including whether it is servitudal in nature or an independent property right) and critiques the recent judicial treatment of the right by South Africa’s highest courts. The author concludes by suggesting that if the mineral right is understood correctly, the recent legislative changes are actually far less radical than commonly thought.

Zusammenfassung

The nature of a right to minerals is controversial in South Africa. With the recent coming into force of new legislation governing mineral resources, the conventional view is that there has been a drastic shift of control over the country’s mineral wealth from private individuals to the state. However, in this article, the author explains that the conceptualisation of the mineral right in South Africa has always been inconsistent and contested, at least partly due to South Africa being a mixed legal system with conflicting theoretical foundations. With reference to Underkuffler’s theoretical framework of the legitimate regulatory powers of the state over property, the author demonstrates that the orthodox view in South Africa has historically emphasised the powers of private parties over mineral resources and viewed the state’s legitimate regulatory role as limited. However, the author argues, both historically and conceptually it is more accurate to acknowledge that the state has always exercised significant control over mining in South Africa, and the right to minerals has always been a flexible one which has varied across different legislative periods. The article outlines the evolution of the mineral right in South Africa, discusses the conflicting theoretical conceptions of the right (including whether it is servitudal in nature or an independent property right) and critiques the recent judicial treatment of the right by South Africa’s highest courts. The author concludes by suggesting that if the mineral right is understood correctly, the recent legislative changes are actually far less radical than commonly thought.
Share