Abstract
Abel's account of the struggle against apartheid focuses on the double role of law in it - law as the sword of the oppressor and law as the shield for the oppressed. Similarly, in White Man's Justice: South African Political Trials in the Black Consciousness Era, Michael Lobban offers an account of the role law played in judicial characterisations of resistance to apartheid when the resisters had been brought to court charged with various crimes against the state. I argue that Lobban's conclusions are not supported by his own evidence and that Abel presents a convincing, though mostly implicit, case for challenging the separation thesis. I conclude with some remarks about the implications of these two studies for the general jurisprudential debate about the relationship between law and politics.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
