The Current Debate on the Reversal of the Onus of Proof When Enforcing Restraint-of-Trade Agreements: Much Ado About Nothing?
Ever since South Africa became a constitutional state in 1994, a recurrent debate has been conducted in the jurisprudence and academic writing on whether the onus of proof with regard to the reasonableness of a restraint of trade should be shifted back to the party who wishes to enforce the restraint. This debate has been prompted by the express protection of the principle of freedom of trade as a constitutional value and has to a large extent been reduced to a straight shoot-out between the two public interests. This reduction is a continuation of the pre-1994 jurisprudence. This debate is examined critically.
'Oh, what a tangled web we weave ...' hegemony, freedom of contract, good faith and transformation - towards a politics of friendship in the politics of contract
The article is an historical excavation of the hegemonic ordering in the South African law of contract in which freedom of contract remains the privileged fundamental value at the expense of good faith. The article argues for an increased role for good faith in the South African law of contract as a matter of constitutional congruence.
The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice ten years on: Successes and future challenges under the Stockholm Programme. CEPS Paperbacks. June 2010
This book celebrates the tenth anniversary of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) by bringing together the views of key practitioners and policy-makers who have played an outstanding role in thinking about and shaping EU policies on freedom, security and justice. 
 
Ten years ago, the member states transferred competences to the EU for law and policy-making in the fields of immigration, asylum and border controls, and began the transfer process for criminal justice and policing. This decade of European cooperation on AFSJ policies has experienced very dynamic convergence, the enactment of a large body of European law and the setting-up of numerous EU agencies working in these domains. Such dynamism in policy-making has not been without challenges and vulnerabilities, however. As this collective volume shows, the main dilemmas that lie ahead relate to an effective (while more plural) institutional framework under the Treaty of Lisbon, stronger judicial scrutiny through a greater role for national courts and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, better mechanisms for evaluating and monitoring the implementation of EU AFSJ law and a more solid fundamental rights strategy. The contributions in this volume address the progress achieved so far in these policy areas, identify the challenges for future European cooperation in the AFSJ and put forward possible paths for making more progress in the next generation of the EU’s AFSJ.