The judicial regulation of state commercial activity

[摘要] ENGLISH ABSTRACT: The state participates in the market place in a large number of ways, spending millions annually. It buys and sells goods and services; it employs a massive workforce; it acquires, develops and disposes of land; it engages in all kinds of financial transactions; it sets up companies, holds shares and enters into partnerships. Yet, the legal treatment of the state as commercial player remains an enigma. In South African law there is no shortage of legal rules that apply or can potentially apply to state commercial activity, but there is nevertheless no coherent view of the conceptualisation of state commercial activity and as a result no clarity on how such conduct should be legally regulated. A voluminous, but extremely fragmented collection of statutory mechanisms aims to regulate a large variety of matters connected to state commercial activity. The courts have shown an almost schizophrenic attitude towards the application of the common law to these state actions, alternating between opting to apply general contract law and general administrative law rules.Constitutional transformation in South Africa necessitates a critical reevaluation of the legal approach to the regulation of state commercial activity. This necessity flows from a number of factors that converge in the judicial regulation of state commercial activity. These factors include a shift in the nature and function of the state, including the judiciary under the new constitutional dispensation; the use of commercial conduct to advance important transformation goals; the proper relationship between courts in protecting fundamental societal values captured in the Constitution and the executive as the key driver of social change; and the role of law in this changing environment. An analysis of the judicial regulation of state commercial activity creates an opportunity to probe basic questions about legal methodology, particularly in a transformative context such as South Africa. A central theme in this reassessment is the role of dichotomous reasoning in legal methodology, based on sharp distinctions between monolithic concepts such as public/private, state/private enterprise, rule/standard, contract/administrative action, delict/contract that no longer seem to adequately relate to experience in the real world.An analysis of South African case law on state commercial activity reveals the underlying judicial premise that all such state action can be classified as either administrative or contractual in nature. Once this conceptual classification is done the rules that apply follow automatically.State commercial activity is consequently subjected to either administrative law or private law rules in a manner that denies or obfuscates the choice on the part of the individual judge. The criteria used to classify the nature of the action under the classification approach have varied over time. The most prominent criteria are the source of the power exercised and the presence of superior power, with the courts currently alternating between these two.However, these criteria cannot be formulated with certainty and they do not provide consistent guidelines. While the criteria identify important aspects of state commercial activity that merit increased judicial control, the relationships between the criteria and the ensuing substantive regulation and particularlythe relationships between them remain nebulous.Ultimately, the classification approach is characterised by excessive conceptualism and formalism. The reality that judges choose what regulation to apply to particular instances of state commercial activity is hidden. The application of specific substantive rules is made to seem natural, inevitable and selfevident. This closes off dialogue about that choice.Two alternatives to the classification methodology exist in South African law, namely an exclusively private law approach and a comprehensive public law approach. The exclusively private law approach highlights the commercial nature of the state action to the effect that state contracting is treated on par with all other forms of (private) commercial activity. However, it is questionable whether private law regulation can adequately address the regulatory concerns specific to the public context of state conduct. An analysis of this alternative approach identifies promising private law doctrines that can inspire such regulation, but significant further development is required before the desired level of regulation will be feasible on private law grounds. The comprehensive public law approach insists on the consistent application of public law rules to all state conduct, irrespective of the commercial nature of that conduct. Although this option may seem highly desirable, especially because it ensures public scrutiny of all state conduct, it is not ideal either. Particularly problematic is the high cost of such regulation and resultant inefficiency that may not be realistic given the current demands on South African public administration.The German and French legal systems provide examples of a third alternative approach in the form of distinct legal figures that exist between contract and administrative law. Recognition of such a distinct figure provides the prospect of developing a separate set of regulation tailored to the specific needs of that figure. A separate branch of government contract or government commercial law can thus be created. In South African law it may be possible to stimulate such development by recognising state contracts as a separate class of contract. However, it is doubtful whether the development of a third regulatory category will encourage the integration of public and private law rules to overcome the conceptualism of the current approach; it could also reinforce conceptualism by adding a third conceptual category. The most promising alternative methodology is premised on a more complex view of the interacting factors that inform judicial regulation and, by extension, legal treatment of state commercial activity. Such an approach perceives the distinctions between the various relevant concepts and factors not as sharp dichotomies, but as continuous and fluid relationships. It recognises that the legal treatment of a specific instance of state commercial activity is a function of the relationship between the various concepts and factors. Such an approach calls for more open and direct engagement with all the factors informing the regulation of state commercial activity. Ultimately, it requires individual judges to take responsibility for the choices they make in their involvement in state commercial activity by means of the regulatory control they exercise. It accordingly fosters dialogue and public debate about the role of law in social phenomena such as state commercial activity. This approach is in line with a culture of justification and transformative constitutionalism that ground the democratic enterprise in South Africa.

[发布机构] Stellenbosch University