Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
In this paper, I examine the social rights jurisprudence of Brazil and South Africa, two jurisdictions that have adopted markedly different approaches to their interpretation. In doing so, I advance three arguments relating to the study of social rights adjudication and the effects of the resulting...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6809735 |
| Source: | Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 5, Nº. 3, 2018 (Ejemplar dedicado a: setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"), pags. 149-183 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags: Be the first to tag this record
|
| id |
dialnet-ar-18-ART0001313064
|
|---|---|
| record_format |
dialnet
|
| institution |
Dialnet
|
| collection |
Dialnet AR
|
| source |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 5, Nº. 3, 2018 (Ejemplar dedicado a: setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"), pags. 149-183
|
| language |
English
|
| topic |
Social rights
Brazil South Africa jurisprudence comparative constitutionalism Direitos sociais Brasil África do Sul jurisprudência constitucionalismo comparado |
| spellingShingle |
Social rights
Brazil South Africa jurisprudence comparative constitutionalism Direitos sociais Brasil África do Sul jurisprudência constitucionalismo comparado Rosevear, Evan Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa |
| description |
In this paper, I examine the social rights jurisprudence of Brazil and South Africa, two jurisdictions that have adopted markedly different approaches to their interpretation. In doing so, I advance three arguments relating to the study of social rights adjudication and the effects of the resulting jurisprudence. First, understanding the development of social rights jurisprudence requires understanding the pre-existing set of judicial norms that define the role of the judges and acceptable mode(s) of legal reasoning. Second, variations in institutional design and understandings of precedent means that one cannot assume that the decisions of the apex court will be universally or quickly incorporated into the decision of the lower courts. As such, it may be necessary to look beyond apex court decisions to get an accurate picture of patterns of social rights jurisprudence in a given jurisdiction. Third, both of the dominant approaches have the potential to institgate significant policy change, but they also encourage different type of litigation and different litigants. This, in turn affects the approach taken to addressing the policy areas and does not necessarily lead to the prioritization of areas where the investment of state resources will yield the greatest returns or be the most socially just.
|
| format |
Article
|
| author |
Rosevear, Evan
|
| author_facet |
Rosevear, Evan
|
| author_sort |
Rosevear, Evan
|
| title |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
|
| title_short |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
|
| title_full |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
|
| title_fullStr |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
|
| title_sort |
social rights interpretation in brazil and south africa
|
| publishDate |
2018
|
| url |
https://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6809735
|
| _version_ |
1709749339284307968
|
| spelling |
dialnet-ar-18-ART00013130642019-02-20Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South AfricaRosevear, EvanSocial rightsBrazilSouth Africajurisprudencecomparative constitutionalismDireitos sociaisBrasilÁfrica do Suljurisprudênciaconstitucionalismo comparadoIn this paper, I examine the social rights jurisprudence of Brazil and South Africa, two jurisdictions that have adopted markedly different approaches to their interpretation. In doing so, I advance three arguments relating to the study of social rights adjudication and the effects of the resulting jurisprudence. First, understanding the development of social rights jurisprudence requires understanding the pre-existing set of judicial norms that define the role of the judges and acceptable mode(s) of legal reasoning. Second, variations in institutional design and understandings of precedent means that one cannot assume that the decisions of the apex court will be universally or quickly incorporated into the decision of the lower courts. As such, it may be necessary to look beyond apex court decisions to get an accurate picture of patterns of social rights jurisprudence in a given jurisdiction. Third, both of the dominant approaches have the potential to institgate significant policy change, but they also encourage different type of litigation and different litigants. This, in turn affects the approach taken to addressing the policy areas and does not necessarily lead to the prioritization of areas where the investment of state resources will yield the greatest returns or be the most socially just.Neste artigo, examino a jurisprudência de direitos sociais do Brasil e da África do Sul, duas jurisdições que adotaram abordagens marcadamente diferentes para sua interpretação. Ao fazê-lo, adianto três argumentos relacionados ao estudo da judicialização dos direitos sociais e aos efeitos da jurisprudência resultante. Em primeiro lugar, entender o desenvolvimento da jurisprudência dos direitos sociais exige compreender o conjunto pré-existente de normas judiciais que definem o papel dos juízes e o(s) modo(s) aceitável(is) de raciocínio jurídico. Em segundo lugar, as variações no desenho institucional e nos entendimentos de precedente significam que não se pode presumir que as decisões do tribunal superior serão universal ou rapidamente incorporadas às decisões dos tribunais inferiores. Como tal, pode ser necessário olhar além das decisões judiciais ágeis para obter uma imagem precisa dos padrões da jurisprudência de direitos sociais em uma determinada jurisdição. Terceiro, ambas as abordagens dominantes têm o potencial de afetar mudanças políticas significativas, mas também encorajam diferentes tipos de litígios e litigantes diferentes. Isso, por sua vez, afeta a abordagem adotada para tratar das áreas de política e não leva necessariamente à priorização daquelas nas quais o investimento de recursos estatais produzirá os maiores retornos ou será o mais socialmente justo.2018text (article)application/pdfhttps://dialnet.unirioja.es/servlet/oaiart?codigo=6809735(Revista) ISSN 2359-5639Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, ISSN 2359-5639, Vol. 5, Nº. 3, 2018 (Ejemplar dedicado a: setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"), pags. 149-183engLICENCIA DE USO: Los documentos a texto completo incluidos en Dialnet son de acceso libre y propiedad de sus autores y/o editores. Por tanto, cualquier acto de reproducción, distribución, comunicación pública y/o transformación total o parcial requiere el consentimiento expreso y escrito de aquéllos. Cualquier enlace al texto completo de estos documentos deberá hacerse a través de la URL oficial de éstos en Dialnet. Más información: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI | INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS STATEMENT: Full text documents hosted by Dialnet are protected by copyright and/or related rights. This digital object is accessible without charge, but its use is subject to the licensing conditions set by its authors or editors. Unless expressly stated otherwise in the licensing conditions, you are free to linking, browsing, printing and making a copy for your own personal purposes. All other acts of reproduction and communication to the public are subject to the licensing conditions expressed by editors and authors and require consent from them. Any link to this document should be made using its official URL in Dialnet. More info: https://dialnet.unirioja.es/info/derechosOAI
|