scholarly journals Book Review of Socio-Economic Rights: Adjudication under a Transformative Constitution by Sandra Liebenberg

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sital Kalantry ◽  
Elizabeth Brundige

The South African Constitution is heralded for the broad protections it affords social and economic rights. In Socio-Economic Rights: Adjudication under a Transformative Constitution, Professor Sandra Liebenberg offers a thoughtful examination of the socioeconomic rights jurisprudence developed by South African courts since the adoption of the country’s current constitution fifteen years ago. In meticulous detail, she describes how the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court and other South African courts has evolved in the area of socioeconomic rights. At the same time, she offers an incisive critique of this jurisprudence, identifying how it has too often been shaped by a narrow and formalistic conception of rights that overlooks their social justice purposes and reinforces deeply unequal social and economic relationships. Finally, Liebenberg offers suggestions for the future development of this jurisprudence in ways that would be more consonant with the transformative purposes of the South African Constitution.Published: Book Review of Socio-Economic Rights: Adjudication under a Transformative Constitution by Sandra Liebenberg, 34 Human Rights Quarterly 579 (2012) (with Elizabeth Brundige).

Author(s):  
D Horsten

The preamble of the Constitution of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) contains the commitment to, amongst other things, establish a society based on democratic values, social justice and fundamental human rights, lay the foundations for a democratic and open society in which government is based on the will of the people and every citizen is equally protected by law and improve the quality of life of all citizens and free the potential of each person.  One of the methods used to achieve these objectives is the inclusion of enforceable socio-economic rights in the Chapter 2 Bill of Rights. Despite numerous debates surrounding the issue of enforceability of socioeconomic rights, it has become evident that these rights are indeed enforceable.  Not only does section 7(2) of the Constitution place the state under an obligation to respect, protect, promote and fulfil all rights in the Bill of Rights, including socio-economic rights, but the Constitutional Court has in various decisions passed judgment on issues relating to socio-economic rights, underpinning the fact that these rights are indeed enforceable. The fact that socio-economic rights have been included in the Bill of Rights and are enforceable is, however, not sufficient to achieve the aims set out in the preamble.  In order for these rights to be of any value to the people they seek to protect, they need to be implemented. One of the ways in which the implementation of these rights is monitored is by means of the South African Human Rights Commission's annual Economic and Social Rights Reports.  The aim of this contribution is to assess these reports and to establish the degree to which they contribute to good governance in South Africa with reference to, inter alia, the constitutional mandate of the South African Human Rights Commission, the reporting procedure and the evaluation of reports.


Author(s):  
Vuso Mhlanga

In this article, I intend to focus on the notion of human agency. I argue that the ideologically laden concept of human agency should constitute an ideological and jurisprudential frame from which socioeconomic rights as enshrined in the Constitution should be construed. I seek to ground my submissions on human agency on theoretical perspectives which challenge the present uneven structures of power in South Africa. This essay draws from a multiplicity of disciplines such as Law, Social Sciences and Development Studies. Such a multipronged disciplinary approach to the notion of human agency furnishes a fresh jurisprudential angle to the manner in which socio-economic rights in the Constitution have been construed. The essay is alive to the March 2018 World Bank Report which sets out in clear detail the inequalities that stifle the agency of the majority of the population in South Africa.11 The essay will reconceptualise the notion of human agency in view of socio-economic rights in the South African Constitution. The philosophical contours which undergird my formulation of the concept of human agency will be discussed. In the end, I will provide some reflections regarding the way forward in an effort to engender agency on many South African citizen.


Author(s):  
N Gabru

Human life, as with all animal and plant life on the planet, is dependant upon fresh water. Water is not only needed to grow food, generate power and run industries, but it is also needed as a basic part of human life. Human dependency upon water is evident through history, which illustrates that human settlements have been closely linked to the availability and supply of fresh water. Access to the limited water resources in South Africa has been historically dominated by those with access to land and economic power, as a result of which the majority of South Africans have struggled to secure the right to water. Apartheid era legislation governing water did not discriminate directly on the grounds of race, but the racial imbalance in ownership of land resulted in the disproportionate denial to black people of the right to water. Beyond racial categorisations, the rural and poor urban populations were traditionally especially vulnerable in terms of the access to the right.  The enactment of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, brought the South African legal system into a new era, by including a bill of fundamental human rights (Bill of Rights). The Bill of Rights makes provision for limited socio-economic rights. Besides making provision for these human rights, the Constitution also makes provision for the establishment of state institutions supporting constitutional democracy.  The Constitution has been in operation since May 1996. At this stage, it is important to take stock and measure the success of the implementation of these socio-economic rights. This assessment is important in more ways than one, especially in the light of the fact that many lawyers argued strongly against 1/2the inclusion of the second and third generation of human rights in a Bill of Rights. The argument was that these rights are not enforceable in a court of law and that they would create unnecessary expectations of food, shelter, health, water and the like; and that a clear distinction should be made between first generation and other rights, as well as the relationship of these rights to one another. It should be noted that there are many lawyers and non-lawyers who maintained that in order to confront poverty, brought about by the legacy of apartheid, the socio-economic rights should be included in a Bill of Rights. The inclusion of section 27 of the 1996 Constitution has granted each South African the right to have access to sufficient food and water and has resulted in the rare opportunity for South Africa to reform its water laws completely. It has resulted in the enactment of the Water Services Act 108 of 1997 and the National Water Act 36 of 1998.In this paper the difference between first and second generation rights will be discussed. The justiciability of socio-economic rights also warrants an explanation before the constitutional implications related to water are briefly examined. Then the right to water in international and comparative law will be discussed, followed by a consideration of the South African approach to water and finally, a few concluding remarks will be made.


Author(s):  
Vinesh Basdeo

The deprivation of the proceeds of crime has been a feature of criminal law for many years. The original rationale for the confiscation of criminal assets at international level was the fight against organised crime, a feature of society described by the European Court of Human Rights as a "scourge" so that the draconian powers which are a feature of confiscation regimes around the world have been approved in circumstances which otherwise might have caused governments considerable difficulties before the international human rights tribunals.[1] The primary objective of this article is to determine if the asset forfeiture measures employed in the South African criminal justice system are in need of any reform and/or augmentation in accordance with the "spirit, purport and object" of the South African Constitution.[2] This article attempts to answer three questions. Firstly, why is criminal asset forfeiture important to law enforcement? Secondly, in which circumstances can property be forfeited and what types of property are subject to forfeiture? Thirdly, how is forfeiture accomplished, and what are its constitutional ramifications? 


Author(s):  
M K Ingle

The Bill of Rights contained within South Africa’s Constitution features a number of ‘socio- economic rights’. Although these rights are justiciable they are subject to various limitations. They generally entail a positive onus on the part of the state to provide some good – not immediately, but ‘progressively’. Women have a direct interest in the realization of these rights and, where given effect to, they should exert a positive developmental impact. Some authorities are, however, of the opinion that socio-economic rights are not really enforceable. This article contends that the provision of social goods, by the state, should be the concomitant of the disciplined implementation of policy. Delivery should not therefore be contingent upon the legalistic vagaries of the human rights environment.Keywords: Socio-economic rights; justiciability; Bill of Rights; development; South African Constitution; womenDisciplines: Development Studies;Human Rights; Gender Studies; Political Science


2000 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-71
Author(s):  
Joan Small ◽  
Evadne Grant

Equality occupies the first place in most written constitutions, but in South Africa, its importance is magnified both in terms of the text of the Constitution and in terms of the context in which that Constitution operates. The Bill of Rights is expected, in South Africa, to help bring about the transformation of the society. These expectations of transformation through the operation of the Bill of Rights are informing the development of the law in relation to equality and non-discrimination by the Constitutional Court. The concept of discrimination is uniquely defined in the South African Bill of Rights. The Courts are struggling to give legal effect to the terminology. The test developed by the Court to interpret the equality clause, it is submitted, is comprehensive and informed. But the application of the test is sometimes problematic. This paper addresses the evolving concepts of equality and discrimination in South Africa and discusses some of the difficulties with certain aspects of the test for discrimination, including the concepts of unfairness and human dignity, which have caused division among the judiciary.


2011 ◽  
Vol 51 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 521-540 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy Humby ◽  
Maryse Grandbois

The right of access to sufficient water in the South African Constitution has for long been regarded as progressive in a global context where the human right to water is still a subject of contention. In its recent decision handed down in the Mazibuko matter, the South African Constitutional Court interpreted the right of access to sufficient water for the first time and clarified the nature of the State’s obligations which flow from this right. It also commented upon the role of the courts in adjudicating the human right to water. This article describes the passage of the Mazibuko matter and the manner in which the lower courts interpreted the right of access to “sufficient water” as well as outlining the Constitutional Court’s decision in the context of access to water services provision in South Africa.


2006 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 118-131
Author(s):  
MARIUS PIETERSE

This article considers the remedial and transformative potential of litigation based on legally enforceable socio-economic entitlements, such as the justiciable socio-economic rights contained in the 1996 South African Constitution. It focuses on the interpretation and enforcement of South African prisoners' constitutional rights to dignified conditions of detention (including the provision of adequate medical treatment at state expense) and to consult with medical practitioners of their choice. Although these rights have not yet been the subject of a decision by the South African Constitutional Court, they have been central or incidental to a number of High Court decisions. The article discusses these decisions in an attempt to illustrate, first, that courts are institutionally equipped to effectively vindicate socio-economic rights, secondly, that the enforcement of socio-economic rights may result in tangible and affirmative relief for individual beneficiaries, and thirdly, that victories in socio-economic rights matters may cumulatively have significant transformative potential. The article situates prisoners' rights to medical treatment in the South African social, legal and constitutional contexts, discusses the ambit, scope and remedial potential of the rights, and considers the affirmative and transformative effects of the judgments in which they have been enforced. In particular, the article considers the impact of this distinct body of socio-economic rights jurisprudence on overarching social struggles for improved access to health care services (especially antiretroviral treatment) in South African prisons.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document