The Case for Judicial Review over Social Rights: Israeli Perspectives

2013 ◽  
pp. 105-127
2020 ◽  
pp. 124-149
Author(s):  
Alessia Barroso Lima Brito Campos Chevitarese ◽  
Ana Borges Coêlho Santos ◽  
Camila Nascimento de Souza

RESUMOO artigo tem por objetivo analisar a efetividade da jurisdição constitucional como mecanismo de emancipação social de determinados grupos a partir de decisões da Corte Constitucional colombiana. Nesse sentido, busca-se compreender a tutela dos direitos sociais, conforme o disposto na Constituição Colombiana de 1991, e os desafios de implementação dos direitos previstos, bem como o contexto de desenvolvimento de um protagonismo mais acentuado da Corte Constitucional colombiana. O estudo investiga se as progressistas decisões da citada Corte são capazes de modificar positivamente a situação social de grupos socialmente vulneráveis, com a finalidade de ponderar, nesse contexto, o papel da jurisdição constitucional na efetividade dos direitos sociais dos jurisdicionados.PALAVRAS-CHAVECorte Constitucional da Colômbia. Emancipação social. Efetividade dos direitos sociais. ABSTRACTThe article aims to analyze the effectiveness of judicial review as a mechanism of social emancipation of certain groups based on decisions of the Colombian Constitutional Court on social rights. In this sense, we seek to understand the protection of social rights, in accordance with the Colombian Constitution of 1991 and the challenges of implementing the rights envisaged, as well as the context of developing a more prominent role of the Colombian Constitutional Court. The study investigates whether if the progressive decisions of the aforementioned Court are capable of positively changing the social situation of socially vulnerable groups, in order to consider, in this context, the role of constitutional jurisdiction in the effectiveness of the social rights.KEYWORDSColombian Constitutional Court. Social emancipation. Effectiveness of social rights.


2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (3) ◽  
pp. 819-836
Author(s):  
Wonil Cha

Abstract Socio-economic rights are regarded as an indispensable foundation of substantial freedom. At the same time, the embodiment of socio-economic rights in the Constitution is generally associated with concerns about their quality as a fundamental right and their judicial enforcement. The South Korean Constitution upholds the principle of the welfare state in the preamble, the fundamental social rights of Articles 31 to 36 and Article 119 (2), providing the legal basis for the regulation and coordination of economic affairs by the State. The implementation of these constitutional norms and ideals was left largely to the political process beyond judicial review for many decades. As a result of the rapid economic development, the democratization process and the introduction of constitutional review in the last 30 years, the normative discussion of basic social rights, both on societal and legal level, has taken on a new life. This article examines the South Korean Constitutional Court’s approach to judicial review in the socio-economic field with due regard to this changing reality.


2015 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 321-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jasper Krommendijk

Historical background of the inclusion of social rights in the Charter of Fundamental Rights – Distinction between rights and principles – Similarities between the conditions for direct effect and the criteria for distinguishing between Charter rights and principles – Implications of this distinction for the possibilities of judicial review – Reluctance of the ECJ to explicitly deal with the distinction until Glatzel, as illustrated by its earlier judgments in Dominguez and AMS.


Author(s):  
Víctor J. Vázquez Alonso

En este trabajo se lleva a cabo una aproximación a la evolución del Estado Social en el Federalismo americano, destacando el papel que ha tenido en la misma el Judicial Review. Para ello, primeramente, se estudiarán las causas del denominado excepcionalismo americano, en lo referido a la falta de consagración constitucional de los derechos sociales. Se estudiarán aquí los frustrados intentos de la Corte Suprema de dotar de eficacia a ciertos derechos sociales a partir de la Enmienda Catorce. Una vez señalada esta excepción americana, se analizará cómo la construcción de un estado del bienestar en los Estados Unidos, desde el New Deal hasta nuestros días, ha ido de la mano de una interpretación de las categorías del federalismo favorable a los poderes del Congreso. Del mismo modo, se llamará la atención sobre las limitación que tienen los jueces estatales para dar eficacia a los derechos sociales de sus constituciones y de cómo a nivel estatal, se abre paso la idea de reformular la función judicial cuando se trata de aplicar disposiciones de carácter social que exigen políticas públicas. Finalmente, y a la luz de la última jurisprudencia de la Corte Suprema, se insistirá en la necesaria deferencia judicial que reclaman las leyes estatales que sobre una interpretación concreta del federalismo implementan nuevas facetas del bienestar social.This paper addresses the evolution of the Welfare State in American Federalism, highlighting the role played by Judicial Review. With such an aim, we first study the causes of the so-called «American Exceptionalism», in reference to the lack of constitutional enforcement of social rights. Concretely, we will focus on the frustrated attempts of the Supreme Court to give efficacy to certain social rights through the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution. Once this exception and its reasons are fully acknowledged, we are able to discuss how the construction of the welfare state in the United States, since the New Deal to the present day, has been accompanied by an interpretation of Federal categories very favourable to the powers of the National Congress. Similarly, we will analyse the limitations that state judges have when enforcing social rights protected in state constitutions as well as the current debate taking place at the state level regarding possible reformulations of the judicial function when it comes to implement provisions of social nature that require public policies. Finally, and in light of the recent case law of the Supreme Court, we will insist on the necessary judicial deference in cases in which Federal categories are used to implement new welfare goals.


2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (2) ◽  
pp. 385-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anashri Pillay

AbstractThe Indian Constitution embraces economic and social rights as directive principles of state policy, ostensibly insulated from judicial review. The Supreme Court's interpretation of traditional civil and political rights to include economic and social guarantees has been praised by academics and activists keen to advance the cause of justiciable economic and social rights. In recent commentary, however, the extent to which the court's jurisprudence furthers the goal of increasing access to goods such as health care, housing, food and water for India's poor, is questioned. This article reconsiders the court's record in this area. It suggests that a more realistic assessment of the court's jurisprudence is necessary and draws on the South African experience of economic and social rights adjudication to argue for more serious engagement with factors that inform the level of judicial activism or restraint applied in the cases.


Author(s):  
Ana Paula Oliveira; Ávila ◽  
Daniella Bitencourt

Este artigo apresenta um panorama da jurisprudência do Supremo Tribunal Federal sobre o controle judicial do orçamento público e a proteção dos direitos humanos enquanto fim do Estado e do direito, especialmente considerando a recente tese fixada sobre o assunto. A questão de saber se é possível conciliar a atividade judicial com o controle de constitucionalidade dos orçamentos públicos é complexa e polêmica. Diante disso, para além de analisar as implicações orçamentárias decorrentes da judicialização dos direitos sociais positivos, o objetivo do presente estudo é analisar a postura do Poder Judiciário (STF) com relação ao próprio orçamento.AbstractThis article presents the evolution on the Brazilian Supreme Court jurisprudence involving public budget review, in the light of the human and fundamental rights promotion as a state’s goal – specially regarding the most recent court’s ruling on this issue. The question regarding the possibility to reconcile judicial review with public budget control is a complex one. In analyzing its complexity, this study aims at the effects that litigation over economic and social rights produces on public budget and what kind of attitude should we expect from the Judiciary regarding public budget planning.


2020 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 110
Author(s):  
Rosa Ristawati ◽  
Radian Salman

Judicial populism may occur when judicial branches are much more influenced by the interest of people majority. In this context, it is when justices deliver decisions according to what the people wanted and not what it has to be decided by laws. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Indonesia (MKRI) has the pivotal role to protect the Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law principles by adhering judicial independence in the decision making process. This paper aims to briefly find out whether the MKRI decisions on the particular issue of economic and social rights show the tendency of judicial populism and defending judicial independence. A brief conclusion would be drawn from the analysis of the two MKRI’s landmark decisions on the relevant issues of economic and social rights, in particular issues of Ulayat rights and educational rights (Case Number 35/PUU-X/2012 on the judicial review of Law No. 41 of 1999 on the Forest and Case Number No. 13/PUU-VII/2008 on the judicial review of Law No. 16 of 2008 on the Amendment of the Law No. 45/2007 on the State Budget). In a short analysis of both landmark decisions, the MKRI tends to defend its independence in delivering its decision. The Court also shows its consistency in protecting the Constitution by strictly upholding the constitutional values laid down in the Constitution and against the judicial populism. The Court in both decisions shows its constitutional commitment to preserving democratic values of minority-marginalized protection against the dominant-majoritarian interest. In the particular issue of education rights, the Court hinders the fulfilment of educational rights from the elite interest by preserving the constitutional purpose of making priority 20% for the education budget. In general, the MKRI has to guard preventing the Constitution and the rule of law principles, specifically on the issue of the protection of economic-social rights. It upholds judicial independence and put asides judicial populism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document