Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2018 |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | eng |
Título da fonte: | Revista de Investigações Constitucionais |
Texto Completo: | https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/60968 |
Resumo: | 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. |
id |
UFPR-14_a0eea64adb73f8b9d845a083dc030867 |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:revistas.ufpr.br:article/60968 |
network_acronym_str |
UFPR-14 |
network_name_str |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South AfricaLaw; Constitutional Lawsocial rights; Brazil; South Africa; jurisprudence; comparative constitutionalism.Social RightsIn 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.NINC - Núcleo de Investigações Constitucionais da UFPRRosevear, Evan2018-09-05info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionArtigo avaliado pelos paresapplication/pdfhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/6096810.5380/rinc.v5i3.60968Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-183Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-183Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-1832359-563910.5380/rinc.v5i3reponame:Revista de Investigações Constitucionaisinstname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)instacron:UFPRenghttps://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/60968/37522Direitos autorais 2019 Evan Rosevearhttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2019-01-15T18:01:24Zoai:revistas.ufpr.br:article/60968Revistahttps://revistas.ufpr.br/rincPUBhttps://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/oairevista@ninc.com.br||2359-56392359-5639opendoar:2019-01-15T18:01:24Revista de Investigações Constitucionais - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa |
title |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa |
spellingShingle |
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa Rosevear, Evan Law; Constitutional Law social rights; Brazil; South Africa; jurisprudence; comparative constitutionalism. Social Rights |
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 |
author |
Rosevear, Evan |
author_facet |
Rosevear, Evan |
author_role |
author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
Rosevear, Evan |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Law; Constitutional Law social rights; Brazil; South Africa; jurisprudence; comparative constitutionalism. Social Rights |
topic |
Law; Constitutional Law social rights; Brazil; South Africa; jurisprudence; comparative constitutionalism. Social Rights |
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. |
publishDate |
2018 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2018-09-05 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion Artigo avaliado pelos pares |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/60968 10.5380/rinc.v5i3.60968 |
url |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/60968 |
identifier_str_mv |
10.5380/rinc.v5i3.60968 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
eng |
language |
eng |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://revistas.ufpr.br/rinc/article/view/60968/37522 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2019 Evan Rosevear http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
rights_invalid_str_mv |
Direitos autorais 2019 Evan Rosevear http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0 |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
NINC - Núcleo de Investigações Constitucionais da UFPR |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
NINC - Núcleo de Investigações Constitucionais da UFPR |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-183 Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-183 Revista de Investigações Constitucionais; v. 5, n. 3 (2018): setembro/dezembro - Dossiê: "The 30th Anniversary of the 1988 Brazilian Constitution"; 149-183 2359-5639 10.5380/rinc.v5i3 reponame:Revista de Investigações Constitucionais instname:Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) instacron:UFPR |
instname_str |
Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
instacron_str |
UFPR |
institution |
UFPR |
reponame_str |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais |
collection |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais - Universidade Federal do Paraná (UFPR) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
revista@ninc.com.br|| |
_version_ |
1797174658145976320 |