Any Chance for the Enforceability of the Human Right to Subsistence?

Celia Fernández Aller
{"title":"Any Chance for the Enforceability of the Human Right to Subsistence?","authors":"Celia Fernández Aller","doi":"10.17561/tahrj.v15.5823","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It is not true that the idea of the right to subsistence should not give rise to much controversy. In fact, social rights are not considered as fundamental rights by everyone. The aim of this paper is to analyze whether abstract social rights –and the right to subsistence in particular- should be put in constitutions and laws and if judges should be given powers to interpret them. The philosophical foundations and the content of the right are studied and five great challenges are presented, although the most powerful one is to focus on the social and political enforceability of the fundamental right to subsistence. Assessing the effectiveness of the right to subsistence, and the right to food particularly, is a complex issue. In the legal discourse, the question seems to be only suggested.  Even when the Constitutions expressly recognize this right in some countries, its implementation faces many constraints. The progressive realization of ESC rights requires a complex interaction of policies and programs in a wide range of sectors and institutions.The scientific method used in this work is the legal-sociological method, regarding the understanding of the rules, the lack of them, their effectiveness,  etc.   Several methodological techniques have been used, such as social and legal analysis, legal deduction and induction, description and interdisciplinarity.","PeriodicalId":164030,"journal":{"name":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Age of Human Rights Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17561/tahrj.v15.5823","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

It is not true that the idea of the right to subsistence should not give rise to much controversy. In fact, social rights are not considered as fundamental rights by everyone. The aim of this paper is to analyze whether abstract social rights –and the right to subsistence in particular- should be put in constitutions and laws and if judges should be given powers to interpret them. The philosophical foundations and the content of the right are studied and five great challenges are presented, although the most powerful one is to focus on the social and political enforceability of the fundamental right to subsistence. Assessing the effectiveness of the right to subsistence, and the right to food particularly, is a complex issue. In the legal discourse, the question seems to be only suggested.  Even when the Constitutions expressly recognize this right in some countries, its implementation faces many constraints. The progressive realization of ESC rights requires a complex interaction of policies and programs in a wide range of sectors and institutions.The scientific method used in this work is the legal-sociological method, regarding the understanding of the rules, the lack of them, their effectiveness,  etc.   Several methodological techniques have been used, such as social and legal analysis, legal deduction and induction, description and interdisciplinarity.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
生存权的可执行性还有机会吗?
生存权的概念不应该引起太多争议,这是不正确的。事实上,社会权利并不是每个人都认为是基本权利。本文的目的是分析抽象的社会权利——特别是生存权——是否应该写入宪法和法律,以及是否应该赋予法官解释这些权利的权力。研究了基本生存权的哲学基础和内容,提出了五大挑战,其中最大的挑战是关注基本生存权的社会和政治可执行性。评估生存权,特别是食物权的效力是一个复杂的问题。在法律话语中,这个问题似乎只是暗示。即使某些国家的宪法明确承认这一权利,其实施也面临许多限制。逐步实现经社文权利需要在广泛的部门和机构中进行复杂的政策和方案互动。这项工作所使用的科学方法是法律社会学方法,包括对规则的理解、规则的缺失、规则的有效性等。使用了几种方法技术,如社会和法律分析、法律演绎和归纳、描述和跨学科。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Legal Protection of the Right to Freedom and Personal Integrity of the Citizens of Ukraine (Private and Public Aspect) In Search of Durable Solutions for Refugees in Indonesia: A State Security and Human Rights Protection Approach Bottling the Criminal Contempt Law – A Search for ‘Intention’ in ‘Scandalizing the Court’ Right to Repatriation of Abandoned Seafarers: A Study in Light of Maritime Labour Convention 2006, and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 The Right to Universal Accessibility
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1