The Right to Food: Trends and Comparative Analysis of Legal Frameworks in Italy, Brazil and the United States

G. Cicchiello
{"title":"The Right to Food: Trends and Comparative Analysis of Legal Frameworks in Italy, Brazil and the United States","authors":"G. Cicchiello","doi":"10.1163/22134514-bja10053","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThis article performs a comparative assessment of the right to food (RtF) as a living right that must be continuously implemented in the constitutions, in legislative acts and in all the acts that derive from them. In particular, I applied, to the present study, the comparative methodology of constitutional law of the “most different cases” to select the comparable cases. The recognition of the RtF is present in numerous national constitutions. There are three possible categories: a) explicit recognition, as a human right in itself or as part of another, broader human right; b) recognition as a directive principle of state policy; and c) implicit recognition, through broad interpretation of other human rights. It was carried out a comparative analysis of the Italian legislation with the U.S. and Brazil legal framework at international, constitutional and national level to see the different methodology, with an explicit or implicit reference in Constitution which it represents a first step to realize the RtF in the countries, but it does not represent an exhaustive and definitive solution.","PeriodicalId":37233,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Comparative Law and Governance","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/22134514-bja10053","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article performs a comparative assessment of the right to food (RtF) as a living right that must be continuously implemented in the constitutions, in legislative acts and in all the acts that derive from them. In particular, I applied, to the present study, the comparative methodology of constitutional law of the “most different cases” to select the comparable cases. The recognition of the RtF is present in numerous national constitutions. There are three possible categories: a) explicit recognition, as a human right in itself or as part of another, broader human right; b) recognition as a directive principle of state policy; and c) implicit recognition, through broad interpretation of other human rights. It was carried out a comparative analysis of the Italian legislation with the U.S. and Brazil legal framework at international, constitutional and national level to see the different methodology, with an explicit or implicit reference in Constitution which it represents a first step to realize the RtF in the countries, but it does not represent an exhaustive and definitive solution.
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
食物权:意大利、巴西和美国法律框架的趋势和比较分析
本文对食物权进行了比较评估,认为它是一项活生生的权利,必须在宪法、立法行为和由此产生的所有行为中不断加以落实。特别地,我在本研究中运用了宪法“最不同案例”的比较方法来选择可比较的案例。在许多国家宪法中都有承认RtF的规定。有三种可能的类别:a)明确承认,作为一项人权本身或作为另一项更广泛的人权的一部分;B)被认为是国家政策的指导原则;c)隐性承认,通过对其他人权的广泛解释。对意大利立法与美国和巴西在国际、宪法和国家一级的法律框架进行了比较分析,以了解不同的方法,并在宪法中明确或隐含地提到,这是在各国实现RtF的第一步,但它并不代表详尽和确定的解决办法。
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
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊最新文献
Green Bond Financing and Corporate Environmental Performance Neuroenhancement Patentability and the Boundaries Conundrum in Psychiatric Disorders Developing Offshore Wind Farms – A Comparison and Analysis of the Legal and Governance Frameworks of the North Sea Coastal States Transfer of Climate Litigation to Biodiversity Protection? Money Makes The World Go Hot – Climate Litigation Against Banks?
×
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