Are judicial monitoring institutions a legitimate remedy for addressing systemic socioeconomic rights violations?

IF 0.3 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW South African Journal on Human Rights Pub Date : 2020-10-01 DOI:10.1080/02587203.2021.1934105
Ropafadzo Maphosa
{"title":"Are judicial monitoring institutions a legitimate remedy for addressing systemic socioeconomic rights violations?","authors":"Ropafadzo Maphosa","doi":"10.1080/02587203.2021.1934105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sections 26(2) and 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provide that the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures to ensure the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights including, housing and social security. The executive is generally responsible for the implementation of these rights. However, a core challenge in South Africa is that the executive is beset by chronic incapacity, especially at provincial and local government levels, which has hindered the realisation of socio-economic rights. This article investigates the increasingly intrusive orders by the judiciary to address this problem; these orders include, specifically, appointing bodies to manage service delivery by the executive. I will situate these mechanisms within the broader powers of the judiciary and provide a justification for them, under particular conditions, against criticisms of judicial overreach. In engaging with their legal justifiability, I will analyse recent South African case law as well as examples from India and Colombia so as to highlight that the South Africa judiciary is not unique in developing such mechanisms. In concluding, I identify the conditions under which the deployment of these mechanisms may be considered justifiable as well as their value in advancing the realisation of socio-economic rights in South Africa.","PeriodicalId":44989,"journal":{"name":"South African Journal on Human Rights","volume":"36 1","pages":"362 - 385"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/02587203.2021.1934105","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"South African Journal on Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02587203.2021.1934105","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Sections 26(2) and 27(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provide that the state must take reasonable legislative and other measures to ensure the progressive realisation of socio-economic rights including, housing and social security. The executive is generally responsible for the implementation of these rights. However, a core challenge in South Africa is that the executive is beset by chronic incapacity, especially at provincial and local government levels, which has hindered the realisation of socio-economic rights. This article investigates the increasingly intrusive orders by the judiciary to address this problem; these orders include, specifically, appointing bodies to manage service delivery by the executive. I will situate these mechanisms within the broader powers of the judiciary and provide a justification for them, under particular conditions, against criticisms of judicial overreach. In engaging with their legal justifiability, I will analyse recent South African case law as well as examples from India and Colombia so as to highlight that the South Africa judiciary is not unique in developing such mechanisms. In concluding, I identify the conditions under which the deployment of these mechanisms may be considered justifiable as well as their value in advancing the realisation of socio-economic rights in South Africa.
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
司法监督机构是解决系统性社会经济权利侵犯的合法补救措施吗?
1996年《南非共和国宪法》第26条第2款和第27条第2款规定,国家必须采取合理的立法和其他措施,确保逐步实现包括住房和社会保障在内的社会经济权利。行政部门一般负责落实这些权利。然而,南非面临的一个核心挑战是,行政部门长期无能为力,尤其是在省和地方政府层面,这阻碍了社会经济权利的实现。本文调查了司法部门为解决这一问题而日益增加的侵入性命令;这些命令具体包括任命机构来管理行政部门提供的服务。我将把这些机制置于更广泛的司法权力范围内,并在特定条件下为它们提供理由,以反对对司法越权的批评。在讨论其法律正当性时,我将分析最近南非的判例法以及印度和哥伦比亚的例子,以强调南非司法机构在发展此类机制方面并非独一无二。最后,我指出在哪些条件下部署这些机制可以被认为是合理的,以及它们在促进实现南非社会经济权利方面的价值。
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
0.70
自引率
77.80%
发文量
17
期刊最新文献
Consulting citizens: Addressing the deficits in participatory democracy Ubuntu, human rights and sustainable development: Lessons from the African Arbitration Academy’s Model Bilateral Investment Treaty Research handbook on economic, social and cultural rights Augmentative and alternative communication in the South African justice system: Potential and pitfalls The importance of litigating the right to access sufficient food: Equal Education v Minister of Basic Education
×
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