Justiciability of Social Rights
Brief Introduction to an Integrated System of Multilevel Protection
Abstract
Since 2000, social rights have gained prominence in our countries (Andean countries), inside the Doctrine, and in the worldwide and regional organizations, for the protection of human rights. These have been raised as apparent leveling mechanisms between the real freedom of each of the individuals and legal freedom, that the constitutional and legal framework recognizes them. In Latin America, due to considerable levels of inequality and poverty, an effective model of comprehensive and reasonable social rights, that can really ensure the factual freedom of all citizens alike are looking for. So, the imposition of a single model that reaches theoretically equate factual or real freedom of all citizens, but one that also ensure, its justiciability despite the implications that would result in the budgetary policy of the state is not enough.
Thus, it seems relevant the creation of a Latin American Doctrine on social rights, taking into consideration that a latent danger that lurks behind the discourse of such rights is the social demobilization caused by the Latin neopopulism and should propose, in this case, the construction of a national system for optimal protection with additional security systems, regionally and internationally protection and its appropriation by the population in the political and legal practice. It means, an integrated multi-level social rights protection system.
Downloads
References
Alexy, R. (2001). Teoría de los Derechos Fundamentales. Madrid: Centro de Estudios Políticos y Constitucionales.
Arango, R. (2010). Los derechos sociales en Iberoamérica: Estado de la cuestión y perspectivas de futuro. En A. Von Bogdandy, F. Piovesan & M. Morales (eds.), Direitos Humanos, Democracia e Integração Jurídica na América do Sul, Río de Janeiro: Lumen Juris.
Beloff, M. & Clérico, L. (2016). Derecho a condiciones de existencia digna y situación de vulnerabilidad en la jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana. Estudios Constitucionales, 14(1), 139-178.
Larrea Holguín, J. (1998). Asuntos Sociales y Religiosos, vol. VII. Guayaquil: El Telégrafo.
Melish, T. (2002). Protecting Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Inter-American Human Rights System: A manual on Presenting Claims. Quito: Sergrafic.
Pinto, M. (2008). Los Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales y su protección en el sistema universal y en el sistema interamericano. San José de Costa Rica: Instituto Interamericano de Derechos Humanos.
Normativa
Constitución de la República de Ecuador (2008).
Constitución Política del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia (2009).
Directrices de Maastricht sobre violaciones a los DESC (1997). En https://www.fidh.org/IMG/pdf/maastricht-eto-principles-es_web.pdf (recuperado el 1-XII-2016).
Organización de Naciones Unidas, Asamblea General se 28-I-2002. Resolución 56/83: Responsabilidad del Estado por hechos internacionalmente ilícitos.
Organización de Naciones Unidas, Comité de DESC (2007). Declaración sobre la “Evaluación de la obligación de adoptar medidas hasta el máximo de los recursos de que disponga de conformidad con un protocolo facultativo del Pacto”.
Principios de Limburgo (1986). En http://www.derechos.org.ve/pw/wp-content/uploads/desc_07.pdf (recuperado el 1-XII-2016).
Protocolo Adicional a la Convención Americana sobre Derechos Humanos en materia de DESC, Protocolo de San Salvador (1988).
Jurisprudencia de la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos
Acevedo Buendía y otros vs. Perú, excepción preliminar, fondo, reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 1-VII-2009.
Cinco Pensionista vs. Perú, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 28-II-2003.
Comunidad Indígena Sawhoyamaxa vs. Paraguay, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 29-III-2006.
Comunidad Indígena Xákmok Kásek vs. Paraguay, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 24-VIII-2010.
Comunidad indígena Yakye Axa vs. Paraguay, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 17-VI-2005.
Furlan y Familiares vs. Argentina, excepciones preliminares, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 31-VIII-2012. Además, voto concurrente de la Jueza Margarette May Macaulay.
Instituto de Reeducación del Menor vs. Paraguay, excepciones preliminares, Fondo, Reparaciones y Costas. Sentencia de 2-IX-2004.
Los “Niños de la Calle” (Villagrán Morales y otros) vs. Guatemala, fondo. Sentencia de 19-XI-1999. Además, voto concurrente conjunto de los Jueces A.A.
Cançado Trindade y A. Abreu Burelli.
Suárez Peralta vs. Ecuador, excepciones preliminares, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 21-V-2013. Además, voto concurrente del Juez Eduardo Ferrer Mac-Gregor Poisot.
Tibi vs. Ecuador, excepciones preliminares, fondo, reparaciones y costas. Sentencia de 7-XI-2004. Además, voto concurrente razonado del Juez Sergio García Ramírez.
Copyright (c) 2016 Gabriel Galán Melo
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors publishing in our Journal comply to the following terms:
1. Authors keep their work’s copyrights, but they guarantee Ius Humani Law Journal to be the first publisher of their papers. They grant the Journal will a Creative Commons Attribution License, under which their work can be shared with the condition that it is appropriately cited.
2. Authors are aware and accept that the Ius Humani Team will try to give the greatest diffusion to the Journal, which means, among other things, that its printed and electronic editions will be distributed among different databases and scientific indexes.
3. Authors can establish further clauses for non exclusive distribution, such as publication on a separate book or placing in an institutional data-base. Nevertheless, a note should be always added to explain that the paper was originally published in Ius Humani Law Journal.
4. We permit and encourage authors to share their work through Internet before and during the editorial process to receive further recommendations and wider references (we recommend you read the article The Effect of Open Access).
