{"title":"Collisions of social rights: the role of proportionality & other standards","authors":"Vitalino Canas","doi":"10.47345/v8n2art6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Global scholarship and court decisions have been gradually assuming that social rights structure does not differ radically from political and civil rights structure. This assumption leads us into the conclusion that social rights – meaning all different claims in which they unfold – might enter in several kinds of collision with other principles, rights, interests or values. After identifying all those possible kinds of collisions one can define what are the tools or standards suitable for the due substantive process to be performed for overcoming each of them. We argue that the most suitable tools are classical proportionality (“proibição do excesso”), prohibition of the insufficient promotion of the social right (“proibição do defeito”) and the guarantee of the minimum core of the social right. Constitutional courts show considerable uniformity as far as the reactions against limitations to the negative dimensions of the social rights are concerned and also when it comes to the review of any eventual breach of the duties of promotion of the positive dimensions of the social rights.","PeriodicalId":391008,"journal":{"name":"e-Pública","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"e-Pública","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.47345/v8n2art6","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
: Global scholarship and court decisions have been gradually assuming that social rights structure does not differ radically from political and civil rights structure. This assumption leads us into the conclusion that social rights – meaning all different claims in which they unfold – might enter in several kinds of collision with other principles, rights, interests or values. After identifying all those possible kinds of collisions one can define what are the tools or standards suitable for the due substantive process to be performed for overcoming each of them. We argue that the most suitable tools are classical proportionality (“proibição do excesso”), prohibition of the insufficient promotion of the social right (“proibição do defeito”) and the guarantee of the minimum core of the social right. Constitutional courts show considerable uniformity as far as the reactions against limitations to the negative dimensions of the social rights are concerned and also when it comes to the review of any eventual breach of the duties of promotion of the positive dimensions of the social rights.
全球学术研究和法院判决逐渐假设社会权利结构与政治和公民权利结构没有根本的不同。这一假设使我们得出这样的结论:社会权利——即它们展开的所有不同要求——可能与其他原则、权利、利益或价值观发生几种冲突。在确定所有这些可能的冲突类型之后,您可以定义适合于为克服每种冲突而执行的适当实质性过程的工具或标准。我们认为,最合适的工具是古典比例主义(“proibi o do overso”)、禁止对社会权利促进不足(“proibi o do defito”)和保障社会权利的最低核心。就反对限制社会权利的消极方面的反应而言,就审查任何最终违反促进社会权利的积极方面的义务的行为而言,宪法法院表现出相当大的一致性。