Collisions of social rights: the role of proportionality & other standards

e-Pública Pub Date : 2021-09-01 DOI:10.47345/v8n2art6
Vitalino Canas
{"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.
社会权利的碰撞:比例与其他标准的作用
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。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信