Constitutional Courts, Justiciability and Distributive Justice

IF 0.1 0 PHILOSOPHY
Julia Moura
{"title":"Constitutional Courts, Justiciability and Distributive Justice","authors":"Julia Moura","doi":"10.26694/PENSANDO.V9I18.8195","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Should constitutional social rights be decided upon the basis of what procedure is most likely to give us just policies (ideal social rights) or is there a non-epistemic/ non-instrumental dimension to this question. If libertarians took over and eliminated welfare programs and then constitutionalized the absence of these programs what are the objections that can be made? Here I mean to look at these questions by relying on Rawls’s view on  justiciability , considering that it may help understand the questions raised by social rights litigation in Brazil, the limits and the capacity of constitutional courts. The motivation for considering the rawlsian framework does not at aim at arguing that these practices should be evaluated solely by his theory but it does consider that the it can help build stronger arguments to critically evaluate constitutional court decision-making and also can, on the other hand, help elucidate the conditions of considering the constitutionalization of social rights in a non-instrumental way.","PeriodicalId":40593,"journal":{"name":"Pensando-Revista de Filosofia","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pensando-Revista de Filosofia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.26694/PENSANDO.V9I18.8195","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"0","JCRName":"PHILOSOPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Should constitutional social rights be decided upon the basis of what procedure is most likely to give us just policies (ideal social rights) or is there a non-epistemic/ non-instrumental dimension to this question. If libertarians took over and eliminated welfare programs and then constitutionalized the absence of these programs what are the objections that can be made? Here I mean to look at these questions by relying on Rawls’s view on  justiciability , considering that it may help understand the questions raised by social rights litigation in Brazil, the limits and the capacity of constitutional courts. The motivation for considering the rawlsian framework does not at aim at arguing that these practices should be evaluated solely by his theory but it does consider that the it can help build stronger arguments to critically evaluate constitutional court decision-making and also can, on the other hand, help elucidate the conditions of considering the constitutionalization of social rights in a non-instrumental way.
宪法法院,可诉性和分配正义
宪法上的社会权利是否应该以什么样的程序最有可能给我们带来公正的政策(理想的社会权利)为基础来决定,或者这个问题是否存在一个非认知/非工具的维度。如果自由意志主义者接管并取消了福利项目,然后将这些项目的缺失写入宪法,那么可以提出什么反对意见呢?在这里,我的意思是依靠罗尔斯关于可诉性的观点来看待这些问题,考虑到它可能有助于理解巴西社会权利诉讼所提出的问题,宪法法院的限制和能力。考虑罗尔斯框架的动机并不是为了争论这些实践应该仅仅通过他的理论来评估,而是考虑它可以帮助建立更有力的论点来批判性地评估宪法法院的决策,另一方面,也可以帮助阐明以非工具的方式考虑社会权利的宪法化的条件。
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