跨国法律秩序中的社会保护对话

J. Lim
{"title":"跨国法律秩序中的社会保护对话","authors":"J. Lim","doi":"10.1163/26660229_03601008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nRecently, ‘social protection’ has attracted attention as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. For example, Target 1.3 of the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for nationally appropriate social protection systems for all. However, ‘social protection’ has defied common definition to date. Rather, it can denote very different anti-poverty approaches, policies, beneficiaries and end goals. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and contestation between international institutional actors, including the International Monetary Fund and International Labour Organization.\nBy historically tracing the development of ‘social protection’ within the economics, human rights, development and labour ‘transnational legal orders’, this article argues that different usages reflect diverse and enduring discourses about the root causes of poverty and most effective solutions. In particular, neoliberalism continues to inform the work of international financial institutions, in a way that is misaligned with human rights understandings. This article proposes a new paradigm to advance engagement between different orders, being ‘social protection as dialogue’, to achieve more meaningful legal developments.","PeriodicalId":119796,"journal":{"name":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Protection as Dialogue in Transnational Legal Ordering\",\"authors\":\"J. Lim\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/26660229_03601008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nRecently, ‘social protection’ has attracted attention as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. For example, Target 1.3 of the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for nationally appropriate social protection systems for all. However, ‘social protection’ has defied common definition to date. Rather, it can denote very different anti-poverty approaches, policies, beneficiaries and end goals. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and contestation between international institutional actors, including the International Monetary Fund and International Labour Organization.\\nBy historically tracing the development of ‘social protection’ within the economics, human rights, development and labour ‘transnational legal orders’, this article argues that different usages reflect diverse and enduring discourses about the root causes of poverty and most effective solutions. In particular, neoliberalism continues to inform the work of international financial institutions, in a way that is misaligned with human rights understandings. This article proposes a new paradigm to advance engagement between different orders, being ‘social protection as dialogue’, to achieve more meaningful legal developments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":119796,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Australian Year Book of International Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Australian Year Book of International Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Australian Year Book of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/26660229_03601008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,“社会保障”作为扶贫的有力工具引起了人们的关注。例如,2015年联合国可持续发展目标的具体目标1.3要求为所有人建立适合本国国情的社会保护制度。然而,迄今为止,“社会保护”一词并没有得到普遍的定义。相反,它可以表示非常不同的反贫困方法、政策、受益人和最终目标。这种缺乏明确性导致了国际机构参与者(包括国际货币基金组织和国际劳工组织)之间的混淆和争论。通过历史地追溯“社会保护”在经济、人权、发展和劳工“跨国法律秩序”中的发展,本文认为,不同的用法反映了关于贫困根源和最有效解决方案的不同和持久的话语。特别是,新自由主义继续以一种与人权理解不一致的方式影响着国际金融机构的工作。本文提出了一种新的范式来促进不同秩序之间的接触,即“社会保护作为对话”,以实现更有意义的法律发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social Protection as Dialogue in Transnational Legal Ordering
Recently, ‘social protection’ has attracted attention as a powerful tool for poverty alleviation. For example, Target 1.3 of the 2015 UN Sustainable Development Goals calls for nationally appropriate social protection systems for all. However, ‘social protection’ has defied common definition to date. Rather, it can denote very different anti-poverty approaches, policies, beneficiaries and end goals. This lack of clarity has led to confusion and contestation between international institutional actors, including the International Monetary Fund and International Labour Organization. By historically tracing the development of ‘social protection’ within the economics, human rights, development and labour ‘transnational legal orders’, this article argues that different usages reflect diverse and enduring discourses about the root causes of poverty and most effective solutions. In particular, neoliberalism continues to inform the work of international financial institutions, in a way that is misaligned with human rights understandings. This article proposes a new paradigm to advance engagement between different orders, being ‘social protection as dialogue’, to achieve more meaningful legal developments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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