尼日利亚和印度医疗保健权执行中司法干预的比较阐释

IF 0.1 Q4 LAW
I. Imam, W. Egbewole
{"title":"尼日利亚和印度医疗保健权执行中司法干预的比较阐释","authors":"I. Imam, W. Egbewole","doi":"10.25159/0010-4051/6772","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The significance of health to national life has made successive governments in Nigeria and India design certain fundamental policies to regulate, control and guide healthcare service delivery. Since the incorporation of fundamental human rights into the two countries’ constitutions, the healthcare right has appeared as one of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. This requires governments to put in place policies geared towards implementing these obligations. However, regarding economic and social rights, the Nigerian judiciary has generally played a restrictive or a rather passive role in their enforcement. In contrast, Indian courts have employed a much more pragmatic approach to implementing economic and social rights. The problem with these rights is that judicial intervention resulting from a violation of the healthcare right remains a challenge because section 6(6)(c) and article 35 of the Nigerian and Indian constitutions, respectively, make economic and social rights non-justiciable. The article makes a comparative analysis of the practice in Indian and other jurisdictions in order to justify the possibility of embracing the enforceability of the rights, having regard to the link between economic and social rights and civil and political rights in Nigeria. By drawing on judicial synergy, this article suggests a legislative intercession to bring health rights within the enforceable rights by taking advantage of section 13 and item 60 of the Nigerian Exclusive Legislative List. In addition, the author recommends that the relevant international conventions signed by the country should be domesticated.","PeriodicalId":29899,"journal":{"name":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2020-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Exposition of Judicial Interventionism in the Enforcement of the Healthcare Right in Nigeria and India\",\"authors\":\"I. Imam, W. Egbewole\",\"doi\":\"10.25159/0010-4051/6772\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The significance of health to national life has made successive governments in Nigeria and India design certain fundamental policies to regulate, control and guide healthcare service delivery. Since the incorporation of fundamental human rights into the two countries’ constitutions, the healthcare right has appeared as one of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. This requires governments to put in place policies geared towards implementing these obligations. However, regarding economic and social rights, the Nigerian judiciary has generally played a restrictive or a rather passive role in their enforcement. In contrast, Indian courts have employed a much more pragmatic approach to implementing economic and social rights. The problem with these rights is that judicial intervention resulting from a violation of the healthcare right remains a challenge because section 6(6)(c) and article 35 of the Nigerian and Indian constitutions, respectively, make economic and social rights non-justiciable. The article makes a comparative analysis of the practice in Indian and other jurisdictions in order to justify the possibility of embracing the enforceability of the rights, having regard to the link between economic and social rights and civil and political rights in Nigeria. By drawing on judicial synergy, this article suggests a legislative intercession to bring health rights within the enforceable rights by taking advantage of section 13 and item 60 of the Nigerian Exclusive Legislative List. In addition, the author recommends that the relevant international conventions signed by the country should be domesticated.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29899,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-08-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25159/0010-4051/6772\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa-CILSA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25159/0010-4051/6772","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

鉴于健康对国民生活的重要性,尼日利亚和印度的历届政府都制定了一些基本政策,以规范、控制和指导医疗保健服务的提供。自将基本人权纳入两国宪法以来,健康权已成为国家政策的基本目标和指导原则之一。这就要求各国政府制定旨在履行这些义务的政策。然而,在经济和社会权利方面,尼日利亚司法机关在执行这些权利方面一般起着限制性或相当消极的作用。相比之下,印度法院在落实经济和社会权利方面采取了更为务实的做法。这些权利的问题在于,由于侵犯保健权利而进行的司法干预仍然是一项挑战,因为尼日利亚和印度《宪法》分别第6(6)(c)条和第35条使经济和社会权利不可审理。考虑到尼日利亚的经济和社会权利与公民和政治权利之间的联系,本文对印度和其他司法管辖区的做法进行了比较分析,以便证明接受权利的可执行性的可能性。通过司法协同作用,本文建议利用《尼日利亚专属立法清单》第13节和第60项,进行立法调解,将健康权纳入可执行权利。此外,作者还建议对该国签署的有关国际公约进行驯化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparative Exposition of Judicial Interventionism in the Enforcement of the Healthcare Right in Nigeria and India
The significance of health to national life has made successive governments in Nigeria and India design certain fundamental policies to regulate, control and guide healthcare service delivery. Since the incorporation of fundamental human rights into the two countries’ constitutions, the healthcare right has appeared as one of the fundamental objectives and directive principles of state policy. This requires governments to put in place policies geared towards implementing these obligations. However, regarding economic and social rights, the Nigerian judiciary has generally played a restrictive or a rather passive role in their enforcement. In contrast, Indian courts have employed a much more pragmatic approach to implementing economic and social rights. The problem with these rights is that judicial intervention resulting from a violation of the healthcare right remains a challenge because section 6(6)(c) and article 35 of the Nigerian and Indian constitutions, respectively, make economic and social rights non-justiciable. The article makes a comparative analysis of the practice in Indian and other jurisdictions in order to justify the possibility of embracing the enforceability of the rights, having regard to the link between economic and social rights and civil and political rights in Nigeria. By drawing on judicial synergy, this article suggests a legislative intercession to bring health rights within the enforceable rights by taking advantage of section 13 and item 60 of the Nigerian Exclusive Legislative List. In addition, the author recommends that the relevant international conventions signed by the country should be domesticated.
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
10
×
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