社会保障改革与人权法未开发的潜力

IF 1 4区 社会学 Q3 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR
C. Rowe
{"title":"社会保障改革与人权法未开发的潜力","authors":"C. Rowe","doi":"10.1093/indlaw/dwac038","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The courts have done little to ameliorate the harsh ‘austerity’ reforms pursued by the government since 2010, adopting a highly deferential approach towards human rights claims in the social security context. This article identifies the two key moves to achieve this result: adopting the manifestly without reasonable foundation standard of justification and treating indirect discrimination claims on suspect grounds as not ‘real’ discrimination claims. It shows nonetheless the untapped potential of Convention rights, since even within this framework strong arguments were still available to the courts, based on the functioning of the social security system, which should have rendered two of the harshest reforms, the two-child limit and especially the benefit cap, Convention incompatible. The cap, which limits the subsistence benefits of unemployed families, is justified as a work-incentive policy, yet through Universal Credit the state also independently assesses families affected by the cap as doing all that they reasonably can to find work.","PeriodicalId":45482,"journal":{"name":"Industrial Law Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social Security Reform and the Untapped Potential of Human Rights Law\",\"authors\":\"C. Rowe\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/indlaw/dwac038\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n The courts have done little to ameliorate the harsh ‘austerity’ reforms pursued by the government since 2010, adopting a highly deferential approach towards human rights claims in the social security context. This article identifies the two key moves to achieve this result: adopting the manifestly without reasonable foundation standard of justification and treating indirect discrimination claims on suspect grounds as not ‘real’ discrimination claims. It shows nonetheless the untapped potential of Convention rights, since even within this framework strong arguments were still available to the courts, based on the functioning of the social security system, which should have rendered two of the harshest reforms, the two-child limit and especially the benefit cap, Convention incompatible. The cap, which limits the subsistence benefits of unemployed families, is justified as a work-incentive policy, yet through Universal Credit the state also independently assesses families affected by the cap as doing all that they reasonably can to find work.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45482,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"volume\":\"29 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Industrial Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac038\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Industrial Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/indlaw/dwac038","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自2010年以来,法院在改善政府推行的严厉的“紧缩”改革方面做得很少,对社会保障方面的人权主张采取了高度恭顺的态度。本文确定了实现这一结果的两个关键举措:采用明显没有合理依据的正当理由标准和将基于可疑理由的间接歧视主张视为不“真正的”歧视主张。尽管如此,它显示了《公约》权利尚未开发的潜力,因为即使在这个框架内,根据社会保障制度的运作,法院仍然可以得到强有力的论据,这应该使两项最严厉的改革,二孩限制,特别是福利上限,与《公约》不相符。这一上限限制了失业家庭的生存补贴,作为一项激励工作的政策是合理的,但通过通用信贷,国家还独立评估受上限影响的家庭是否在尽其所能寻找工作。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social Security Reform and the Untapped Potential of Human Rights Law
The courts have done little to ameliorate the harsh ‘austerity’ reforms pursued by the government since 2010, adopting a highly deferential approach towards human rights claims in the social security context. This article identifies the two key moves to achieve this result: adopting the manifestly without reasonable foundation standard of justification and treating indirect discrimination claims on suspect grounds as not ‘real’ discrimination claims. It shows nonetheless the untapped potential of Convention rights, since even within this framework strong arguments were still available to the courts, based on the functioning of the social security system, which should have rendered two of the harshest reforms, the two-child limit and especially the benefit cap, Convention incompatible. The cap, which limits the subsistence benefits of unemployed families, is justified as a work-incentive policy, yet through Universal Credit the state also independently assesses families affected by the cap as doing all that they reasonably can to find work.
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
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
20.00%
发文量
30
期刊介绍: Industrial Law Journal is established as the leading periodical in its field, providing comment and in-depth analysis on a wide range of topics relating to employment law. It is essential reading for practising lawyers, academics, and lay industrial relations experts to keep abreast of newly enacted legislation and proposals for law reform. In addition Industrial Law Journal carries commentary on relevant government publications and reviews of books relating to labour law.
×
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