Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
| Autor | Evan Rosevear |
| Cargo | PhD Candidate at the Department of Political Science at University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada) |
| Páginas | 149-183 |
Licenciado sob uma Licença Creative Commons
Licensed under Creative Commons Revista de Investigações Constitucionais
ISSN 2359-5639
DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v5i3.60968
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
Interpretação de direitos sociais no Brasil e na África do Sul
EVAN ROSEVEAR*
University of Toronto (Canada)
evan.rosevear@utoronto.ca
Recebido/Received: 12.08.2018 / August 12th, 2018
Aprovado/Approved: 03.09.2018 / September 3rd, 2018
Abstract
In this paper, I examine the social rights jurisprudence
of Brazil and South Africa, two jurisdictions that have
adopted markedly dierent approaches to their interpre-
tation. In doing so, I advance three arguments relating
to the study of social rights adjudication and the eects
of the resulting jurisprudence. First, understanding the
development of social rights jurisprudence requires un-
derstanding the pre-existing set of judicial norms that
dene the role of the judges and acceptable mode(s) of
legal reasoning. Second, variations in institutional design
and understandings of precedent means that one can-
not assume that the decisions of the apex court will be
universally or quickly incorporated into the decisions of
the lower courts. As such, it may be necessary to look
beyond apex court decisions to get an accurate picture
of patterns of social rights jurisprudence in a given juris-
diction. Third, both of the dominant approaches have the
potential to institgate signicant policy change, but they
also encourage dierent types of litigation and dierent
litigants. This, in turn aects the approach taken to ad-
dressing the policy areas and does not necessarily lead to
Resumo
Neste artigo, examino a jurisprudência de direitos sociais
do Brasil e da África do Sul, duas jurisdições que adotaram
abordagens marcadamente diferentes para sua interpreta-
ção. Ao fazê-lo, adianto três argumentos relacionados ao
estudo da judicialização dos direitos sociais e aos efeitos da
jurisprudência resultante. Em primeiro lugar, entender o de-
senvolvimento da jurisprudência dos direitos sociais exige
compreender o conjunto pré-existente de normas judiciais
que denem o papel dos juízes e o(s) modo(s) aceitável(is)
de raciocínio jurídico. Em segundo lugar, as variações no
desenho institucional e nos entendimentos de precedente
signicam que não se pode presumir que as decisões do
tribunal superior serão universal ou rapidamente incorpo-
radas às decisões dos tribunais inferiores. Como tal, pode
ser necessário olhar além das decisões judiciais ágeis para
obter uma imagem precisa dos padrões da jurisprudência
de direitos sociais em uma determinada jurisdição. Terceiro,
ambas as abordagens dominantes têm o potencial de afe-
tar mudanças políticas signicativas, mas também encora-
jam diferentes tipos de litígios e litigantes diferentes. Isso,
por sua vez, afeta a abordagem adotada para tratar das
Como citar esse artigo/How to cite this article: ROSEVEAR, Evan. Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa. Revista de
Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 149-183, set./dez. 2018. DOI: 10.5380/rinc.v5i3.60968.
* PhD Candidate at the Department of Political Science at University of Toronto (Toronto, Canada). E-mail: evan.rosevear@
utoronto.ca. I wish to thank Nicole Julie Fobe and Thiago Filippo Silva Jorge for their skillful assistance, the faculty sta of FGV
Direito-Rio for providing not just funding but a home for much of the time that this research was conducted, and my ‘Fellows
in Rio’ colleagues for their insights, assistance, and support.
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 149-183, set./dez. 2018. 149
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 117-135, set./dez. 2018.
EVAN ROSEVEAR
150 Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 149-183, set./dez. 2018.
150
150
CONTENTS
1. I ntroduction; 2. Constitutional Contexts and Patterns of Interpretation; 2.1. Brazil; 2.1.1. Health;
2.1.2. Education; 2.1.3. Housing; 2.2. South Africa; 2.2.1. Health; 2.2.2. Housing; 2.2.3. Education; 2.3.
Summary; 3. Explaining the Variation; 3.1. Judicial Culture; 3.1.1. Brazilian Judicial Culture; 3.1.2. Sou-
th African Judicial Culture; 3.2. Institutional Design; 3.3. Summary; 4. Implications; 5. Conclusions; 6.
References.
1. INTRODUCTION
Social rights—positive obligations on the state to provide for the maintenance
and development of individuals independent of labor market participation—are now
common, arguably standard, features of contemporary constitutions. At the beginning
of 2016, 58% of national constitutions included a justiciable right to education, 43% the
right to health, and 27% the right to housing. Of the battery of eight social rights iden-
tied by Jung et al,1 63% of constitutions contained at least one in justiciable form and
40% contained four or more.2 From their earliest entrenchment in the constitutions of
Peru (1828),3 Germany (1919),4 and Argentina (1949)5 to their international recognition
via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Econo-
mic, Social and Cultural Rights, social rights have become the focus of sustained popular,
political, judicial, and academic attention.
1 The rights to child protection, education, health, social security, development, food and water, housing,
and land. JUNG, Courtney; HIRSCHL, Ran; ROSEVEAR, Evan. Economic and Social Rights in National Constitu-
tions, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 62, no. 4, p. 1043–1093, out. 2014.
2 JUNG, Courtney; HIRSCHL, Ran; ROSEVEAR, Evan. Justiciable and Aspirational ESRs in National Consti-
tutions. In: YOUNG, Katherine G. (ed.) The Future of Economic and Social Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2019 (forthcoming). When both aspirational and justiciable variants are considered, 81% of
national constitutions contain the right to education, 70% the right to health, and 43% the right to housing;
83% contain at least one of the eight social rights, and 65% contain four or more.
3 Art. 171 of the Political Constitution of the Peruvian Republic, 1828. Cf. UNITED KINGDOM. Foreign Oce.
British and Foreign State Papers. Vol. 16. London: James Ridgway, 1828-1829. p. 966–88.
4 MARTIN, Charles E.; GEORGE, William Henry (eds). Consitution of Germany, 1919. In: Representative Mod-
ern Constitutions. MUNRO, William B.; HOLCOMBE, Arthur N. (Trad.) Los Angeles: Times-Mirror Press, 1923, p.
74–103, art. 161.
5 PEASLEE, Amos J. (ed.) Constitution of the Argentine Republic, 1949. In: Constitutions of Nations Con-
cord. NH: Rumford, 1950, art. 7.
the prioritization of areas where the investment of state
resources will yield the greatest returns or be the most
socially just.
Keywords: social rights; Brazil; South Africa; jurispru-
dence; comparative constitutionalism.
áreas de política e não leva necessariamente à priorização
daquelas nas quais o investimento de recursos estatais pro-
duzirá os maiores retornos ou será o mais socialmente justo.
Palavras-chave: direitos sociais; Brasil; África do Sul; juris-
prudência; constitucionalismo comparado.
Social rights interpretation in Brazil and South Africa
151
Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 117-135, set./dez. 2018.Revista de Investigações Constitucionais, Curitiba, vol. 5, n. 3, p. 149-183, set./dez. 2018. 151
Although a part of the “higher law” of countries marked by substantial religious,
economic, social, and political variation, the formal articulation of these rights in cons-
titutional documents is strikingly similar. Unsurprisingly, however, this similarity has not
manifest in the similar interpretation and application of these rights by courts in die-
rent jurisdictions. Rather, two dominant approaches have emerged.6 The rst is exem-
plied by Brazilian right to health jurisprudence. This approach treats social rights as
(near) immediately realizable guarantees, owed by the state to specic individuals, the
non-fullment of which is remedied by individual litigation resulting in inter partes deci-
sions requiring the state to fund and/or provide specic medicines or medical services.7
The second is exemplied by the right to health and right to housing jurisprudence of
the South African Constitutional Court. This approach is similar to an administrative law
approach insofar as the primary focus of the analysis is on the “reasonableness” of go-
vernment policy relevant to the provision of the social right(s) in question.8 Although a
particular individual may not have received a benet associated with a right, the courts
were reluctant to step in if there is government policy in place that is deemed to be a
reasonable means of progressively realizing that right.
In this paper, I examine the social rights jurisprudence of these two countries
with an eye toward highlighting variation in their interpretation between both juris-
dictions and rights, identifying factors responsible for the origin and perpetuation of
this dierence, and considering the implications thereof. In doing so, I advance three
arguments relating to both the study of social rights adjudication and the eects of the
resulting jurisprudence. First, in order to understand the development of social rights
jurisprudence, it is essential to understand the pre-existing set of judicial norms that
dene the role of the judges and acceptable mode(s) of legal reasoning. Second, the
cross-national diversity of judicial-institutional structures and mechanisms for advan-
cing social rights claims means that one cannot automatically assume that the deci-
sions of the apex court will be universally or quickly incorporated into the decision of
the lower courts. As such, it may be necessary to look beyond apex court decisions to
get an accurate picture of social rights jurisprudence in a given jurisdiction. Third, both
of the dominant approaches have the potential to redistribute resources and instigate
signicant policy change. But, they also encourage dierent types of litigation and dif-
ferent litigants. This, in turn, shapes the incentives faced by policy-makers and does not
6 Cf. BRINKS, Daniel M.; FORBATH, William. The Role of Courts and Constitutions in the New Politics of Welfare
in Latin America. In: PEEREBOOM, Randall; GINSBURG, Tom (ed.). Law and Development of Middle-Income
Countries: Avoiding the Middle-Income Trap. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2014.
7 FERRAZ, Octavio Luiz Motta. The Right to Health in the Courts of Brazil: Worsening Health Inequities? Health
and Human Rights, vol. 11, no. 2, p. 33–45, dec. 2009.
8 LIEBENBERG, Sandra. South Africa: Adjudicating Social Rights Under a Transformative Constitution. In: LANG-
FORD, Malcolm (ed.) Social Rights Jurisprudence: Emerging Trends in International and Comparative Law.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008.
Para continuar a ler
PEÇA SUA AVALIAÇÃO