The Justiciability of Housing Rights: From Argument to Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Drawing from critical legal studies, this paper questions the idea of a generic argument for the justiciability of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights. Justiciability is defined as the potential for a legal claim to be addressed by courts. The argument for the justiciability of ESC rights implies that courts can complement the executive and legislative powers in improving living standards. The author examines this presumption in the case of current housing rights issues in Cameroon. Firstly, the author describes how a generic argument for the justiciability of ESC rights is formulated within the international human rights movement. This argument is based upon the idea of a viable state which can be held accountable for poor living standards. Secondly, the author explains how many housing rights issues in Cameroon can be explained by the non-viability of the state with regard to the management of housing because of complex factors over a long period of time. These factors are systemic and pervasive, and are not adequately taken into account by the generic discourse on the justiciability of ESC rights. Therefore, the author argues that a critical analysis of justiciability can be more relevant in the context of Cameroon. This argument goes beyond strict legalization and embraces ESC rights as part of a more holistic development enterprise. The author focuses on the rhetoric of human rights. He does not deny the possibility that the justiciability of ESC rights can be successful, but does not assess the conditions for this success here.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.024 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.111 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".