Justice and justiciability: advancing solidarity and justice through South Africans' right to health jurisprudence.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The South African Constitutional Court's jurisprudence provides a path-breaking illustration of the social justice potential of an enforceable right to health. It challenges traditional objections to social rights by showing that their enforcement need not be democratically unsound or make zero-sum claims on limited resources. Indeed the South African experience suggests that enforcing health rights may in fact contribute to greater degrees of collective solidarity and justice as the Court has sought to ensure that the basic needs of the poor are not unreasonably restricted by competing public and private interests. This approach has seen the Court adopt a novel fights paradigm which locates individual civil and social rights within a communitarian framework drawing from the traditional African notion of'ubuntu', denoting collective solidarity, humaneness and mutual responsibilities to recognize the respect, dignity and value of all members of society. Yet this jurisprudence also illustrates the limits of litigation as a tool of social transformation, and of social rights that remain embedded in ideological baggage even where they have been constitutionally entrenched and enforced. This paper explores the Constitutional Court's unfolding jurisprudence on the right to health, providing background to the constitutional entrenchment of a justiciable right to health; exploring early Constitutional Court jurisprudence on this right; turning to the forceful application of this right in relation to government policy on AIDS treatment; and concluding with thoughts about the strengths and limits of this jurisprudence in light of subsequent case-law.
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 | 0.021 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.079 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.016 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".