MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123444135

Adjudication of Social and Economic Rights in South Africa: Beyond the Rhetoric of Illegitimacy and Excessive Complexity

2008· article· en· W3123444135 on OpenAlex
David Robitaille

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueRevue nationale de droit constitutionnel · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Issues in South Africa
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdjudicationSocial rightsCharterPolitical scienceHuman rightsLawFundamental rightsInternational human rights lawConstitutionSocial equalityCultural rightsRight to propertyState (computer science)Linguistic rightsLaw and economicsSociology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Except for the minority language educational rights guaranteed by section 23, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms does not recognize any social and economic rights. However, despite that exclusion, many academics, lawyers and other proponents of human rights have challenged socioeconomic inequities in courts. Sections 7 and 15 of the Charter, which respectively protects security and equality rights, have served as tools for the indirect recognition of fundamental social and economic rights, such as the right to health and the right to an adequate standard of living. Unfortunately, Canadian courts have been reluctant to recognize that sections 7 and 15 could be extended to the socioeconomic context and to interpret it as to give rise to positive obligations on the part of the State. Courts generally see social and economic rights as illegitimate based on the pressure exerted by these rights on the State budget. Judges also consider themselves incompetent to adjudicate complex socioeconomic issues. Social and economic rights are then considered as unjustifiable or unenforceable. The South African Constitution, as opposed to the Canadian Charter, protects some social and economic rights that are directly enforceable by courts. The South African Constitutional Court has developed an innovative and promising approach to the adjudication of those rights. In the Grootboom case (2000), the Court found that social and economic rights are justifiable and imposed a general obligation on the State, subject to the availability of resources, to take reasonable and adequate measures to fulfill the basic needs of South African citizens. The Court also found in the Treatment Action Campaign case (2002) that courts have a broad power to enforce social and economic rights if the State fails to do so. Courts can limit the remedy to a declaration of rights or, in appropriate circumstances, may order the State, through a mandatory relief or an injunction, to take positive steps to fulfill these rights and oblige it to report back to the court. By formulating a general obligation of reasonableness and in recognizing to the State the deference needed to choose the means to realize social and economic rights, the South African Constitutional Court approach reaches a balance between the different but essential roles of the courts and the legislator.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.971

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.041
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it