Teleological Interpretation in the Emerging Socio-Economic Rights Jurisprudence of the African Court: African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The African Court has recently decided on merits its first socio-economic rights case – ‘the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights v Republic of Kenya’. The Court applied aspects of the teleological approach to interpretation to interpret socio-economic rights in question. The article examines the Court’s application of the teleological approach in its emerging socio-economic rights jurisprudence. The analysis shows that, although the Court found the respondent State in violation of a wide range of socio-economic rights, there are still some shortcomings in its application of the teleological approach. The African Court did not extensively exhaust all the interpretative tools within the African Charter that are in line with the teleological approach. Consequently, the interpretative potential embedded in these aspects of the teleological approach for effective interpretation of socio-economic rights in the African Charter is restricted. The Court also applied the tenets of the teleological approach inappropriately and interpreted some rights relevant to socio-economic rights based on a narrow textual approach. The mixing of the interpretative approaches leads to jurisprudential inconsistencies. If the Court certainly adopts and appropriately apply the teleological interpretation, it will contribute in advancing effective promotion and protection of these rights in the Continent.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".