Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although constitutional social rights continue to attract much scholarly attention, their role in shaping private law is often overlooked. This neglect has led some scholars to underestimate social rights’ transformative potential. This article considers social rights’ influence over contract and property law in India, Colombia, and South Africa—three leading jurisdictions of the Global South. It argues that social rights can promote redistributive outcomes and inspire important shifts in private law’s values and modes of reasoning. However, it cautions that the depth of this transformation will depend on how judges choose to cross the public– private divide. One tradition rejects any role for social rights in the private sphere. Another approach is comfortable imposing positive social duties, but only on firms that resemble the state. One notch further along, there are approaches that prefer maximum flexibility and pragmatism, but which fail to invest much effort in elaborating legal doctrine or a theory of relationships. The final method integrates constitutional aspirations into private law. Integration transforms private law’s modes of reasoning and offers the clearest language for confronting private domination and inequality. However, it can also threaten wide swaths of private law and risk a legitimacy crisis for the judiciary. This article charts each of these paths of influence. It considers the legal environments that foster each path, as well as their normative dynamics, internal limits, and shortcomings. This effort is meant to mirror developments in the literature on comparative public law, where scholars have mapped diverging strategies for enforcing social rights in litigation against the state. More fundamentally, this article aims to recentre private law in discussions of how social rights participate in transformative constitutionalism.
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 | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.109 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".