NEW DEVELOPMENTS IN THE FIELD OF SOCIAL RIGHTS
Panel formed with individual proposals.
This paper presents a discussion about the Basic Income revival. After the pandemic crises caused by Covid-19 the Basic Income it´s not an utopia anymore, but it´s good of primary necessity, at least in Brazil. What brings this subject under constitutional highlight is the brazlian Supreme Court new ruling requiring the government action to bring the basic income statute to effectivity (Lei. nº 10.035/04). Comparing the ruling opinion of Justice Mendes against the dissident opinion of Justice Marco Aurelio it is possibile notice the main structural thesis of Basic Income, such as economic possibilities, basic income founding and political obstacles. The basic income and it´s elements are briefly explained in the debate, including: universal income or benefit for extreme poverty - unconditional or with countermeasures - equal of a minium wage or just to survive. Those options are not exclusive of the Supreme Court ruling, but they are connected to the international references.
Food is a fundamental human right. However, the crisis of democracy, the rule of law and the dominance of the agro-industrial food system over food on the planet put the effectiveness of this right under threat. Violations of the human right to food are constituted in conjunction with the phenomenon of enclosures on other social rights. Thus, the present paper will aim to analyze some political and economic causes related to the processes of violation of the human right to food, mainly in Brazil. According to FAO Brazil is the largest producer of grains and some of the main foodstuffs in the world. However, he is on the verge of returning to the “Hunger Map“. According to the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the number of people experiencing severe food insecurity in the country is increasing. Thus, this article will look for possible hypotheses that could explain this apparent paradox.
From extensive constitutional litigation to projects of constitutional reform, crises have the potential of forging new stories for social rights constitutionalism. The present paper explores how the sovereign debt crisis in Greece and national and international responses thereto, led to the constitutionalization of the decent standard of living through constitutional amendment. It is argued that post-economic crisis social rights constitutionalism in Greece is poverty-focused, being preoccupied with the protection of a social minimum, thus limiting the ambition and normative value of constitutional norms that protect social rights.
It is widely agreed that victims of discrimination on traditional status grounds such as gender and race are overrepresented among the poor and undereducated. People living in poverty also face discrimination because of their socioeconomic situation. Many national, European and international antidiscrimination provisions prohibit discrimination on grounds that are related to a person‘s socioeconomic situation. It is striking, however, that this is barely applied in practice. On the basis of domestic and European material, I argue that the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of social condition is an empowering legal tool in the protection of disadvantaged people – especially regarding issues of misrecognition – for four reasons: the exclusive applicability of this ground, its determining role in combating stereotypes against poor people, its important cross-cutting role in cases of multiple discrimination and the direct scrutiny of the socioeconomic situation of the applicants.
Academic literature often ascribes to crises the potential of creating so far unavailable political alternatives. What the paper is concerned with is the current approach of public law and courts towards crises in specific policy areas that result from path-dependent institutions. The phenomenon of path dependency has been widely discussed in institutional change literature, where it describes self-reinforcing dynamics of existing institutional arrangements (Pierson, 2004). Higher political costs of fundamental reforms vis-à-vis ‘blame avoidance‘ strategies (Weaver, 1986) and more generally, status quo bias of democracy‘s short-termism (Boin & Hart, 1996, Rosanvallon, 2011) have also been discussed. In contrast, except for democratic experimentalist tradition, path-dependency has been mostly neglected in constitutional law (Sabel & Simon, 2004) and this is precisely the gap that the paper will address with examples of existing tendencies in apex courts of several jurisdictions.
The paper deals with the protection of disabled and sick people against discrimination in a much changing reality influenced by the covid pandemic. The first part explores the definition of ‘disability‘ with emphasis on the UN CRPD and the EU approach (EU Employment Equality Directive and the case-law of the CJEU). It aims at exploring whether the EU and Spanish legal system are in line with the more ‘social‘ concept of ‘disability‘ introduced by the CRPD. One of the main issues that are explored is whether sickness is included in the term ‘disability‘. The paper argues that although the case-law of the CJEU took a turn to better adapt to the UN Convention, certain issues are still treated in a different way. The second part deals with the cases of indirect discrimination and the positive actions in this field. The paper analyses cases that were brought before the CJEU, the ECtHR and the Spanish Constitutional Court, covering different areas (access to education, employment etc.).