APOTEOZA SOCIJALNE DRŽAVE: IMPERATIVNI ZAHTJEV OSTVARENJA SOCIJALNE PRAVDE U REPUBLICI HRVATSKOJ

By deliberate choice of the Croatian constitution-makers, the Constitution of the Republic of Croatia protects all economic, social and cultural rights guaranteed by constitutions of developed European democracies and by the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to which Croatia is a party. This creates a dual (constitutional and international) obligation for the Croatian legislature to establish a socially just order. Although the constitutional text places both of the human rights generations within the same title, the constitutional jurisprudence adopted a position, whereby socioeconomic rights are excluded from the sphere of organic laws used to elaborate the constitutionally guaranteed fundamental rights and freedoms. This development notwithstanding, the potential of their protection before the Constitutional Court has not been reduced, as the Court has developed an impressive list of doctrinal positions on the nature of social rights, committing to the concept of social state as a foundational element of European constitutionalism. Still, we would be remiss if we did not emphasize the Constitutional Court's passive stance towards the political branches of the government regarding the social rights and must therefore plead for a more active approach in that regard.

Local Integration as a Durable Solution? Negotiating Socioeconomic Spaces between Refugees and Host Communities in Rural Northern Uganda

With a growing number of displaced people, there is a need for robust approaches to coping with displacement. Uganda has a progressive refugee policy that promotes freedom of movement and the socioeconomic rights of the refugees. Specifically, refugees are often allocated land to settle and cultivate rural settlements, and the integrated social service provision facilitates interaction with host communities. However, there remain challenges in creating sustainable livelihoods for refugees in rural settlements. There exist significant tensions over shared resources such as land, water, woodlots, and grazing areas. Based on a survey of 416 households and key informant interviews with South Sudanese refugees in selected settlements in the Adjumani district, the paper highlights refugees’ access to social and economic spaces as critical pathways to sustainable livelihoods and integration. Uganda’s progressive policy expands the opportunity space; however, refugees still encounter significant barriers in accessing the socioeconomic spaces.

Migration Policy in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) States: A Critical Analysis

International labor migration is the unique reality of the six Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) member states. Despite seemingly open migration policies and reforms, the GCC states recently engaged in international and domestic policies to manage the migrant population better. Considering the dependency of Gulf states on migrant labor and the constant increase in migration to these states, this article aims to understand the policies pertaining to the presence, conditions of residence, integration, and socioeconomic rights of the migrant labor force. After an overview of migration trends and patterns in the GCC states, the article examines the migration policy framework that regulates and governs migration in the GCC. It also highlights the recent reforms and initiatives taken by the GCC states and a few sending countries which have impacted the migration flows, migrant rights, and development benefits of migration. Finally, the article concludes with a discussion on policy challenges and provides recommendations as a way forward.

Advancing Socioeconomic Rights Through Interdisciplinary Factfinding: Opportunities and Challenges

The human rights movement is increasingly using interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, mixed-methods, and quantitative factfinding. There has been too little analysis of these shifts. This article examines some of the opportunities and challenges of these methods, focusing on the investigation of socioeconomic human rights. By potentially expanding the amount and types of evidence available, factfinding's accuracy and persuasiveness can be strengthened, bolstering rights claims. However, such methods can also present significant challenges and may pose risks in individual cases and to the human rights movement generally. Interdisciplinary methods can be costly in human, financial, and technical resources; are sometimes challenging to implement; may divert limited resources from other work; can reify inequalities; may produce “expertise” that disempowers rightsholders; and could raise investigation standards to an infeasible or counterproductive level. This article includes lessons learned and questions to guide researchers and human rights advocates considering mixed-methods human rights factfinding. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 17 is October 2021. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.

On the Universal Power of Socioeconomic Rights: A Comparison Between Thomas Pogge and Rainer Forst

Introduction. This article investigates the universal power of socioeconomic rights assessing their theoretical conceptualization and practical implication. Methods. Taking theoretical and empirical research into account – at the level of public ethics and political theory – the article carries out a comparative analysis of the elements of global economic justice theory, moral universalism and institutional understanding of human rights of Thomas Pogge and the critical theory of political and social justice and the moral constructivist conception of human rights of Rainer Forst. Analysis. On the one hand, Pogge’s cosmopolitan approach underlines serious noncompliance of socioeconomic rights at the global level because of the unjust distribution of rights and duties enforced by the current global institutional order. In this vein, the protection of socioeconomic rights is conceived as a (moral) negative duty not to deprive people of secure access to a basic human rights object, and socioeconomic rights, by imposing upon them unjust coercive social institutions. On the other hand, Forst’s perspective maintains that each right needs to be constructed on the very basic moral right to reciprocal and general justification which is conceived as the most universal and basic claim of every human being. Results. Drawing on the above-mentioned outlooks on socioeconomic rights, the universal power of socioeconomic rights is assessed in light of the satisfaction of universal basic needs, whose object is also the object of socioeconomic rights – a ‘conditio sine qua non’ for a worthwhile life – and the justification of the assigned duties at the global level.

A Duty Perspective on the Hate Speech Prohibition in the Equality Act

In this contribution, I argue that every person's duty to respect others is central to section 10(1) of the Promotion of Equality and Prevention of Unfair Discrimination Act 4 of 2000 ("the Equality Act"), otherwise known as the "hate speech" prohibition. This duty should therefore also be a central consideration in its interpretation. Related duties are those of the state to enact legislation, and of courts to interpret and apply the law to promote the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights. Our courts have in many instances considered the duty to respect others, as well as the state's and the courts' related duties, in the interpretation of socioeconomic rights and the development of the common law. In doing so, they have consistently employed the reasonableness standard. Therefore, references to relevant case law in various legal contexts provide the framework within which I examine legal duties in the context of unfair discrimination and, in particular, hate speech in terms of section 10(1) of the Equality Act. I examine the constitutional obligations of the state, the courts and private persons to promote respect for the dignity of others. I reiterate the state's specific obligation in terms of section 9(4) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, to enact legislation to prevent or prohibit unfair discrimination on the grounds listed in section 9(3). Finally, I relate these duties to the section 10(1) prohibition in the Equality Act. I apply the reasonableness standard to conclude that the prohibition gives due effect to the duties of the state and every person, and that the courts are duty-bound to interpret it accordingly. This conclusion refutes the Supreme Court of Appeal's ruling in Qwelane v South African Human Rights Commission ("Qwelane")[1] that the section 10(1) prohibition was vague, overbroad and, therefore, unjustifiably infringing the right to freedom of expression. [1] 2020 3 BCLR 334 (SCA).

No Bread, No Freedom, No Social Justice

Conventional approaches to democratization in the Middle East take for granted the priority of some civil–political rights (e.g., voting) over others (e.g., rights of association or protest, socioeconomic rights). The discursive structure of these approaches has framed both the promotion of democracy by the European Union and regional governments’ counter-conductive reframing against that effort. But this pas de deux is part of a broader dynamic in which the common ground shared by these two efforts frames democracy so as to deny and delegitimize both the conception of democracy held by Middle Eastern and North African populations themselves and the political and socioeconomic demands of those same populations. Governments, in short, are engaged in “counter-conducting” their own populations. Drawing on critical discourse analysis of key documents, public opinion survey data, and activist interviews, an analysis of the Egyptian case shows that the discursive competition between governments is (also) a dance around democracy which seeks to avoid the more radical, egalitarian demands by populations

South African Legal Culture and its Dis/Empowerment Paradox

Twenty-five years since becoming a constitutional democracy, South Africa presents the perplexing paradox of arguably having the most progressive constitution in the world, marked by full-throated socioeconomic rights protection, while also being the most unequal country in the world. This chapter makes the argument that this alarming paradox can be at least partly understood in terms of a ‘dis/empowerment paradox’ endemic to South Africa’s legal culture. It takes a historical view of the formation and impact of South African legal culture and the various levels and ways in which the dis/empowerment paradox argued for has been, and continues to be, characteristic thereof. The chapter traces the contributions of the judiciary to shaping the country’s legally pluralistic culture over the course of history and into the present. It ultimately points to judicial complicity in restraining the full realization of freedom and justice under the law—both before and after the dawn of South Africa’s modern-day Constitution—by under-utilizing law’s potential for liberation. Tracing this historical arc is aimed at helping legal, anthropological, and wider readers not familiar with South Africa’s particular circumstances to better understand the concluding argument: namely, that the purported solution to South Africa’s problems described as ‘transformative constitutionalism’ presents notable pitfalls. While the chapter does not argue that the judiciary is solely, or even mainly, responsible for the dis/empowerment paradox of law, it does argue that the judiciary is somewhat complicit in the limited socioeconomic transformation seen subsequent to adoption of the country’s progressive Constitution.