Advertisement

Proportionality in Social Rights Adjudication: Making It Workable

  • Laura Clérico
Chapter

Abstract

This paper supports the idea that the proportionality test works as an analytical framework in adjudicating social rights. In particular, suitability and alternative means tests should gain relevance and stop being the neglected steps of the proportionality test. Suitability and alternative means tests are reinforced by considering several aspects, such as quantitative, qualitative and probabilistic. In this vein, it serves to rebut the position which sustains that proportionality as a safeguard against the state not doing enough is pure balancing. Suitability and alternative means tests state what has been done and what is possible to be done to promote the social rights in question. In sum, the work shows that this basic structure of proportionality can be used as an analytical tool to reconstruct decisions about social rights adjudication. Therefore, there is no reason for the Courts not to make more systematic use of the three-part test of proportionality, at least seen from the analytical level.

Keywords

Proportionality Social rights adjudication Prohibition ofinsufficiency Suitability test Test of alternative means 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to the comments, critics and suggestions in different stages of the work made by Martín Aldao, Robert Alexy, Rodolfo Arango, David Duarte, Federico de Fazio, Peter Hull, Daniel Oliver Lalana, Sebastián Sciosciolli, Jan Sieckmann, Leticia Vita and Hyun Jung Lee. Errors are mine.

References

  1. Abramovich V, Courtis C (2002) Los Derechos Sociales como Derechos Exigibles. Trotta, MadridGoogle Scholar
  2. Aldao M, Clérico L, Ronconi L (2017) A multidimensional approach to equality in the inter-American context. Redistribution, recognition, and participatory parity. In: von Bogdandy A et al (eds) Constitutionalism in Latin America. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexy R (1986) Theorie der Grundrechte. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexy R (2007) Zur Struktur der Grundrechte auf Schutz. In: Sieckmann J (ed) Die Prinzipientheorie der Grundrechte. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexy R (2009) On constitutional rights to protection. Legisprudence 3(1)Google Scholar
  6. Alexy R (2010) The construction of constitutional rights. Law Ethics Hum Rights 4(21)Google Scholar
  7. Añón Roig MJ (2016) Hay límites a la regresividad de derechos sociales. Revista Derechos y Libertades, MadridGoogle Scholar
  8. Arango R (2001) Der Begriff der sozialen Grundrechte. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  9. Arango R (2004) El valor de la coherencia y el precedente constitucional. In: Zuluaga R (ed) Interpretar y argumentar. Nuevas perspectivas para el derecho. Universidad Javeriana, BogotaGoogle Scholar
  10. Arango R (2006) La prohibición de retroceso en Colombia. In: Courtis C (ed) Ni un paso atrás. Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  11. Arango R (2011) El concepto del goce efectivo de los derechos. Temis, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  12. Bernal Pulido C (2013) The migration of proportionality across Europe. NZ J Public Int Law 11(3)Google Scholar
  13. Beth G (2017) Constitutional approaches to gender and social and economic rights. In: Irving H (ed) Constitutions and gender handbook. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  14. Bilchitz D (2013) Constitutionalism, the global south, and economic justice. In: Bonilla D (ed) Constitutionalism of the global south. The activist tribunals of India, South Africa, and Colombia. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Bilchitz D (2014a) Socio-economic rights, economic crisis, and legal doctrine. Int J Constitutional LawGoogle Scholar
  16. Bilchitz D (2014b) Necessity and proportionality. Towards a balanced approach? In: Lazarus L et al (eds) Reasoning rights. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Borowski M (2007) Grundrechte als Prinzipien., 2. Auflage, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  18. Chacón Lemus MS (2013) La Ponderación de principios en la justicia constitucional guatemalteca. Opus Magna Constitucional, Corte de ConstitucionalidadGoogle Scholar
  19. Clérico L (2001) Die Struktur der Verhältnismässigkeit. Nomos, Baden-Baden, p 168Google Scholar
  20. Clérico L (2007) El examen de proporcionalidad. entre exceso de acción y la insuficiencia por omisión o defecto. In: Carbonell M (ed) El principio de proporcionalidad en el Estado constitucional. BogotáGoogle Scholar
  21. Clérico L (2009) Das Untermaßverbot und die Alternativitätsthese. In: Clérico L, Sieckmann J (eds) Grundrechte, Prinzipien und Argumentation. Studien zur Rechtstheorie Robert Alexys. Nomos, Baden-BadenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clérico L (2012) Sobre Casos y Ponderación. Los Modelos de Alexy y Moreso, ¿Más Similitudes que Diferencias? Isonomía, MéxicoGoogle Scholar
  23. Clérico L (2015) Examen de proporcionalidad y objeción de indeterminación, Anuario de Filosofía del Derecho, vol 31. Nueva ÉpocaGoogle Scholar
  24. Clérico L (2017) Proportionality and balancing. In: Mendes CH, Gargarella R (eds) Oxford handbook of constitutional law in Latin America. OUP, Oxford (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  25. Contiades X, Fotiadou A (2012) Social rights in the age of proportionality. Global economic crisis and constitutional litigation. Int J Constitutional LawGoogle Scholar
  26. Contiades X, Fotiadou A (2014) A reply to David Bilchitz. Int J Constitutional Law 12(3)Google Scholar
  27. Cordón Aguilar JC (2013) La noción del “contenido esencial” y el principio de proporcionalidad. In: Derechos humanos. el anhelo por garantizar el respeto a la dignidad de la persona (ed) Cara Parens de la Universidad Rafael LandívarGoogle Scholar
  28. Courtis C (ed) (2006) Ni un paso atrás. La prohibición de regresividad en materia de derechos sociales. del Puerto, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  29. Courtis C (2009) Standards to make ESC rights justiciable: a summary exploration. Eur Law Rev2Google Scholar
  30. Cremer W (2008) Die Verhältnismäßigkeitsprüfung bei der grundrechtlichen Schutzpflicht. DÖVGoogle Scholar
  31. Da Silva AV (2003) Grundrechte und gesetzgeberische Spielräume. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  32. De Laurentiis L (2016) A Proporcionalidade no Direito Constitucional: Origem. Modelos e Reconstrução Dogmática, Sao PauloGoogle Scholar
  33. Falcón JP (2013) El Examen de Proporcionalidad por acción insuficiente. aDA Ciudad, Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  34. Fazio FD (2014) Sistemas Normativos y conflictos constitucionales. ¿es posible aplicar derechos fundamentales sin ponderar? Isonomia: ITAM, N° 40, Abril 2014, México D. F.Google Scholar
  35. Fazio FD (2017) Teoría jurídica de los derechos sociales. Buenos AiresGoogle Scholar
  36. Florian FJL (2013) La eficacia de los derechos sociales entre particulares. Pensamiento ConstitucionalGoogle Scholar
  37. Fowkes J (2017) Transformative constitutionalism in the global south. In: von Bogdandy A et al (eds) Transformative constitutionalism in Latin America. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  38. García Jaramillo L (2014) Subreglas jurisprudenciales de contención a las mayorías parlamentarias. In: García Jaramillo L (ed) Nuevas perspectivas sobre la relación/tensión entre la democracia y el constitucionalismo. GrijleyGoogle Scholar
  39. Gardbaum S (2016) Positive and horizontal rights. Proportionality’s next frontier or a bridge too far? In: Jackson V, Tushnet M (eds) Proportionality. New frontiers, new challenges. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  40. Gerards J (2013) How to improve the necessity test of the European Court of Human Rights. Int J Constitutional Law 11(2)Google Scholar
  41. Hain K (1996) Untermaßverbot in der Kontroverse, ZGGoogle Scholar
  42. Hirschl R (2013) From comparative constitutional law to comparative constitutional studies. Int J Constitutional Law 11(1)Google Scholar
  43. Huang C, Law D (2015) Proportionality review of administrative action in Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China. In: Bignami F, Zaring D (eds) Research handbook in comparative law and regulation. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  44. Jackson V, Green J (2011) Constitutional interpretation in comparative perspective. Comparing judges or courts? In: Guinsburg T, Dixon R (eds) Comparative constitutional law. Edward Elgar, NorthamptonGoogle Scholar
  45. Johannes D (1994) Das Untermaßverbot, Zeitschrift für GesetzgebungGoogle Scholar
  46. Jung C et al (2014) Economic and social rights in national constitutions. Am J Comp Law 610:1043Google Scholar
  47. Klatt M (2015) Positive rights: who decides? Judicial review in balance. Int J Constitutional Law 13(2)Google Scholar
  48. Klatt M, Schmidt J (2012) Epistemic discretion in constitutional law. Int J Constitutional Law 10Google Scholar
  49. Kleiber M (2014) Der grundrechtliche Schutz künftiger Generationen. Mohr Siebeck, TübingenGoogle Scholar
  50. Koutnatzis SIG (2013) Verfassungsvergleichende Überlegungen zur Rezeption des Grundsatzes der Verhältnismäßigkeit in Übersee. In: Verfassung und Recht in Übersee. VRÜGoogle Scholar
  51. Kumm M (2004) Constitutional rights as principles: on the structure and domain of constitutional justice. Int J Constitutional Law (I•CON) 2Google Scholar
  52. Landau D (2014) The promise of a minimum core approach. The Colombian model for judicial review of austerity measures. In: Nolan A (ed) Economic and social rights after the global financial crisis. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  53. Malcolm L (2011) Social rights jurisprudence, emerging trends in international and comparative law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  54. Matricardi LF (2009) A Proibição de Insuficiência e o STF: O Controle de Proporcionalidade da Omissão Estatal, São PauloGoogle Scholar
  55. Mayer M (2005) Untermaß, Übermaß und Wesensgehaltsgarantie. Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  56. Moller K (2012) The global model of constitutional rights. OUP, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Moreso J (2012) Ways of solving conflicts of constitutional rights. Ratio Juris: 25–31Google Scholar
  58. O’Cinneide C (2014) The problematic of social rights – uniformity and diversity in the development of social rights review. In: McCrudden L, Bowles N (eds) Reasoning rights: comparative judicial engagement. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  59. Oliveira FBB (2013) Controle da omissão estatal em direitos fundamentais. Conteúdo, estrutura e o problema da justiciabilidade dos deveres de proteção, São Paulo. Faculdade de Direito, University of São PauloGoogle Scholar
  60. Parra O (2016) The protection of social rights. In: Bergallo P et al (eds) The Latin American casebook. Courts, constitutions, and rights. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  61. Pou Giménez F (2014) Libertad de expresión y discurso homofóbico en México: ¿es correcta la teoría constitucional de la Suprema Corte? In: Boletín Mexicano de Derecho Comparado, No. 140Google Scholar
  62. Raabe M (1994) Grundrechtsschutzundgesetzgeberischer Einschätzungsspielraum. In: Grabenwarter et al (eds) Allgemeinheit der Grundrechte und Vielfalt der Gesellschaft. pp 83–100Google Scholar
  63. Raabe M (1998) Grundrechte und Erkenntnis. Der Einschätzungsspielraum des Gesetzgebers. Nomos, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  64. Reinhard R (2005) Zur Konkretisierung des Untermaßverbotes. ZGGoogle Scholar
  65. Ronconi L (2012) Derecho a la salud. un modelo para la determinación de los contenidos mínimos y periféricos. Salud colectiva 8(2)Google Scholar
  66. Schauer F (2005) Freedom of expression adjudication in Europe and the United States. A case study in comparative constitutional architecture. In: Nolte G (ed) European and US constitutionalism. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  67. Schlink B (2012) Proportionality. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajó A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. OUP, Oxford, p 730Google Scholar
  68. Sieckmann J (1988) Das System richterlicher Bindungen und Kontrollkompetenzen. In: Mellinghoff R et al (ed) Die Leistungsfähigkeit des Rechts. Heidelberg, pp 39–60Google Scholar
  69. Sieckmann J (1997) Beurteilungsspielräume und richterliche Kontrollkompetenzen. In: DVBlGoogle Scholar
  70. Sieckmann J (2016) Principios formales. In: Portocarrero Quispe A (ed) Ponderación y discrecionalidad. Universidad Externado de Colombia, BogotáGoogle Scholar
  71. Stone Sweet A, Mathews J (2008) Proportionality, balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia J Transnational Law 47Google Scholar
  72. Tushnet M (2008) Why comparative constitutional law? In: Tushnet M (ed) Weak courts, strong rights: judicial review and social welfare rights in comparative constitutional law. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  73. Vasileios T (2004) Das Untermaßverbot. Frankfurt am MainGoogle Scholar
  74. Von Bogdandy A (2017) Ius Constitutionale Commune in América Latina. Observations on Transformative Constitutionalism. In: von Bogdandy A et al (eds) Constitutionalism in Latin America. OUP, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  75. Young K (2017) Proportionality, reasonableness and social rights. In: Jackson V, Tushnet M (eds) Proportionality. New frontiers, new challenges. CUP, CambridgeGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Clérico
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Buenos AiresBuenos AiresArgentina
  2. 2.University Erlangen-NürnbergErlangenGermany

Personalised recommendations