Contesting Austerity: The Potential and Pitfalls of Socioeconomic Rights Discourse

Wills, Joe; Warwick, Ben

doi:10.2979/indjglolegstu.23.2.0629

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Whilst such principles have demonstrably failed to push back against austerity, that failure is arguably not attributable to the principles themselves, but rather with their conceptual and legal underdevelopment, and practical application, by the broader human rights community. As Wills and Warwick (2016) argue, such principles, 'can serve as important counterframes to the dominant neoliberal fixation on competitiveness, efficiency and economic rationality' (ibid. : 631).…”

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming Progressive Realisation: A Children’s Rights Analysis

Byrne

2020

Int. J. Child. Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Any discussion on children’s socio-economic rights should not overlook their means of fulfilment; namely, the principle of progressive realisation and the legal duties arising therefrom. This article argues that from a children’s rights perspective, this principle has remained legally and operationally underdeveloped by the Committee on the Rights of the Child. This can be seen from their failure sufficiently to engage with, and address, the obligations imposed by progressive realisation in their General Comments and in their Concluding Observations on state practice issued under the Convention’s reporting process. This article argues that the cumulative consequence of these failings is that the Committee has peripheralised this important legal obligation within children’s rights scholarship and has ultimately undermined its ability to achieve its full legal potential in enhancing children’s socio-economic rights. In advocating for the promulgation of a revised General Comment on the General Measures of Implementation, it demonstrates how children’s rights can meaningfully reconnect with the principle in a more consequential way.

show abstract

Section: 2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reclaiming Progressive Realisation: A Children’s Rights Analysis

Byrne

2020

Int. J. Child. Rights

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Non-diminution is sometimes described as non-retrogression or non-regression; however, while these are similar terms -also requiring a state to avoid backwards steps in human rights -it is important to be clear about non-diminution and the way it is used in the draft Withdrawal Agreement. The principle of non-retrogression is an established idea in international human rights law (Wills and Warwick, 2016), but it has not previously been used in EU human rights law. Critically, a non-diminution guarantee prohibits backwards steps, whereas non-retrogression permits them if they are justified according to set criteria.…”

Section: Non-diminution Of Rightsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bordering Two Unions

Mars

Murray

O’Donoghue

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

M500513/1), which made this book possible. Our three universities -Birmingham, Durham and Newcastle -have supported us in various ways in the process of writing this book and in the years of research prior to it. We owe much to the many colleagues in our own universities and elsewhere who have been sounding boards, sources of inspiration and moral supporters.We have enjoyed the input of more people than could be mentioned here, but we are especially appreciative of thoughtprovoking questions and comments we received from Kevin

show abstract

“…Yet socio-economic rights have always provided for 'progressive realisation' by State Parties (especially in recognition of the challenges of developing states), subject to a correlative 'non-retrogression' obligation (not going backwards); 11 and it is hard to find examples even of wealthy countries not taking a similar progressive (i.e., staged) and/or selective (i.e., needs-based) approach to their realisation. Despite the jurisprudence on the obligation to 'respect, protect and fulfil' (Wills and Warwick 2016;Forman et al 2016), progressive realisation of universal socio-economic rights does of course risk glacial progress at best or constant postponement to the 'never-never land' at worst, especially in the face of neoliberal fiscal austerity which constrains public funding options even in wealthy first-world economies.…”

Section: Setting Priorities For Allocating Limited Resources For Sdmentioning

confidence: 99%

Prioritising Supported Decision-Making: Running on Empty or a Basis for Glacial-To-Steady Progress?

Carney

2017

Laws

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Honouring the requirement of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to introduce supported decision-making (SD) has largely been a case of much talk and little real action. As a socio-economic right, actualising support is resource-intensive as well as being fairly uncharted territory in terms of what works, to what degree and for how long benefits last. This paper, drawing lightly on mainly Australian examples, considers unexplored (and sometimes unorthodox) approaches such as the 'needs-based' principle for setting social welfare priorities as possible ways of revitalising SD through progressive realisation, whether through civil society programs or under the law. It argues that pure repeal of proxy decision-making on its own is not viable in realpolitik terms so progressive realisation of 'repeal with adequate support' must instead be devised for SD implementation to progress.

show abstract

Contesting Austerity: The Potential and Pitfalls of Socioeconomic Rights Discourse

Cited by 4 publications

References 11 publications

Reclaiming Progressive Realisation: A Children’s Rights Analysis

Reclaiming Progressive Realisation: A Children’s Rights Analysis

Bordering Two Unions

Prioritising Supported Decision-Making: Running on Empty or a Basis for Glacial-To-Steady Progress?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About