Whether socio-economic rights should be entrenched in constitutions has been a subject of lively debate. On the one hand, it has been argued that such an entrenchment is necessary in order to recognize the worth and standing of those rights and in order to give individual claimants sufficient remedies in cases of a breach of a right. On the other hand, it has been argued that it is unnecessary (because statutory recognition is sufficient) and even harmful because it invites judges to enter into the field of social policy where they have neither competence nor legitimacy to act.

In the United States, courts have played a key role in defining socio-economic rights and in enforcing the government's obligations to provide and protect those rights.

Report of a symposium exploring issues surrounding post-apartheid justice and redress in South Africa for human rights abuses in which corporations are allegedly implicated.

This policy brief sets out some of the recent case law on the right to the highest attainable standard of health and argues that this jurisprudence exposes the unnecessarily narrow construction of the social contract.