Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda

Jacinta Miller, Alice Diver

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

Abstract

The need for some form of ‘fairness agenda’ has been cited on several occasions in connection with the UK’s ongoing programmes of welfare reform. That the state has an over-arching duty to preserve finite resources, whilst also promoting just and ‘equitable outcomes’ via its decision-making processes, has also been noted in a number of recent cases arising out of the introduction of ‘austerity measures.’ Whether equitable concepts are set to expand upon basic equality principles in cases involving adequate living standards remains to be seen. What does seem fairly clear is that budgetary limitations have the potential to impact significantly upon the lives of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly in respect of such particularly ‘fragile rights’ as housing or health care provision. This is especially so where certain socio-economic rights have tended to require considerable levels of financial and political bolstering, in the absence of which they risk being forever framed as merely aspirational in nature, suitable only for some gently progressive form of realization. Litigation in domestic courts remains key: as Harris argued, ‘non-justiciability may be revealed as the reason for there being no legally enforceable rights.’ Equally, the notion of a justiciable right to an adequate standard of living is perhaps still a little too ‘malleable,’ to be considered on a ‘justiciability-par’ with weightier civil or political rights. This chapter will argue that a rights-template tied to the notion of ‘socio-economic equity’ (rather than equality) could frame domestic judges as the ‘trustees’ of public budgets, and of the socio-economic rights that such funds are meant to protect and promote. This could in turn potentially serve to challenge at least some of the increasingly profound ‘cycles of poverty that can only be broken through structural reforms.’ The role of domestic courts is a fundamental, and essentially fiduciary one: judges are best placed to keep reminding legislators and policy-makers of the need to identify (and avoid dipping below) clearly articulated rights standards which should in themselves be firmly grounded upon such key rights concepts as human dignity and ‘bodily integrity.’
Original languageEnglish
Title of host publicationJusticiability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions
EditorsAlice Diver, Jacinta Miller
Place of PublicationNew York; Europe
PublisherSpringer Intl
Pages25-44
Number of pages438
ISBN (Print)978-3-319-24016-9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 16 Dec 2015

Fingerprint

fairness
equality
public budget
economics
human dignity
structural reform
political right
living standard
standard of living
civil rights
decision-making process
integrity
welfare
housing
poverty
health care
reform
resources
time
Society

Cite this

Miller, J., & Diver, A. (2015). Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda. In A. Diver, & J. Miller (Eds.), Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions (pp. 25-44). New York; Europe: Springer Intl. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9
Miller, Jacinta ; Diver, Alice. / Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda. Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. editor / Alice Diver ; Jacinta Miller. New York; Europe : Springer Intl, 2015. pp. 25-44
@inbook{891eb20521f048b2ad39d821a43675eb,
title = "Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda",
abstract = "The need for some form of ‘fairness agenda’ has been cited on several occasions in connection with the UK’s ongoing programmes of welfare reform. That the state has an over-arching duty to preserve finite resources, whilst also promoting just and ‘equitable outcomes’ via its decision-making processes, has also been noted in a number of recent cases arising out of the introduction of ‘austerity measures.’ Whether equitable concepts are set to expand upon basic equality principles in cases involving adequate living standards remains to be seen. What does seem fairly clear is that budgetary limitations have the potential to impact significantly upon the lives of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly in respect of such particularly ‘fragile rights’ as housing or health care provision. This is especially so where certain socio-economic rights have tended to require considerable levels of financial and political bolstering, in the absence of which they risk being forever framed as merely aspirational in nature, suitable only for some gently progressive form of realization. Litigation in domestic courts remains key: as Harris argued, ‘non-justiciability may be revealed as the reason for there being no legally enforceable rights.’ Equally, the notion of a justiciable right to an adequate standard of living is perhaps still a little too ‘malleable,’ to be considered on a ‘justiciability-par’ with weightier civil or political rights. This chapter will argue that a rights-template tied to the notion of ‘socio-economic equity’ (rather than equality) could frame domestic judges as the ‘trustees’ of public budgets, and of the socio-economic rights that such funds are meant to protect and promote. This could in turn potentially serve to challenge at least some of the increasingly profound ‘cycles of poverty that can only be broken through structural reforms.’ The role of domestic courts is a fundamental, and essentially fiduciary one: judges are best placed to keep reminding legislators and policy-makers of the need to identify (and avoid dipping below) clearly articulated rights standards which should in themselves be firmly grounded upon such key rights concepts as human dignity and ‘bodily integrity.’",
author = "Jacinta Miller and Alice Diver",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "16",
doi = "10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9",
language = "English",
isbn = "978-3-319-24016-9",
pages = "25--44",
editor = "Alice Diver and Jacinta Miller",
booktitle = "Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions",
publisher = "Springer Intl",

}

Miller, J & Diver, A 2015, Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda. in A Diver & J Miller (eds), Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. Springer Intl, New York; Europe, pp. 25-44. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9

Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda. / Miller, Jacinta; Diver, Alice.

Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. ed. / Alice Diver; Jacinta Miller. New York; Europe : Springer Intl, 2015. p. 25-44.

Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingChapter

TY - CHAP

T1 - Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda

AU - Miller, Jacinta

AU - Diver, Alice

PY - 2015/12/16

Y1 - 2015/12/16

N2 - The need for some form of ‘fairness agenda’ has been cited on several occasions in connection with the UK’s ongoing programmes of welfare reform. That the state has an over-arching duty to preserve finite resources, whilst also promoting just and ‘equitable outcomes’ via its decision-making processes, has also been noted in a number of recent cases arising out of the introduction of ‘austerity measures.’ Whether equitable concepts are set to expand upon basic equality principles in cases involving adequate living standards remains to be seen. What does seem fairly clear is that budgetary limitations have the potential to impact significantly upon the lives of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly in respect of such particularly ‘fragile rights’ as housing or health care provision. This is especially so where certain socio-economic rights have tended to require considerable levels of financial and political bolstering, in the absence of which they risk being forever framed as merely aspirational in nature, suitable only for some gently progressive form of realization. Litigation in domestic courts remains key: as Harris argued, ‘non-justiciability may be revealed as the reason for there being no legally enforceable rights.’ Equally, the notion of a justiciable right to an adequate standard of living is perhaps still a little too ‘malleable,’ to be considered on a ‘justiciability-par’ with weightier civil or political rights. This chapter will argue that a rights-template tied to the notion of ‘socio-economic equity’ (rather than equality) could frame domestic judges as the ‘trustees’ of public budgets, and of the socio-economic rights that such funds are meant to protect and promote. This could in turn potentially serve to challenge at least some of the increasingly profound ‘cycles of poverty that can only be broken through structural reforms.’ The role of domestic courts is a fundamental, and essentially fiduciary one: judges are best placed to keep reminding legislators and policy-makers of the need to identify (and avoid dipping below) clearly articulated rights standards which should in themselves be firmly grounded upon such key rights concepts as human dignity and ‘bodily integrity.’

AB - The need for some form of ‘fairness agenda’ has been cited on several occasions in connection with the UK’s ongoing programmes of welfare reform. That the state has an over-arching duty to preserve finite resources, whilst also promoting just and ‘equitable outcomes’ via its decision-making processes, has also been noted in a number of recent cases arising out of the introduction of ‘austerity measures.’ Whether equitable concepts are set to expand upon basic equality principles in cases involving adequate living standards remains to be seen. What does seem fairly clear is that budgetary limitations have the potential to impact significantly upon the lives of the most vulnerable members of society, particularly in respect of such particularly ‘fragile rights’ as housing or health care provision. This is especially so where certain socio-economic rights have tended to require considerable levels of financial and political bolstering, in the absence of which they risk being forever framed as merely aspirational in nature, suitable only for some gently progressive form of realization. Litigation in domestic courts remains key: as Harris argued, ‘non-justiciability may be revealed as the reason for there being no legally enforceable rights.’ Equally, the notion of a justiciable right to an adequate standard of living is perhaps still a little too ‘malleable,’ to be considered on a ‘justiciability-par’ with weightier civil or political rights. This chapter will argue that a rights-template tied to the notion of ‘socio-economic equity’ (rather than equality) could frame domestic judges as the ‘trustees’ of public budgets, and of the socio-economic rights that such funds are meant to protect and promote. This could in turn potentially serve to challenge at least some of the increasingly profound ‘cycles of poverty that can only be broken through structural reforms.’ The role of domestic courts is a fundamental, and essentially fiduciary one: judges are best placed to keep reminding legislators and policy-makers of the need to identify (and avoid dipping below) clearly articulated rights standards which should in themselves be firmly grounded upon such key rights concepts as human dignity and ‘bodily integrity.’

U2 - 10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9

DO - 10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9

M3 - Chapter

SN - 978-3-319-24016-9

SP - 25

EP - 44

BT - Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions

A2 - Diver, Alice

A2 - Miller, Jacinta

PB - Springer Intl

CY - New York; Europe

ER -

Miller J, Diver A. Can rights be ring-fenced in times of austerity? Equality, equity and judicial ‘trusteeship’ over the UK’s fairness agenda. In Diver A, Miller J, editors, Justiciability of Human Rights Law in Domestic Jurisdictions. New York; Europe: Springer Intl. 2015. p. 25-44 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-24016-9