Download this publication - PULP

Sandra Liebenberg 329
being are constantly explored and created, accepted and rejected and
in which change is unpredictable but the idea of change is constant. 118
The approach I have advocated has the further advantage of
narrowing the distinction between the way in which the courts review
the positive and negative duties imposed by socio-economic rights.
This distinction is based on the false premise that the current patterns
of those who have and of those who lack access to resources and
services are perpetuated by the state through existing rules of public
or private law.
Law and legal processes alone cannot bridge the chasm between
the realities of poverty and inequality that pervade our society and
the constitutional ideal of a new society founded on human dignity,
equality and freedom. However, when cases concerning socioeconomic
rights do come before the courts, it is important that the
jurisprudence applied to these claims facilitates the transformation
of unjust social and economic relations entrenched by current laws. A
more robust model of reasonableness review which engages seriously
with the purposes and values underlying socio-economic rights — and
the devastating impact of poverty on any individual’s life chances —
will help these rights fulfill their transformative potential.
118 Langa (n 8 above) 354.