Download this publication - PULP

19 Reply
On ‘dialogue’, ‘translation’ and ‘voice’:
A reply to Sandra Liebenberg
Marius Pieterse*
1 Introduction
A substantive jurisprudence on social rights ... can serve to enhance the
participatory capabilities of those living in poverty and inequality. At its
best it should constantly remind us of our constitutional commitment to
establishing a society based on social justice, and facilitate the inclusion
of marginalised voices in the debate on what is required to achieve such
a society. 1
Sandra Liebenberg used these words to conclude a recent article on
the transformative potential of socio-economic rights adjudication. In
‘Socio-economic rights: Revisiting the reasonableness review/
minimum core debate’, Liebenberg essentially builds on this
conclusion. She evaluates the manner and extent to which the two
most often-discussed approaches to socio-economic rights
adjudication in South Africa (the ‘reasonableness approach’ followed
by the Constitutional Court and the ‘minimum core approach’ often
contended for by is critics) facilitate and contribute to discussions
over the meaning of socio-economic rights. Given that these
discussions, in turn, contribute to overarching deliberations over what
is required to achieve a society based on social justice, Liebenberg’s
* I am grateful to Michael Bishop and Sandra Liebenberg for their critical
engagement with a previous draft of this reply.
1
S Liebenberg ‘Needs, rights and transformation: Adjudicating social rights’ (2006)
17 Stellenbosch Law Review 5 36.
331