The usefulness of the discourse of rights is revisited in this article to alleviate social problems. The article explains the "emptiness" of the South African Constitutional Court's socioeconomic jurisprudence. The article demonstrates that despite their transformative potential socioeconomic rights are complicit too, and not victims of, the disengagement of the needs they represent. As the rights are one of the only realistic policy instruments to effectively address deprivation of socio-economic needs, we should not surrender rights, but rather seek to turn theoretical socio-economic protections into functional legal rights.

Rights Talk, Needs Talk, And The Challenge For Socioeconomic Rights

The author's belief in portraying these discussions on the socio-economic justice issues, as found in the constitution of the Republic of South Africa in 1996. First, this essay seeks to add to the global debates about the practicality and efficacy of social justice by socioeconomic equality. Second, recognizing through intrinsic barriers to this initiative are visible but are often ignored. Rights-talk enables people to affirm that rights holders have intrinsic worth and to offer their demands to appease their material needs which would otherwise be overshadowed political legitimacy. How the South African Constitutional Court had enforced the justiciable socio-economic rights jurisprudence has received a fair measure of praise for affirming the justiciability of these rights. But it has also attracted critical criticism, that socio-economic rights are immediately enforceable by the individuals.

Then the article talks about the closer consideration of how the Court proceduralizes his inquiry into socio-economic obligations, the discourse on socio-economic rights are not based on the interests which led to the incorporation of socio-economic justice into the text of the constitution. Such study describes the way that society uses discourse on rights to control and eradicate social movements, as the representation of a political, social, and economic status quo. It indicates that socio-economic rights articulation deficiencies may greatly impede the promotion of social justice focused on citizenship.

The argument here is not that the fundamental inherent inability of socio-economic rights is to confront a large-scale denial of material necessity effectively. In comparison, social freedoms have a tremendous ability to profoundly affect the lives of their beneficiaries. But the article shows, albeit that the ethos and philosophy of the judiciary are not the only barriers to the meaningful achievement of socio-economic rights, nor is the legal basis of the constitutionally-appointed and empowered socio-economic laws, without unnecessarily limiting its ability, or exceeding their divisions. The theoretical, conceptually empty articulation of social interests, which enables structural confinement and removal of their desires remains a significant additional impediment.

The success of the socio-economic rights as tools to redress the harmful effects of material hardship depends on the right of its beneficiaries to link cogently to their needs and experience and to achieve a tangible improvement in their livelihood. The rejection of freedom was one of the key features of the CLS(Critical Legal Studies) bursary at the beginning and the mid-1890s. CLS scholars argued that the nature of the debate on rights is relatively significant but related minor changes can make it difficult to maintain that the right remains implied that it converts real experiences (repeat) into a closed system, which we should value for our own benefit, and prevent progressive social forces from advancing. The dialogue on freedom can be distorted by prominent members of society to distinguish their perceived privilege roles.

At last, the article talks about, Liberal freedoms may be applied, first, in marginalizing social power systems and secondly, in sabotaging state efforts to achieve equal equality, to problems confronting disadvantaged sections of society.

Frank Michelman has shown that the discourse on rights can by its tendencies towards abstraction and proceduralization removes from the practical experience material deprivation the focus of rights-based socioeconomic litigation. In the context of poverty alleviation, the use of equal protection theory argued the effectiveness of legal actions to address social difficulties relied on the potential of the individuals they tried to protect and encourage them to cope with their true, physical needs. If courts request that such needs be incorporated into abstract and relation legal standards, they risk making those needs incomprehensible (and therefore irrelevant) to the case. Michelman submitted that what was necessary is to adopt a preliminary approach that identifies and tries directly to satisfy certain core social needs. CLS scholars suggested that a focus on needs would be more useful in the quest for social justice and that social benefits could more effectively be guaranteed for poor and marginalized groups in society.

The Foundation should be "a substantive conception of good society," which in turn would facilitate the formulation of a coherent, needs-oriented theory for positive rights, to unleash that rights-discourse potential. According to Robin West, Society mustn't only respect the free will of the citizen and must preserve the civil and political freedom that is necessary to pursue the good life, both individually and collectively, but also assure constructive access to such social amenities in society that it is capable of living in agreement with its human dignity. Socioeconomic rights could never in isolation be put into place and their protection values are undifferentiated, interrelated, and undivided.

The protections of socioeconomic rights alongside civil and political rights will combat many of liberal rights vulnerabilities (as mentioned by CLS scholars). By providing enforceable access to goods and services which are essential to human survival and growth, socio-economic rights appear capable of bringing the concept of rights and needs into productive harmony. Ensuring socio-economic rights contributes to achieving a society that is ultimately fairer and that respects and confirms equal human dignity for all citizens. When socio-economic rights must work effectively as legislative tools to remedy and overcome a lack of need, their application shall be relevant to the interests and conditions of their objects, in particular substantive circumstances. Besides, socio-economic rights are only valuable to rights bearers if rights can improve physically their lives tangibly.