Sandra Fredman

Showing 5 of the most recent publications
Change to sort them by title | name | type OR
Show All 35 | Selected publications

DOI: http://siteresources.worldbank.org/EXTNWDR2013/Resources/825

This is a background paper for the World Development Report 2013. It aims to provide a literature review of legal and other instruments aimed at addressing labour market discrimination in developing countries,. The analysis takes place in the context of the understanding of jobs as providing the hinge connecting the three identified transformations at the centre of economic development: living standards, productivity gains and social cohesion. As Juan Somavia, ILO Director -General stated in June 2001: „Every day we are reminded that, for everybody, work is a defining feature of human existence. It is the means of sustaining life and of meeting basic needs. But it is also an activity through which individuals affirm their own identity, both to themselves and to those around them. It is crucial to individual choice, to the welfare of families and to the stability of societies.‟ Yet many people are unable to access decent work because of their gender, race, disability, sexual orientation, age or poverty. Disadvantage in the labour market is disproportionately concentrated among women, ethnic minorities, people with disabilities, older or younger people and poor people. The report deals with a brief discussion of de jure equality; anti-discrimination laws; the informal sector; and implementation (including affirmative action) in a range of countries: among low income countries, the briefing note considers Kenya, Bangladesh and Nepal; among lower middle income countries, it examines India, the Philippines and Zambia; and among upper middle income countries, it examines South Africa, Botswana, Brazil, Jamaica and the Czech Republic. The countries were chosen to reflect a spread of different cultural, regional, historical and developmental factors, as well as the availability of literature in English. .

The interpretation of human rights inevitably requires value judgements. But if the power of interpretation and limitation of human rights is left to elected legislators on the basis of majority voting, perpetual minorities may be perpetually subordinated. But leaving judges to make the final decision flies in the face of the basic principle that all fundamental decisions in society should be taken by the people themselves. Prisoners’ voting rights throw the dilemma into particularly sharp relief. Should an elected legislature have the final say on removing the fundamental right to vote from a section of the population, particularly one which is deeply unpopular and which politicians have no natural interest in defending? The most promising way out of this dilemma is to move away from a polarisation between courts and legislatures, and instead regard both as contributing to a democratic resolution of human rights disputes. An increasingly influential stream of thought characterises the relationship as one of dialogue. Rather than courts having the final say, judicial decisions provoke a response from the legislature. In this paper, I aim to go beyond a dialogic model and propose one based on deliberative democracy. Drawing on the distinction between interest bargaining and value-based or deliberative decisions, I argue that human rights can only be properly addressed within a democracy through deliberative means. In other words, the power of the principle should constitute the reason for adopting it, rather than the power of those whose interests it serves. Otherwise, those without political power risk perpetual subordination, undermining the raison d’être of human rights protection. It is here that the courts are in a position to make a unique contribution to the democratic resolution of human rights issues. I argue that courts should ensure that human rights decisions are indeed taken deliberatively within the constraints set by the human rights themselves. I call this a ‘bounded deliberative’ approach. The final section applies these principles to prisoners’ voting rights cases in South Africa and the UK.

DOI: 10.2838/82208

The aim of this study is to compare and contrast anti-discrimination and equality laws in the US, Canada, South Africa and India, with a view to inform future development of EU anti-discrimination laws. Comparative law is of great value, particularly in the equality field, where there is increasing cross-pollination across different jurisdictions. At the same time, comparative law carries with it important challenges, as the harmonising project of the EU has itself demonstrated. The four jurisdictions to be examined here share English as a common language as well as, in varying degrees, a common law heritage. However, there are significant differences in historical, socio-economic and political contexts as well as in legal institutions. The challenge is therefore to illuminate universalisableconceptions while at the same time recognising context specificity.

ISBN: ISBN 978-92-79-23769

Despite increasingly sophisticated antidiscrimination laws, dis- crimination and inequality have proved remarkably resilient. This prompts questions about the limits of law’s ability to achieve social change. One way forward is to fashion new legal tools, which impose duties to promote or achieve equality, rather than focusing on individual rights against specific perpetrators. In the past decade in Britain, such fourth generation equality laws have been developed in a distinctive format, requiring the decision-maker to “have due regard” to equality, rather than taking action to achieve such objectives. Thisstandard has triggered a spate of judicial review cases, particularly in response to austerity measures imposing deep budgetary cuts on disadvantaged groups. This Paper’s aims are two-fold. The first is to examine the judicial approach to the due regard standard in the light of recent regulatory theory. Do courts consider the due regard standard as a signal for deference, or can it be understood as an example of “reflexive law,” facilitating deliberative decision-making rather than imposing external standards likely to meet with resistance from the regulated body? The Paper concludes that courts have struggled to deal with the regulatory challenges presented by the “due regard” standard, wavering between appropriate and inappropriate intervention. The second aim is an analysis of whether a deliberative standard is appropriate in the equality context. The record of judicial review cases demonstrates that such a standard risks legitimating or simply reconfiguring existing inequalities.

ISBN: 0002-919x

Equality is an ideal to which we all aspire. Yet the more closely we examineit, the more its meaning shifts. This book examines the differing conceptions of equality in discrimination law, in the accessible yet challenging format of the Clarendon series. It uses a thematic approach to elucidate the major conceptual issues, while at the same time imparting a detailed understanding of the legal provisions, including the Equality Act 2010, human rights law, and EU law. Particularly illuminating is the comparative approach. By examining comparable law in the US, India, Canada, and South Africa, as well as the UK, the book exposes common problems and canvasses differing solutions.

ISBN: 978-0-19-958443-7