The constitutionalization of the right to social security : a comparative analysis between Japan and Mexico
University of British Columbia
Doctor of Philosophy - PhD
This dissertation analyzes three hypotheses that are often advanced in the literature regarding social rights in a comparative scenario. The first of such hypotheses states that the inclusion of social rights in a given constitution makes them justiciable (constitutionalization hypothesis). The second of such hypotheses states that making them justiciable will, in turn, improve social rights enforcement (justiciability hypothesis). The third of such hypotheses states that when both of the suppositions from the previous hypotheses are met, a general improvement in welfare will ensue (welfare hypothesis). To test the aforementioned hypotheses, this dissertation delimited the vast category of social rights to focus on the right to social security (RSS), and the vast category of possible countries to focus on the cases of Japan and Mexico. After the pertinent analysis, this dissertation will conclude that, in the two cases compared herein, the three aforementioned hypotheses are wrong. More importantly, this dissertation will intend to explain why such hypotheses are wrong for the cases compared.
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International
Law, Peter A. Allard School of