A critique of adjudication of social rights by judges in Chile

The purpose of this work is to analyze the role of constitutional justice in the provision of rights in Chile; in particular, its role in the adjudication of social rights: how the courts carry out this exercise and what risks this exercise may pose for the rule of law and democracy.

From a material point of view: how do judges decide the adjudication of social rights? From a formal point of view: how can a court ruling alter the powers of other State bodies to adjudicate social rights? Finally, what risks does an active role of the courts represent for democracy and the rule of law in the creation, determination, or application of social rights in Chile?

Our thesis is that the jurisprudential creation and enforceability of social rights of benefit erodes judicial independence and the separation of functions, lacks of a systematic look over the marginal effect of rulings, also weakens the collective action and the democratic system.