The limits of the idea of meaningful engagement in the jurisprudence of the Colombian Constitutional Court

In recent years, the Colombian Constitutional Court has introduced the idea of meaningful dialogue (or meaningful engagement) as a remedy for the protection of Social Rights. The new notion has been introduced particularly in cases that involve the right to education. This paper develops a critical perspective against this new constitutional jurisprudence following the development of the concept of meaningful engagement in the South African Constitutional Court, in cases like Olivia Road and Joe Slovo. Specifically, the paper questions the Colombian Constitutional Court for (1) the type of cases in which it has proposed the remedy; (2) the conditions that the Court has established for the dialogue; (3) the absence of monitoring and supervision mechanisms. And in general, because this meaningful dialogue has little potential to effectively protect economic and social rights. Particularly, when the new notion is used as a stand-alone remedy