The limitations of labour law and its implementation in Vietnam have been identified by scholars as the main reasons for the persistence of factory strikes, yet there has been little analysis concerning how workers themselves perceive the labour law and how law matters in workers’ resistance to abusive practices. This paper explores how workers’ ideas of justice are shaped by, on the one hand, legal language and the values embedded in that language, and on the other, experiences and discourse that differ from those language and values. From interviews and workers’ letters in Đồng Nai Province, I demonstrate that labour law is only one factor shaping workers’ views of what is fair. The way workers turn (or do not turn) to law depends on their perceptions of the relationship between law and the morality of workplace behaviour. These perceptions, in turn, are constructed through their experiences at work, and are shaped also by cultural norms and socialist ideology.
Are the courts able to defend social rights against the will of the majority powers in times of economic crisis? The legal literature affirms the role of the Judiciary as the guardian of the Constitution and consequently, guarantor of these rights against Government’s choices. In contrast, empirical studies show that, in analyzing the preferences of the majoritarian branches in relation to public policies, the Courts opt for self-restraint. In the last global crisis, the Courts maintained the austerity measures, in order to guarantee recovery and stability (Portugal, Spain, Italy). Considering the recent processes of constitutional reform to decrease public spending, notably in relation to issues of public health, education and social security, what to expect from Brazilian Supreme Court (STF)? The goal is to analyze the judicial review decisions in those matters and describe the legal arguments for judicial intervention (or not) in last constitutional reforms.
This paper deals with neoliberal and welfare conception of social development as dominant but mutually contrasted ones in contemporary political debates, and as crucial ones for interpreting global crisis. Their basic differences concern relation between state and economics in modern capitalism, with essential implications for an issue of actual global crisis.
Policies based on one or another conception have determined a destiny of many generations throughout last two or more centuries and will significantly determine solving of this current crisis. There lies an importance of a comparative reviewing of these two conceptions.
Parallel and comparative analysis will be offered. Value standpoint for evaluating quality and productivity of these conceptions will be taken into consideration. The main aim, however, is to stimulate a dialogue between them and to search for ways out from “trench warfare”, for the sake of contributing to solving the current crisis.
Following the 2008 financial crisis, disillusionment with the establishment has grown. Populist politics has increasingly permeated and polarized political discourse, weakening citizenship and reducing the accountability of those in charge. Against this backdrop, the future of work has become increasingly uncertain with the increasing disruption caused by automation, artificial intelligence, and the ‘gig economy’. The paper argues the right to development offers a solution to guide policy and lawmaking if we see these challenges as problems of development – as they are. Its language is premised on the balancing of collective and individual rights. A proposed solution is the articulation of the common good at the national level while preserving the use of the rights language in democratic discourse and minimizing their use for identitarian populist ends. A holistic approach to articulating the Common Good as a human right is proposed as a less disruptive solution to the future of work.