The article analyses competing approaches to socio-economic rights adjudication put forward by a range of domestic courts. These approached are evaluated according to three criteria of legitimacy, workability and efficacy. The legitimacy of socio-economic rights is examined in light the following rationales; the social contract theory, dignity and consensus values.
The workability and efficacy of four comparative socio-economic rights adjudicative systems are assessed; the non-entrenched socio-economic rights systems, the UK model post ECHR incorporation, the Indian approach of directive principles and finally the entrenched rights of the South African Constitution. The author concludes that the most appropriate model is that which is dependent upon contextual factors and that ‘one size does not fit all.’ In general the article suggests that rich western states should adopt a combined minimum core and reasonableness approach, whereas jurisdictions with large scale poverty should incorporate a pure reasonableness approach as seen in the South African Constitution.