Unleashing health rights in Argentine courts : from the myth of rights to the politics of rights
Abstract/Contents
- Abstract
- Demands for the protection of social rights, and health rights in particular, have become a distinctive feature of judicialization in Latin American countries, including Argentina. Although a growing number of studies have begun to document the new relationship between the courts and health rights generated after almost two decades of litigation, little is yet empirically known about the versatile struggles undertaken in domestic courts and their consequences beyond the judgments. More specifically, given the scarcity of domestic empirical explorations, much remains to be discovered about legal mobilization experiences and courts' roles in the adjudication of conflicts regarding the intersection of health policies and rights. This dissertation takes a step toward filling that gap by exploring a set of conceptual, theoretical, and methodological questions that are critical to advancing current debates on health and the role of courts in bringing justice and expanding the rule of law in Argentina. With that aim in mind, this dissertation proceeds in two stages. First, it offers a basic assessment of the context and magnitude of the judicialization of health in the country, relying on multiple secondary sources and descriptive statistics obtained from databases of court decisions and dockets generated for this dissertation. Second, to complement the broader picture, the project proposes a qualitative study of strands of health rights litigation, offering a process-based observation of diverse patterns of judicialization while helping identify and compare the broader impacts of courts' roles in adjudicating health rights demands. Through these narrative studies, this dissertation tells the story of how once-dormant health rights clauses have come to life through the work of litigants, judges, and policy makers. It also shows how, in the process of unleashing health rights, courts have played contradictory roles throughout the nonlinear trajectories of different patterns of judicialization that can be located along a spectrum in which an atomistic and routinized style of judicialization is at one extreme, a bureaucratizing form of judicialization is in the middle, and a cooperative style of judicialization is at the other extreme. Ultimately, throughout these rich and variegated experiences of judicialization, courts' adjudication of right-to-health claims has sometimes reinforced ineffective or unequal arrangements, while at other times exhibiting potentially transformative capacities.
Description
| Type of resource | text |
|---|---|
| Form | electronic; electronic resource; remote |
| Extent | 1 online resource. |
| Publication date | 2013 |
| Issuance | monographic |
| Language | English |
Creators/Contributors
| Associated with | Bergallo, Paola |
|---|---|
| Associated with | Stanford University, School of Law. |
| Primary advisor | Hensler, Deborah R, 1942- |
| Thesis advisor | Hensler, Deborah R, 1942- |
| Thesis advisor | Friedman, Lawrence |
| Thesis advisor | Stacy, Helen |
| Advisor | Friedman, Lawrence |
| Advisor | Stacy, Helen |
Subjects
| Genre | Theses |
|---|
Bibliographic information
| Statement of responsibility | Paola Bergallo. |
|---|---|
| Note | Submitted to the School of Law. |
| Thesis | Thesis (JSD)--Stanford University, 2013. |
| Location | electronic resource |
Access conditions
- Copyright
- © 2013 by Paola Bergallo
- License
- This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC).
Also listed in
Loading usage metrics...