Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Introduction to Part III
- 25 On Education and Capabilities Expansion
- 26 Capability Approach to Children’s Well-Being and Well-Becoming
- 27 Capability and Disability
- 28 Social Exclusion and Capability Development
- 29 Human Security
- 30 Income Inequality and Human Capabilities
- 31 The Capability Approach and Human Rights
- 32 Capabilities and the Law
- 33 Capabilities, Public Reason and Democratic Deliberation
- 34 Entitlements and Capabilities
- 35 Religion and the Capability Approach
- Index
- References
32 - Capabilities and the Law
from Part III - Issues in Public Policy
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 November 2020
Book contents
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Figures
- Tables
- Contributors
- Foreword
- Acknowledgements
- General Introduction
- Part I Historical Antecedents and Philosophical Debates
- Part II Methods, Measurement and Empirical Evidence
- Part III Issues in Public Policy
- Introduction to Part III
- 25 On Education and Capabilities Expansion
- 26 Capability Approach to Children’s Well-Being and Well-Becoming
- 27 Capability and Disability
- 28 Social Exclusion and Capability Development
- 29 Human Security
- 30 Income Inequality and Human Capabilities
- 31 The Capability Approach and Human Rights
- 32 Capabilities and the Law
- 33 Capabilities, Public Reason and Democratic Deliberation
- 34 Entitlements and Capabilities
- 35 Religion and the Capability Approach
- Index
- References
Summary
This chapter interrogates the proper function of the law from a capabilities perspective. It argues that an application of the capabilities approach to understanding the law, especially constitutional law, is both normatively appropriate, and embedded in the realization of the capabilities approach’s goals. A recognized purpose of constitutions is to embed values, and entitlements commensurate with those values, into the foundational legal mechanisms of a country. Using examples from constitutions around the globe, the chapter shows concrete ways in which the capabilities approach finds expression in two ways suggested by Nussbaum: conceptions of citizen entitlements, and the interpretation of legal provisions. The chapter concludes by recognizing that viewing constitutions — both written and unwritten — from a capabilities approach is a vivid example of making visible the philosophic choices made by those who drafted the documents (where the discussion focusses on written constitutions), and those tasked with interpreting constitutional law in the context of people’s real, lived experiences. This approach to understanding the law is entirely consistent with the capability approach’s emphasis on an active role for government in providing the conditions that make real choices — about what to do and who to be — possible.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Handbook of the Capability Approach , pp. 643 - 659Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Baker, D., Panzironi, F. and Sparrow, S. 2012. ‘Aboriginal Peoples’ Participation in the Review of the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1988 in South Australia’, in Panzironi, F and Gelber, K (eds.). The Capability Approach: Development Practice and Public Policy in the Asia-Pacific Region. London: Routledge: 84–99.Google Scholar
Barber, S. and Fleming, J. 2007. Constitutional Interpretation. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benería, L. 2008. ‘The Crisis of Care, International Migration and Public Policy’. Feminist Economics 14/3: 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, D. 2011. The Environmental Rights Revolution: A Global Study of Constitutions, Human Rights and the Environment. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Burchi, F., De Muro, P. and Kollar, E. 2014. ‘Which Dimensions Should Matter for Capabilities? A Constitutional Approach’. Ethics and Social Welfare 8/3: 233–247.Google Scholar
Casas, T. 2014. ‘Transcending the Coloniality of Development: Moving Beyond Human/Nature Hierarchies’. American Behavioral Scientist 58/1: 30–52.Google Scholar
Claassen, R. J. G. 2009. ‘New Directions for the Capability Approach: Deliberative Democracy and Republicanism’. Res Publica 15: 421–428.Google Scholar
Comim, F., Qizilbash, M. and Alkire, S. (eds.). 2008. The Capability Approach: Concepts, Measures and Applications. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Crocker, D. 2008. Ethics of Global Development: Agency, Capability, and Deliberative Democracy. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deneulin, S. 2002. ‘Perfectionism, Paternalism and Liberalism in Sen and Nussbaum’s Capability Approach’. Review of Political Economy 4/4: 497–518.Google Scholar
Eberle, E. 2012. ‘Observations on the Development of Human Dignity and Personality in German Constitutional Law: An Overview’. Liverpool Law Review 33: 201–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerhardt, M., Griffin, S. and Rowe, T. 2007. Constitutional Theory: Arguments and Perspectives, 3rd ed. Newark, NJ: LexisNexis.Google Scholar
Gilabert, P. 2013. ‘The Capability Approach and the Debate Between Humanist and Political Perspectives on Human Rights. A Critical Survey’. Human Rights Review 14: 299–325.Google Scholar
Glendon, M. A. 1992. ‘Rights in Twentieth-Century Constitutions’. University of Chicago Law Review 59/1: 519–538.Google Scholar
Gonzalez, E. 2011. ‘The Power of Law to Advance Intergenerational Equity: A Conversation with Environmentalist Antonio A. Oposa Jr’. Asian Politics and Policy 3/2: 285–294.Google Scholar
Habashi, J., Wright, L. and Hathcoat, J. 2012. ‘Patterns of Human Development Indicators Across Constitutional Analysis of Children’s Rights to Protection, Provision and Participation’. Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement 105: 63–73.Google Scholar
Hassim, S. 2008. ‘Social Justice, Care and Developmental Welfare in South Africa: A Capabilities Perspective’. Social Dynamics 34/2: 104–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Houck, O. 2007. ‘Light from the Trees: The Stories of Minors Oposa and the Russian Forest Cases’. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 19/3: 321–374.Google Scholar
Khidir, J. and Salih, S. 2014. ‘Human Rights Situation in Iraq and Kurdistan Region: Constitutional and Political Prospects’. Beijing Law Review 5: 298–305.Google Scholar
Kommers, D., Finn, J. and Jacobsohn, G. 2004. American Constitutional Law, 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: Rowan & Littlefield.Google Scholar
Lavapuro, J., Ojanen, T. and Scheinin, M. 2011. ‘Rights Based Constitutionalism in Finland and the Development of Pluralist Constitutional Review’. Icon 9/2: 505–531.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1988. ‘Nature, Function, and Capability: Aristotle on Political Distribution’. Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 1 (suppl. vol.): 145–184.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1990. ‘Aristotelian Social Democracy’, in Douglass, B, Mara, G and Richardson, H (eds.). Liberalism and the Good. New York: Routledge: 203–252.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1993. ‘Non-Relative Virtues: An Aristotelian Approach’, in Nussbaum, M. C. and Sen, A. K. (eds.). Quality of Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press: 242–269.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 1997. ‘Capabilities and Human Rights’. Fordham Law Review 66: 273–300.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000a. ‘Women’s Capabilities and Social Justice’. Journal of Human Development 1: 219–247.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2000b. Women and Human Development. Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2003. ‘Capabilities as Fundamental Entitlements’. Feminist Economics 9: 33–59.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006a. Frontiers of Justice: Disability, Nationality, Species Membership. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2006b. ‘Reply: In Defence of Global Political Liberalism’. Development and Change 37/6: 1313–1328.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2007. ‘Foreword: Constitutions and Capabilities: Perception against Lofty Formalism’. Harvard Law Review 121/1: 1–97.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2010. ‘Reply to Diane Wood: Constitutions and Capabilities: A (Necessarily) Pragmatic Approach’. Chicago Journal of International Law 10/2: 431–436.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011a. Creating Capabilities: The Human Development Approach. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Nussbaum, M. C. 2011b. ‘Capabilities, Entitlements, Rights: Supplementation and Critique’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12/1: 23–37.Google Scholar
Olowu, D. 2009. An Integrative Rights-Based Approach to Human Development in Africa. Cape Town: Pretoria University Law Press.Google Scholar
Panzironi, F. 2012. ‘The “Indigenous Capability-Right to Health” and Australia’s “Close the Gap” Indigenous Health Policy’, in The Capability Approach: Development Practice and Public Policy in the Asia-Pacific Region. Panzironi, F and Gelber, K (eds.). London: Routledge: 68–83.Google Scholar
Provost, C. and Kennard, M. 2015. ‘The Obscure Legal System that Lets Corporations Sue Countries’. The Guardian: 10 June. Available at: www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jun/10/obscure-legal-system-lets-corportations-sue-states-ttip-icsid (accessed 24 February 2020).Google Scholar
Ratnapala, S. and Crowe, J. 2012. Australian Constitutional Law, 3rd ed. South Melbourne: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Robeyns, I. 2005. ‘The Capability Approach: A Theoretical Survey’. Journal of Human Development 6: 93–117.Google Scholar
Sartori, G. 1962. ‘Constitutionalism: A Preliminary Discussion’. American Political Science Review 66: 853–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2004. ‘Dialogue: Capabilities, Lists, and Public Reason: Continuing the Conversation’. Feminist Economics 10/3: 77–80.Google Scholar
Sen, A. K. 2005. ‘Human Rights and Capabilities’. Journal of Human Development 6/2: 151–166.Google Scholar
Shivakumar, S. 2005. The Constitution of Development. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vizard, P., Fukuda-Parr, S. and Elson, D. 2011. ‘Introduction: The Capability Approach and Human Rights’. Journal of Human Development and Capabilities 12/1: 1–22.Google Scholar
West, R. 1990. ‘Progressive and Conservative Constitutionalism’. Michigan Law Review 88: 641–721.Google Scholar
West, R. 2001. ‘Rights, Capabilities and the Good Society’. Fordham Law Review 69/5: 1901–1932.Google Scholar
West, R. 2003. ‘Human Capabilities and Human Authorities: A Comment on Martha Nussbaum’s Women and Human Development’. St. Thomas Law Review 15: 757–790.Google Scholar
Williams, G., Brennan, S. and Lynch, A. 2014. Australian Constitutional Law & Theory, 6th ed. Sydney: Federation Press.Google Scholar