Abstract
With the constitutionalization of economic, social and cultural rights, the Judiciary Power has been demanded to face cases involving the implementation of complex material benefits. To deal with this type of demand, several models of structural litigation have been developed, which can increase the judicial role. Because of this, structural litigation are usually criticized with at least three objections: the technical incapacity of the Judiciary, the threat to the separation of powers and the possibility of a backlash effect, hampering the progress of the solution in the political arena. In this context, this article analyzes a structural remedy developed by the Constitutional Court of South Africa, called Meaningful Engagement, which can minimize the impact of these objections, as it expands community participation and interinstitutional dialogue between the different actors responsible for solving the problem. In addition to the traditional bibliographic research around the doctrine developed on the subject, was carried out a more in-depth analysis of the two paradigmatic cases that served as the basis for the development of the South African institute: Olivia Road and Joe Slovo. Based on the study, it is concluded that there are intrinsic and extrinsic reasons to seek inspiration in the Meaningful Engagement model.
Keywords:
meaningful engagement; structural litigation; structural remedy; south africa; comparative law