Purpose - Analyzing the adjudication of the constitutional right to water in comparative law and its theoretical and practical implications. Methodology/approach/design - A theoretical and jurisprudential analysis of the standards of reasonableness, the minimum core and proportionality, used in different jurisdictions for adjudicating claims grounded in the constitutional right to water. Findings - The advantages and disadvantages of reasonableness, the minimum core and proportionality as standards for adjudicating the constitutional right to water. Practical implications - The article shows that the adjudication of the employment of the principle of proportionality is the best comparative practice concerning the adjudication of the constitutional right to water. Originality/value - The text fills a gap on the topic, especially in light of the problems arising out of localized water crises or economic, social or legal disputes over water use in scenarios of scarcity.
|Number of pages||38|
|Journal||Journal of law and regulation = Revista de Direito Setorial e Regulatório|
|Publication status||Published - 2015|
Bibliographical noteVersion archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.
- Constitutional right to water
- Comparative law
- Minimum core