2 The Challenges of Crafting Remedies for Violations of Socio-economic Rights Kent Roach* 1. INTRODUCTION A common objection to the full recognition of social, economic and cultural (socio-economic) rights is the difficulty of crafting meaningful remedies. A received remedial tradition suggests that political and civil rights can be fairly eas- ily enforced by backwards looking compensatory remedies, such as damages for aggrieved individ- uals. Such remedies lie within the core jurisdic- tion of domestic courts and often mimic the reme- dial process and aims of private law. In contrast, socio-economic rights may require more complex remedies such as declarations or injunctions that invite or require positive governmental action. They also raise difficult tensions between achiev- ing corrective justice for the individuals before the court as opposed to distributive justice for larger groups not before the court. In addition, there are also tensions between ordering compensation for past violations and ensuring compliance in the future, with related tensions between achiev- ing instant remedies that correct discrete viola- tions as opposed to the commencement of a much more drawn out and uncertain process of sys- temic reform. The complex and uncertain enforce- ment process that is posited for socio-economic rights seems to be a better fit for the more polit- ical enforcement processes of international than domestic law. International law relies on persua- sion and dialogue while domestic law employs a monological and coercive process to enforce rights, especially with negative civil and political rights. In the first part of this chapter, I outline in greater detail the above dichotomies between a received remedial tradition that focuses on the correction * Professor of Law and Prichard-Wilson Chair in Law and Public Policy, University of Toronto. 46 of past violations suffered by individuals and a more complex remedial process with distributive and dialogic implications. In the second part, I argue that the dichotomies between simple cor- rection of violations of political and civil rights and the admittedly difficult process of obtain- ing compliance with socio-economic rights dra- matically underestimate the remedial complexi- ties that are already present in the enforcement of political and civil rights. The distributional impli- cations of traditional remedies are also under- lined by the fact that some socio-economic rights can be enforced by traditional remedies such as damages, restitution and declarations of invalid- ity. A stark dichotomy between simple remedies required for civil and political rights and more complex remedies for socio-economic rights also ignores the increasing interdependency between domestic and international law and the dialogic turn in domestic constitutional law in many coun- tries including Canada, India, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom and the United States. The received remedial tradition of corrective jus- tice is inadequate for the enforcement of many civil and political rights. Recognition of a more complex, contingent and dialogical remedial pro- cess narrows the gap between traditional politi- cal and civil rights and socio-economic rights and between domestic and international enforcement of rights. The last part of this chapter outlines the range of remedies available to enforce socio-economic rights in domestic, regional and international law. Traditional corrective remedies such as damages, restitution and immediate declarations of con- stitutional invalidity can play a role in enforcing socio-economic rights, but I suggest that more prospective and dialogic remedies such as decla- rations and delayed declarations of invalidity can also play a role. At the same time, I argue that