Socio-economic inequality is deeply rooted in Zimbabwe due to a number of factors. One of the main factors is the exclusion of socio-economic rights as justiciable under the now repealed Lancaster House Constitution (LHC). A plethora of excessive bureaucratic actions in a number of instances left many people stranded without the recourse to the law, particularly without protection by the Constitution. To correct this historic anomaly, the 2013 Constitution was enacted. The 2013 Constitution protects both civil and political rights and socio-economic rights in the same way as justiciable rights. This provides the highest degree of interdependence and interrelatedness of all rights in the domestic legal order. In order to ensure that socio-economic rights are effectively protected and enforced, this study identifies and discusses the framework for protecting socio-economic rights under the 2013 Constitution. Firstly, the specific rights protected under the Constitution and the obligations imposed by these rights are presented. Secondly, the role of the courts in the protection of socio-economic rights is discussed. Further, some of the major conceptual and practical challenges that are likely to arise in the adjudication of socio-economic rights are identified. In this regard, the study attempts to present solutions meant to overcome the conceptual and practical challenges that are faced in the enforcement of socio-economic rights. Furthermore, this study argues that strictly adopting one of the two models of review, namely either the reasonableness approach as adopted by South African courts or the minimum core approach as expounded by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), will inhibit the proper enforcement of the protected rights. Therefore, courts should consider adopting an integrated model that includes both approaches to ensure that socio-economic rights are effectively protected and realised.

Socio-economic inequality is deeply rooted in Zimbabwe due to a number of factors. One of the main factors is the exclusion of socio-economic rights as justiciable under the now repealed Lancaster House Constitution (LHC). A plethora of excessive bureaucratic actions in a number of instances left many people stranded without the recourse to the law, particularly without protection by the Constitution. To correct this historic anomaly, the 2013 Constitution was enacted. The 2013 Constitution protects both civil and political rights and socio-economic rights in the same way as justiciable rights. This provides the highest degree of interdependence and interrelatedness of all rights in the domestic legal order. In order to ensure that socio-economic rights are effectively protected and enforced, this study identifies and discusses the framework for protecting socio-economic rights under the 2013 Constitution. Firstly, the specific rights protected under the Constitution and the obligations imposed by these rights are presented. Secondly, the role of the courts in the protection of socio-economic rights is discussed. Further, some of the major conceptual and practical challenges that are likely to arise in the adjudication of socio-economic rights are identified. In this regard, the study attempts to present solutions meant to overcome the conceptual and practical challenges that are faced in the enforcement of socio-economic rights. Furthermore, this study argues that strictly adopting one of the two models of review, namely either the reasonableness approach as adopted by South African courts or the minimum core approach as expounded by the United Nations Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), will inhibit the proper enforcement of the protected rights. Therefore, courts should consider adopting an integrated model that includes both approaches to ensure that socio-economic rights are effectively protected and realised.

National constitutions allow citizens to exercise full citizenship rights, leading to a growing importance in understanding these laws. This knowledge, more widespread thanks to the ever-growing use of digital networks, allows for more enlightened national citizens in every corner of the world. Constitutional Knowledge and Its Impact on Citizenship Exercise in a Networked Society is a pivotal reference source that analyzes how constitutional awareness occurs in various countries and how citizenship participation is encouraged through the use of digital tools. While highlighting topics such as mobile security, transparency accountability, and constitutional awareness, this publication is ideally designed for professionals, students, academicians, and policymakers seeking current research on citizens' lack of awareness of their rights.

Various violations of the human rights of ordinary people and human rights defenders have been reported in Zimbabwe since the late 1980s. It is widely acknowledged that such violations have been perpetrated mostly by the government through its different organs for political and other related reasons. Human rights violations were also easily committed against ordinary people and human rights defenders because there was no Constitution that adequately protected such people's fundamental human rights (including their civil and political rights and their socio-economic rights) in Zimbabwe. Given this background, the article discusses the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe, in the light of the Zimbabwe Constitution Amendment Act 20 of 2013 (Zimbabwe Constitution 2013). This is done in order to investigate whether the promotion, protection, enforcement and respect for human rights in Zimbabwe has now improved. To this end, the functions of selected national human rights institutions and other related role-players, namely civil society, the judiciary, the law enforcement organs and the Zimbabwe Human Rights Commission, are briefly discussed first. Secondly, the functions of selected regional and international institutions, namely the Southern African Development Community, the African Union and the United Nations are discussed in relation to the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe. Thereafter, concluding remarks and possible recommendations that could be utilised to combat human rights violations and enhance the protection of human rights in Zimbabwe are provided.