The Promise of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (and Brexit) on the Implementation of Economic and Social Rights among EU Member States

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, this is a good submission, well argued and sourced. As a non-native English speaker I do not want to make more extensive comments on English but there are few expressions and grammar issues that can easily be corrected or used more effectively. For example, the author refers to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights using "of"; it should be "on". Also, the introductory part can be made more effective by rephrasing this bit: "A related question is what role Brexit played in exposing the extent to which the EU electorate is disillusioned with globalisation?" Then this: "...but EU policies need to respect the obligation..." it is not "policies" that need to respect but an institution or other body etc. Or another example: "The focus of this article is to consider whether by incorporating a Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms into the Treaty of Lisbon..." Does the author mean the Charter or a new charter? It seems to be the former, but then "the" should be used. So, just a bit of tightening of English in my view is required. As stated above I am deliberately not commenting on the rest of English effectiveness because I also know that the article is not intended for native English speakers only. 

In terms of content I have nothing in particular to add. The author could have slightly strengthened the argument on justiciability of ESC rights by reference to the South African Constitutional Court's decisions. I would wholeheartedly recommend: CHRISTOPHER MBAZIRA, "Enforcing the Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the South African Constitution as Justiciable Individual Rights: The Role of Judicial Remedies' available at: Enforcing the economic, social and cultural rights in the South African constitution as justiciable individual rights: the role of judicial remedies (core.ac.uk) in order to buttress the argument that complying with ESC rights should not necessarily be seen as burdensome and intrusive. Overall, very good though! 

Author Response

1. Each of the sentences mentioned by the reviewer has been reformulated and the language checked for expression and grammar.
2. Corrections to the Charter names have also been made
3. The section on justiciability has been reworked and the reviewer's suggestions incorporated

Reviewer 2 Report

Very interesting and very descriptive material.

Nevertheless it would seem justified to enrich it with journal sources and build more theoretical background.
The introduction part should be improved - to emphasize the goals of the work. The manuscript lacks a clearly indicated main research hypothesis (what is the purpose of the study?).

Author Response

1. The introduction has been completely rewritten to make the research question and aim of the study clearer. Also the discussion points have been clearly signposted.
2. Descriptive material inessential to the main argument has been moved to the footnotes.
3. The main change has been the inclusion of research left out of the first draft which boosted the number of journal articles.