The Pros and Cons of Using Strategic Litigation to Effect Social Change

From Brown v. Board of Education to landmark decisions in India on the right to food, one of the most effective—and controversial—social-change agents is strategic litigation. For its supporters, like the Open Society Foundations, strategic litigation (also known as impact or public-interest litigation) is an under-appreciated tool of empowerment and social change that donors, governments, and civil society advocates should exploit more to expedite the provision of protection and remedies and make jurisprudence ever more accommodating of human rights. For its detractors, strategic litigation is an expensive, time-consuming, risky, and often elitist enterprise that has yet to prove its worth.

The competing claims about strategic litigation create a great deal of confusion and misunderstanding. Additionally, for the vast majority of the world’s population, legal remedies such as strategic litigation are either unheard of or a distant dream.

At a recent panel, advocates discussed the possibilities and limitations of strategic litigation. Listen above.