Abstract The developing South African jurisprudence on the right to basic education suggests that the courts have adopted a substantive approach to interpreting the right. The Supreme Court of Appeal in its judgment in the case of Minister of Basic Education v Basic Education for All held that every learner is entitled to a textbook in every subject at the commencement of the academic year. The judgment further explicitly noted that the corollary to this entitlement is the duty of the state to provide these textbooks to each and every learner. The lower courts have similarly identified other entitlements that make up the content of the right to basic education. However, while the courts appear to be firmly veering in the direction of a substantive approach to interpreting the right to basic education, no discernable test for determining the content of the right is apparent from the jurisprudence. Furthermore, many of the education provisioning cases have necessitated repeated visits to court and increasingly creative, even coercive remedies to ensure compliance with court orders. This article will, therefore, undertake a comparative study of the United States, India and Brazil. It will examine the approach of the courts in each of these jurisdictions to interpreting the right. It will examine the efficacy of some of the remedies adopted by the courts in each of these jurisdictions to realise the right, whilst simultaneously mediating the institutional concerns in respect of the doctrine of the separation of powers. It will further examine the role of civil society in education litigation in each of these jurisdictions. The aim of the article is to draw on the lessons provided by each of these comparative jurisdictions so as to strengthen public interest litigation in respect of the right to basic education in South Africa.

中文翻译：

---

基础教育权：美国、印度和巴西的比较研究

摘要 南非关于基础教育权的发展中的判例表明，法院采用了实质性的方法来解释这一权利。最高法院在基础教育部长诉全民基础教育案的判决中认为，每个学习者都有权在学年开始时获得每个科目的教科书。判决进一步明确指出，这项权利的必然结果是国家有责任向每个学习者提供这些教科书。下级法院同样确定了构成基础教育权利内容的其他权利。然而，虽然法院似乎坚定地转向以实质性方法解释基础教育权，从判例中看不出确定权利内容的可辨别标准。此外，许多提供教育的案件需要反复访问法院，并且越来越有创意，甚至是强制性的补救措施，以确保遵守法院命令。因此，本文将对美国、印度和巴西进行比较研究。它将研究每个司法管辖区的法院解释权利的方法。它将审查每个司法管辖区的法院为实现该权利而采取的一些补救措施的有效性，同时调解与权力分立原则有关的制度问题。它将进一步研究民间社会在每个司法管辖区的教育诉讼中的作用。