It is not true that the idea of the right to subsistence should not give rise to much controversy. In fact, social rights are not considered as fundamental rights by everyone. The aim of this paper is to analyze whether abstract social rights –and the right to subsistence in particular- should be put in constitutions and laws and if judges should be given powers to interpret them. The philosophical foundations and the content of the right are studied and five great challenges are presented, although the most powerful one is to focus on the social and political enforceability of the fundamental right to subsistence. Assessing the effectiveness of the right to subsistence, and the right to food particularly, is a complex issue. In the legal discourse, the question seems to be only suggested.  Even when the Constitutions expressly recognize this right in some countries, its implementation faces many constraints. The progressive realization of ESC rights requires a complex interaction of policies and programs in a wide range of sectors and institutions.The scientific method used in this work is the legal-sociological method, regarding the understanding of the rules, the lack of them, their effectiveness,  etc.   Several methodological techniques have been used, such as social and legal analysis, legal deduction and induction, description and interdisciplinarity.

中文翻译：

---

生存人权的可执行性有什么机会吗？

生存权的概念不应该引起太多争议，这是不正确的。事实上，并不是每个人都将社会权利视为基本权利。本文的目的是分析抽象的社会权利——尤其是生存权——是否应写入宪法和法律，以及是否应赋予法官解释权。研究了该权利的哲学基础和内容，提出了五个重大挑战，尽管最有力的挑战是关注基本生存权的社会和政治可执行性。评估生存权，特别是食物权的有效性是一个复杂的问题。在法律话语中，这个问题似乎只是被提出来的。即使某些国家的宪法明确承认这项权利，其实施仍面临许多限制。经济社会与文化权利的逐步实现需要广泛部门和机构的政策和计划的复杂互动。这项工作中使用的科学方法是法律社会学方法，关于对规则的理解，缺乏规则，他们的有效性等已经使用了几种方法论技术，例如社会和法律分析、法律演绎和归纳、描述和跨学科。