Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by Foons Comans
In this discussion of the relevant literature regarding character and implementation of economic, social and cultural (hereinafter: esc) rights I shall outline the developments which have occurred in the field since 1985. The main emphasis, however, is on the period since 1990 and the primary focus here is on the development of doctrine relating to the subject. This review relates only to esc rights included in international conventions and does not examine the situation in individual countries. It reflects developments until July 1994.
Defending Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights: Practical Issues
Faced by an International
Human Rights Organization
International organizations like Human Rights Watch are legitimately urged to pay more attention to economic, social and cultural rights. But practical prescriptions are often simplistic—typically involving only the rhetorical invocation of these rights. The strength of organizations like Human Rights Watch is not their rhetorical voice but their shaming methodology—their ability to investigate misconduct and expose it to public opprobrium. That methodology is most effective when there is relative clarity about violation, violator, and remedy. That clarity is best achieved when misconduct can be portrayed as arbitrary or discriminatory rather than a matter of purely distributive justice
A “Violations Approach” to Monitoring the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Human Rights Dialogue 1.10 (Fall 1997) “Efforts, East and
West, to Improve Human Rights Assessments”
Audrey R. Chapman
Effective monitoring of the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which is central to the realization of the rights it enumerates, is not taking place. While many factors contribute to this problem, rectifying thesituation requires a departure from “progressive realization,” the current standard used to assess governments’compliance with the covenant’s provisions. Progressive realization renders economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rightsvery difficult to monitor; therefore I argue that the United Nations system and relevant nongovernmental organizationsshould adopt a “violations approach” to monitoring these rights.
Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Victor Dankwa, CeesFlinterman and Scott Leckie
Commentary on the Maastricht Guidelines on
In 1986 the International Commission of Jurists, the Maastricht Centre for Human Rights of the University of Limburg (the Netherlands) and the Urban Morgan Institute for Human Rights, College of Law, University of Cincinnati (Ohio, USA) convened a group of distinguished experts in international law to consider the nature and scope of the obligations of States Parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). This meeting, which was attended, among others, by some members of the then newly constituted ECOSOC Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and by staff members of the United Nations and Specialized Agencies, resulted in the adoption of the Limburg Principles on the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The Justiciability of Social and Economic Rights:
An Updated Appraisal
In this paper we consider the question of the justiciability of social and economic rights, both from a conceptual and an experiential perspective. We first review some of the major concerns that are raised about whether social and economic rights can or should be, adjudicated by courts, drawing on commentary from both experts and judicial and quasi-judicial bodies considering this question. This is followed by an overview of the growing body of jurisprudence from domestic courts, regional and international bodies which have adjudicated social and economic rights, This is provided in order to give a better sense of what the adjudication of social and economic rights really looks like, and how courts and other bodies solve the problems that have been raised about the justifiability of these rights.
NOT JUST A TRAGEDY: ACCESS TO
MEDICATIONS AS A RIGHT UNDER
Alicia Ely Yamin**
JD MPH, Instructor, Department of Health Policy and Management Harvard School of Public Health. Alicia Yamin resides most of the year in Montevideo,Uruguay and works with non-governmental organizations “NGOs”) on issues relatingto the intersections of health and development policies and human rights law. In the United States, Yamin is Vice President of the Center for Economic and Social Rights and is on the advisory boards of Physicians for Human Rights and the Center for Policy Analysis on Trade and Health. Yamin has worked with human rights NGOs in a variety of Latin American countries for over fifteen years and has published widely on health and human rights in both English and Spanish.
On ‘Indivisibility’ of Human
The four books under review describe the shift in the conceptualization of international human rights towards a holistic rights framework, emphasizing the universality, interdependence, ‘indivisibility’ and justiciability of civil, political, economic, social and cultural human rights. All four books address the challenge for international law of responding more effectively to the globalization of human rights, including the right to a democratic exercise of government powers, by holding not only national but also international actors accountable for human rights obligations.
On the Indivisibility of Rights: Truth
Commissions, Reparations, and the Right to Development
Lisa J. Laplante†
While academics debate the ranking of rights, information from the field demonstrates their indivisibility. This Article explores how truth commissions provide rich documentation of the interrelation between violations of Civil and Political Rights (CPR) and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR), using Peru’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) as an example. The TRC’s findings show how social and economic inequalities contributed to the eruption of political violence, which further exacerbated these conditions.
The Past and Future of the Separation of Human
Rights into Categories Stephen P. Marks
Reflecting Cold War divisions, stress on one or the other of thesetwo traditional categories tended to reveal preferences for neo-liberalor social democratic understandings of human rights, when it was notmore blatantly reflective of competition between the NATO and Warsaw Pact (plus ―Non-Aligned‖) countries, a sort of North–West vs. East–South ideological split. This article explores how the separation of categories of rights has lost its pertinence in the first decade of the 21st century.
The justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural
rights in Australia by Julia Mansour
The historical reasons for distinctions between the two categories of rights are relatively well documented. Since the Cold War period, Western commentators have voiced fears that support for ESCR to the exclusion of CPR has been too easily justified by repressive governments who claim that their primary obligations to their citizenry are effectively met by the provision of services such as shelter and education, rather than by mechanisms protecting rights such as freedom of speech and association.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights
by Asbjorn Eide
Obligations undertaken by states,and consequently by the international community, under international human rights istruments shall be implemented in good faith.This standard applies to all parts of the contemporary human rights system.
How International Human Rights Organizations Can
Advance Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
A Response to Kenneth Roth by Leonard S. Rubenstein
International human rights organizations can play a productive role in advancing economic, social, and cultural rights. They can (1) collaborate with partner organizations in the developing world in lobbying for systems of services that meet needs in a manner consistent with human rights
requirements; (2) advocate for resources to fulfill economic, social, and cultural rights, especially by lobbying for funds from wealthy countries; and (3) monitor compliance by states with the increasingly explicit obligations, including core obligations, to protect, respect and fulfill these