Geneva Updates
Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
Tenants’ right to adequate housing is recognized by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
Via ESCR-Net
Mohamed Bourmouz, NaouelBellili and their children were evicted from the home they had rented in Madrid, Spain, on 3 October 2013, after their lease contract expired. Spain was then going through a severe economic crisis with high levels of unemployment, which ended up engulfing the Bourmouz-Bellili family. The family situation of vulnerability was aggravated by the fact that Bourmouz and Bellili’s children would be without a shelter. Despite the increasing demand for social housing in Spain, the national budget for housing was cut by more than 50 per cent between 2008 and 2013.[1]The financial allocation to the governmental housing agency, Instituto de ViviendaPublica de Madrid (IVIMA, currently designated as “Agencia de Vivienda Social de la Comunidad de Madrid”) was also curtailed, with a decrease of 11 per cent between 2013 and 2016.[2] In response to cuts, IVIMA sold 2,935 units of social housing stock (out of 20,600) and the Empresa Municipal de Vivienda y Suelo (EMVS, local housing governmental agency) sold 1,860 units (out of 4,700) in 2013,[3] which was more than a third of its housing stock.
Photo credit: Javier Rubio
After exhausting domestic remedies ((i.e. pursuing all reasonable legal remedies at the national level), the Bourmouz-Bellili family, represented by Javier Rubio (Centro de Asesoria y Estudios Sociales, CAES), presented a communication before the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). Last June 20, the CESCR released its Views on Communication n. 5/2015 against Spain, recognising the state obligation to protect the right to adequate housing, in the context of protecting this right for tenants’.
ESCR-Net’s Strategic Litigation Working Group members, Amnesty International, Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), Dullah Omar Institute, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), Social Rights Advocacy Centre (SRAC), Observatori DESC, Ana Maya Aguirre and Jackie Dugard, intervened in the case, , providing international and comparative material to support the CESCR’s proper determination of the case and showing the relevance, once again, of third party interventions for the drafting of general recommendations, aimed at preventing similar violations in the future. The third party intervention raised four main issues: (a) the right of all persons (including tenants) to housing; (b) the State obligation to guarantee special protection to vulnerable groups; (c) the State obligation to take appropriate measures to the maximum of available resources; and (d) the right to effective remedies. All four issues were reflected in the CESCR’s analysis and conclusions.
The Committee recognized the plaintiffs’ right to adequate housing, considering that, in “the absence of reasonable arguments by the State party with respect to all measures taken to the maximum of its available resources, the eviction of the petitioners, without the guarantee of alternative housing by the authorities of the State party as a whole, […] constituted a violation of their right to adequate housing" (para. 18). The CESCR highlighted State positive obligations to guarantee non-repetition, and protect the right to housing even in cases where the eviction is justified (for example, in the “absence of lease payments” or “damage to the property”, par. 15.1). In such cases, certain conditions need to be observed: access to effective remedies, consultation with affected individuals, consideration of alternative options, assurance that no other rights will be violated as a result of the eviction, special protection to vulnerable groups, and provision of alternative housing (para. 15.2).
The CESCR issued individual recommendations, establishing that the State should assess the current situation of the authors, in consultation with them, and assure that they have access to adequate housing, pay compensation for rights’ violations as well as legal fees. The Committee also issued general recommendations to Spain, in regard to: (a) the adoption of legislative and/or administrative measures to ensure that tenants have access to judicial remedies “where the consequences of an eviction are analyzed”; (b) the adoption of measures to promote the “coordination between judicial decisions and social services agencies”; (c) the adoption of measures to guarantee “alternative housing” for “persons without income”; (d) special protection for those who are in a situation of vulnerability; and (e) the formulation and implementation of a plan to “ensure the right to adequate housing for persons with low income”.
After this great victory for the Bourmouz-Bellili family and supporting social movements in Spain, there is now a need to focus on implementation. TheUN CESCR has just released a guidance on the follow up of views, which can serve as a starting point in the struggle for the right to housing in the current stage. Among other things, these measures should include key points from the SLWG Discussion Paper on Follow Up of Views, such as specify deliberate, concrete and targeted measures towards the fulfilment of the recommendations; adopt a time frame in which steps are to be taken; engage civil society, particularly disadvantage or marginalized groups, in a constructive dialogue towards the development of measures; ensure coherence and coordination across relevant sectors and government departments; etc. Civil society should play a central role in publicizing the decision, contributing to the action plan, and monitoring implementation.
[1]Eurostat, “Tables by Benefits, Housing function” at: http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=spr_exp_fho&lang=en (link is external) (link is external)
[2]In 2013, the Institute’s general budget was €270.908.658, in 2014, €255.347.880, in 2015, €240.784.918, and in 2016, €242.829.877. See: BOCM, LEY7/2012, (26 December 2012), de Presupuestos Generales de la Comunidad de Madrid para el año 2013 (General Budget for the Community of Madrid for the year of 2013), 2012, p.8; BOE, Ley 5/2013, de 23 de diciembre, de Presupuestos Generales de la Comunidad de Madrid para el año 2014 (General Budget for the Community of Madrid for the year of 2014), 2014, Sec. I. p. 26593; BOCM, LEY 3/2014, de 22 de diciembre, de Presupuestos Generales de la Comunidad de Madrid para el año 2015 (General Budget for the Community of Madrid for the year of 2015), 2014, p.16; BOCM, LEY6/2015,de 23 de diciembre, de Presupuestos Generales de la Comunidad de Madrid para el año 2016 (General Budget for the Community of Madrid for the year of 2016), 2015, p.13.
Moreover, the budget for housing and the promotion of residential construction in the autonomous community of Madrid was cut by more than half, decreasing from €86.25 per person in 2008 to €31.76 in 2013. Fundación Civio, Donde van mis impuestos?, at http://dondevanmisimpuestos.es/.
[3]Amnesty International Spain, Evicted Rights. Right to housing and mortgage evictions in Spain (2015), at https://doc.es.amnesty.org/cgi-bin/ai/BRSCGI.exe/EUR4170015-27160%20Evicted%20Rights?CMD=VEROBJ&MLKOB=34293751010.
States must ensure that businesses abide by human rights throughout their operations, including abroad
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted an authoritative reaffirmation of the extra-territorial obligation (ETO) to protect International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of corporations operating abroad. Reaffirming its Concluding Observations developed over the past several years, the Committee made clear that States Parties to the Covenant are legally obligated to regulate corporations domiciled, incorporated or headquartered within their territories, or those over which they otherwise exercise control, to ensure that they respect, protect and fulfill Covenant rights throughout their operations, including their operations abroad.
The Committee also made clear that States Parties are legally obligated to ensure access to justice, including accountability and remedies, in the event such corporations detrimentally impact Covenant rights abroad.
According to Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “this is a welcomed reaffirmation of what civil society has brought to the Committee’s attention over the past several years.” He stated that such a positive result demonstrates the efficacy of a concerted civil society push, “the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and other members of the ETO Consortium, including in particular FIAN International and several of its national sections, worked with several affected communities around the world to ensure that States are held accountable when their respective corporations impact Covenant rights abroad.”
“With this new General Comment, we hope that monitoring of and accountability for corporate actions abroad are systematically applied throughout all periodic reporting and complaints under the Covenant” Thiele added.
The relevant Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights Press Statement is available HERE
A comprehensive collection of UN pronouncements on ETOs is available HERE.
Updated Working Paper – Human Rights Law Sources: UN Pronouncements on Extra-Territorial Obligations
Extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) are increasingly recognized as essential to ensuring a global framework built on human rights. As a consequence, civil society is demanding that ETOs be applied through human rights monitoring, enforcement, accountability and remedial mechanisms, resulting in a growing body of pronouncements enforcing ETOs in practice. This Working Paper, updated June 2017, outlines the application of extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) by United Nations mechanisms, including the Concluding Observations of Treaty Bodies, General Comments and Recommendations adopted by Treaty Bodies, and within the work of UN Special Procedures including Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. As such, it provides a current understanding of how ETOs are monitored and enforced by UN human rights mechanisms.
The Working Paper is available HERE.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 34th session of the UN Human Rights Council (27 February to 24 March 2017)
This Update aims to provide a summary of the initiatives regarding economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council (March 2017).
This Update provides information about:
ESC rights and the Sustainable Development Goals
The SDGs continued to be prominent in resolutions and debates on ESC rights at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council. The annual report on ESC rights of the High Commissioner and the ESC rights resolution (see discussion below) both focused on the SDGs, and the annual full Day Meeting on the rights of the child addressed the theme ‘Protection of the rights of the child in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ led by Uruguay and the EU. This was also the theme of a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/34/27) and a resolution adopted by the Council (A/HRC/RES/34/16) which noted the foundation of the 2030 Agenda in human rights:
‘Recalling further that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties ……and that the Agenda is to be implemented, followed-up and reviewed in a manner that is consistent with the obligations of States under international law.’[1]
The resolution encouraged States to take account of recommendations from human rights mechanisms in their SDGs processes[2] and requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in the SDGs follow-up processes.[3]
At least five other ESC rights resolutions adopted at this session, referred to the SDGs. In negotiations and discussions throughout the session, States’ continued to be interested in highlighting the 2030 Agenda and some were keen to underline the links with human rights (seen in the Child rights and ESC rights resolutions), but most remained reluctant to identify specific ways in which the human rights mechanisms could engage in the SDGs process. In addition, many States continued to insist on only referring to the SDGs by quoting the language of the Agenda or relevant GA resolutions and to insist that Geneva based mechanisms should not be discussing the SDGs as it was a matter for New York.
In an interesting and positive development, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador Luxembourg, Portugal, Rwanda and Uruguay made a Joint Statement on this topic under Item 8. The Statement announced a new initiative on Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda, beginning with an informal open-ended meeting later in 2017, to discuss how the human rights pillar can best contribute to the realisation of, and follow-up to, the SDGs, with the ultimate aim of pursing ‘a practical programme of work premised on seizing every available opportunity provided to the UN Human Rights system to support States as they work to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, leaving no one behind.’
More information about these SDGs initiatives at the 34th session of the Council can be found in our Snapshot – the SDGs at the Human Rights Council, March 2017.
Economic, social and cultural rights
The 2030 Agenda was also the theme of Portugal’s annual omnibus resolution on ESC rights (A/HRC/RES/34/4) which was adopted by consensus at the Council’s 34th session.
Important statements in the resolution include that the Council:
‘Also recognizes that the commitments made by States in the 2030 Agenda to leave no one behind, and to reach the furthest behind first, founded on the dignity of the human person, and reflecting the principles of equality and non-discrimination, require the collection of quality, accessible, timely and reliable disaggregated data;’[4]
‘Notes with appreciation the contributions of international human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, international human rights treaty bodies, the special procedures and the universal periodic review in promoting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in accordance with States’ human rights obligations, encourages States to give due consideration to information, observations and recommendations from human rights mechanisms when implementing and monitoring progress of the 2030 Agenda, and to promote the cooperation of all stakeholders towards the full integration of human rights into the said processes;’[5] and
‘calls upon States to implement the 2030 Agenda consistent with the principles of equality and non-discrimination, and in this regard encourages States to consider appropriate measures to promote de facto equality.’[6]
Finally, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to prepare and submit to the Human Rights Council a report on ‘the role of economic, social and cultural rights in the transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.’ The topic was chosen to align with the theme for the 2018 High Level Political Forum (HLPF) of the Sustainable Development Agenda ‘transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.’[7]
The US and the UK both registered an explanation of position before the adoption of this resolution. The US raised concerns about the references to the right to development and the UK stated that the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights was not incorporated into domestic law and does not require States to do so.
The report of the Secretary General on ESC rights (A/HRC/34/25) was also presented to the Council. It provides a comprehensive discussion of the linkages between economic, social and cultural rights and the SDGs framework, highlighting that the two agendas are converging and that many of the SDGs targets mirror the human rights framework, the concept of indivisibility of rights and the normative content of ESC rights, such as the concepts of availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality. Further, it highlights that the central principles of the 2030 Agenda, such as leaving no one behind and reaching the furthest behind first, reflect the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination which cut across all of the SDGs[8] and that reducing inequality within and between countries is targeted in Goal 10 and is also crucial for achieving many of the other Goals. The report notes that extreme income inequality slows poverty reduction; perpetuates social exclusion, social inequalities and discrimination; is a causal factor in bad health outcomes; and creates and exacerbates disparities in access to housing, health, education and other ESC rights services.[9]
On accountability, the report calls for the 2030 Agenda accountability framework to be strengthened and linked with established human rights accountability mechanisms. It underlines the importance of international co-operation in this context and the need to address global inequalities and power imbalances, such as in the area of trade, finance and investment and to combat corruption, illicit financial flows, trade mispricing and tax evasion. The report also identifies participation of rights-holders in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights and accountability of multi-stakeholder partnerships, including business and private sector partners, as essential elements of effective accountability.[10]
One of the very interesting aspects of the report is the discussion of the contributions of international human rights mechanisms. The report notes that more than half of the SDGs targets are already being monitored by UN human rights mechanisms and that recommendations and Concluding Observations of those mechanisms can ‘play an important role in identifying key human rights issues at the country level and in prioritizing the most excluded and marginalized individuals and groups that will be relevant to the implementation of the Goals.’[11] A number of the human rights treaty bodies and many of the Special Procedures mandate holders are already engaged in work to highlight and exploit the linkages between the SDGs and human rights. The Human Rights Council has also explored this topic through resolutions, panel discussions and the UPR and inputs to the HLPF. The report urges that this engagement be deepened and become the norm.
Right to adequate housing
The Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Ms Leilani Farha, presented to the Council her report on the financialisation of housing and its impact on human rights (A/HRC/34/51) and her mission reports on India and Portugal.
The report describes how structural changes in the housing and financial markets and global investment have commodified housing and disconnected it from its social function which has undermined its realization as a human right. ‘Financialised housing markets respond to preferences of global investors rather than the needs of communities’ such that in many cities large numbers of homes are empty while the homelessness problem increases. Specifically, it has led to housing precarity, foreclosures, evictions, spatial segregation between rich and poor, the demolition of informal settlements and homelessness.
The Special Rapporteur also shines a light on investment treaties which often protect investments in housing and real estate for the purposes of speculation and the accumulation of wealth, and expose government measures to regulate investment to protect the right to housing, to claims for damages by private investors.
In developing countries, the influence of international financial institutions (World Bank, IMF and regional development and finance institutions) is frequently the central driver of housing financialisation policies according to the report, despite evidence that such policies fail to address housing need for poor families and lead to greater socioeconomic inequality. In the formulation of policy, neither IFIs nor States take into account the right to adequate housing or the views of people affected by those policies. Frequently, informal settlements are demolished to make way for luxury housing and commercial developments, leaving residents homeless, or displaced and rarely adequately compensated.
The Special Rapporteur calls for States to:
‘reclaim the governance of housing systems from global credit markets and, in collaboration with affected communities and with cooperation and engagement by central banks and financial institutions, redesign housing finance and global investment in housing around the goal of ensuring access to adequate housing for all by 2030.’[12]
She prescribes a transformational shift in States’ approaches to housing policy so that they recognize the social function of housing and are centered around States’ obligations with respect to the right to adequate housing. She recommends greater dialogue between States, human rights actors, international and domestic financial regulatory bodies, private equity firms and major investors to bridge the worlds of corporate and government finance, housing, planning and human rights.
GI-ESCR made an Oral Statement during the Interactive Dialogue with States in support of the Special Rapporteur’s report.
Resolution
A resolution on the right to adequate housing was adopted at this session by consensus (A/HRC/RES/34/9). The resolution was merely procedural and focused on extending the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing for another three years. The Council encouraged the Special Rapporteur to:
‘submit proposals that could support states in the implementation of the housing-related Sustainable Development Goals and targets and the New Urban Agenda. ’
Right to work
Pursuant to the mandate contained in the Human Rights Council resolution on the right to work last March (RES/HRC/RES/31/15) the report of the Secretary General on ‘the relationship between the realisation of the right to work and the enjoyment of all human rights by women, with a particular emphasis on the empowerment of women’ (A/HRC/34/29) was presented to the Council. The report is an excellent summary of the well documented issues relating to women and the right to work, covering topics such as: women’s labour force participation; women’s disproportionate representation in non-standard and precarious forms of employment and in the informal economy; legal obstacles to women working; the situation and vulnerability of domestic workers; occupational segregation; discrimination in recruitment; women’s unpaid domestic and care work; barriers to women’s entrepreneurship; discrimination in women’s working conditions; discrimination in relation to pregnancy, childbirth and breastfeeding; sexual harassment; systemic discrimination in remuneration and equal pay for work of equal value.
Of particular interest was the discussion of horizontal and vertical workforce segregation and the recommendation of temporary special measures as the most effective means to address them and to achieve substantive equality.[13] Also of note is the section on women’s unpaid work which states:
‘Women carry out the bulk of unpaid caregiving and household work in society, which keeps them out of the workforce and public life. In addition to social norms, the lack of affordable care services and the gender remuneration gap perpetuate women’s disproportionate engagement in unpaid care work.’[14]
The report notes the adverse impact that this has on women’s pension and retirement savings, the unrecognised and under-valued nature of this work and the fact that it subsidises the provision of care in society. It promotes the ‘Recognise, Reduce, Redistribute’ approach, through measuring and recognising the social and economic value of unpaid care work.
The report also addresses the difficulties in ensuring non-discrimination in working conditions for women working in manufacturing and other sectors in export-processing zones, for domestic workers and women migrant workers.
Given the strong content of the report, it was disappointing to see that this did not translate through to the content of the resolution, which despite being long, was not nearly as strong as it could have been.
The Council adopted a resolution on the right to work (A/HRC/34/14) by consensus. The core group described the resolution as focusing on women and the right to work, however, the text missed the opportunity to engage with this topic in depth and instead made some simplistic overarching statements which did not really advance the issues. For example: ‘Encourages States to take all appropriate measures to eliminate discrimination against women in the field of employment in order to ensure, on the basis of the equality of men and women, the same rights.’ The resolution also promoted economic growth and job creation as a key recipe for the realisation of women’s right to work and contained paragraphs dealing with child labour, international cooperation, the role of the private sector and private investment, which were unrelated to women’s rights. For example, this paragraph:
‘Stresses that the Sustainable Development Goals promote inclusive and sustained economic growth, higher levels of productivity and technological innovation, and encourage entrepreneurship and job creation, which can be effective measures to eradicate extreme poverty and hunger, forced labour, contemporary forms of slavery and human trafficking and to ensure that no one is left behind.’[15]
Some of the strongest language was:
‘that equal access to work is pivotal to the full enjoyment of all human rights by women, while recognizing that women are on many occasions subject to discrimination in the context of realizing their rights in that regard on an equal basis with men and are disproportionately exposed to the most precarious working conditions, including work in the informal economy, limited or no legal protection, lower levels of representation in leadership and decision-making positions, lower levels of remuneration and involuntary temporary and part-time employment, and are disproportionately burdened with unpaid care and domestic work within the household and the family, which may constitute on many occasions a barrier to women’s greater involvement in the labour market.’[16]
Another notable paragraph addressing women in the informal economy stated:
‘Notes with concern that… women’s labour force participation in 2015 is estimated to be 49.6 per cent globally compared with 76.1 per cent for men, and that women workers are disproportionately represented in the informal economy as well as non-standard forms of employment, such as part-time and temporary contracts or self- employment, which can on many occasions compromise their job security, working conditions and social protection; and that in developing countries, the share of women in underemployment exceeds that of men.’[17]
Again, continuing the SDGs theme of this session, there were quite a few references to the SDGs in this resolution and in conclusion, the resolution called for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare a report for the March 2018 Council on the relationship between the realization of the right to work and the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
Right to food
The Council adopted a resolution on the right to food (A/HRC/RES/34/12) after a vote called by the US, which was easily carried with 45 votes for, 1 against (US) and 1 abstention (Korea). The resolution reiterated many of the issues addressed in previous resolutions on the right to food such as the world food crisis, progress in the Doha round of trade negotiations of the WTO, the importance of small-holder and subsistence farmers, a gender perspective on the right to food, traditional agricultural practices, concerns about the level of hunger and under-nourishment and international cooperation and development assistance. Despite the fact that the Special Rapporteur’s report addressed the use of pesticides and how they impact the right to food, the resolution only included one sentence on this topic.
Describing the resolution as ‘unbalanced, inaccurate, and unwise,’ the US explained its opposition to the resolution on the grounds that: the issue of pesticides is a matter for the FAO, WHO and UNEP; trade is a matter for the WTO; it ‘does not support the resolution’s numerous references to technology transfer’; it objects to the ‘inaccurate linkages between climate change and human rights related to food’; and it does not accept that States have extraterritorial obligations regarding the right to food. Whilst these are not entirely new positions for the US and it has made these points during negotiations of ESC rights resolutions in the past, it is less usual for the US to make a statement articulating these points and to call a vote in respect of an ESC rights resolution.
The report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to food (A/HRC/34/48), Ms Hilal Elver, was also presented to the Council. It was prepared jointly with the Special Rapporteur on Toxic Substances, Mr Baskut Tuncak, and focused on pesticides. The 2 mandate holders call for the negotiation of a new international treaty on toxics which would regulate and phase out the use of dangerous pesticides.
Cultural rights
The Human Rights Council adopted a resolution (A/HRC/34/2) on ‘Promotion of the enjoyment of the cultural rights of everyone and respect for cultural diversity.’ Presented by Cuba and adopted without a vote, the resolution did not take up a particular theme or focus but made broad statements about the importance of cultural diversity, such as:
Recognizes that respect for the cultural diversity and cultural rights of all enhances cultural pluralism, contributing to a wider exchange of knowledge and understanding of cultural heritage and background, advancing the application and enjoyment of human rights throughout the world and fostering stable, friendly relations among peoples and nations worldwide.[18]
The Council ‘took note’ of the report of the Special Rapporteur on cultural rights (A/HRC/34/56) which tackles the sensitive topic of fundamentalism and extremism and their grave impact on the enjoyment of cultural rights.
The Special Rapporteur writes that fundamentalist and extremist ideologies are a threat to human rights, and more specifically to cultural rights and they require a human rights-based response. She argues that cultural rights can play a key role in combating fundamentalism and extremism, by promoting free self-determination of individuals, respect for cultural diversity, universality and equality.
Environment and climate change
Resolution
The Council adopted a resolution (A/HRC/RES/34/20) without a vote, after oral revisions. The resolution retained some general provisions from previous year’s resolutions and added some paragraphs addressing, biodiversity, the theme of the Special Rapporteur’s report. The resolution encourages States to ‘adopt an effective normative framework for the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment, including biodiversity and ecosystems’ and to strengthen efforts to protect biodiversity, including through national targets under the Convention on Biological Diversity. It also asked States to address compliance with human rights relating to the environment it their UPR and treaty body reviews and to ‘collect disaggregated data on the effects of environmental harm, including the loss of biodiversity and the decline of ecosystem services, on persons in vulnerable situations.’
The resolution continued to address climate change in a couple of paragraphs, including welcoming the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, ‘taking note with appreciation of the work undertaken by the Geneva Pledge for Human Rights in Climate Action … in helping to mainstream the human rights perspective into the climate change and environment agenda,’ and asking States to consider respect for and promotion of human rights within the UNFCCC framework and COP23 to be held in Bonn in November 2017.[19]
The US also made an ‘Explanation of Position’ in relation to this resolution, although did not call a vote. The US stated ‘Pending review of U.S. policies relating to climate change and the Paris Agreement, the United States reserves its position on language in this resolution relating to these issues.’
Biodiversity was the theme of the report of the Special Rapporteur on human rights and the environment, which was presented at this Council session. The report (A/HRC/34/49) explains that the full enjoyment of human rights depends on ecosystem services and biodiversity:
‘The full enjoyment of human rights, including the rights to life, health, food and water, depends on the services provided by ecosystems. The provision of ecosystem services depends on the health and sustainability of ecosystems, which in turn depend on biodiversity. The full enjoyment of human rights thus depends on biodiversity, and the degradation and loss of biodiversity undermine the ability of human beings to enjoy their human rights.’[20]
‘Ecosystem services’ include:
‘provisioning services such as food, water, timber and fiber, which are necessary for basic material needs, including nutrition, shelter and clothing. Regulating services such as purification of water and protection against erosion support clean water and human health. …….cultural services to the many people around the world whose religious and spiritual values are rooted in nature.’[21]
The report focuses on the following connections between biodiversity and healthy human life: medicinal drugs (the derivation of medicinal drugs from natural products), microbial diversity, infectious diseases and mental health. For example, on medicinal drugs the Special Rapporteur notes that biodiversity is an important resource for new medicines and there remain hundreds of thousands of plant species and other living resources, including the marine and the microbial, which have not been studied for their medicinal potential.
The report discusses how some people are more vulnerable to the human rights impacts of biodiversity loss than others. For instance, for ‘indigenous peoples, forest-dwellers, fisherfolk and others who rely directly on the products of forests, rivers, lakes and oceans for their food, fuel and medicine, environmental harm can and often does have disastrous consequences.’[22] It is noted that any economic benefits resulting from activities and projects that lead to loss of biodiversity, usually accrue to those who did not depend directly on the resource and the costs are imposed disproportionately on those who did.
The Special Rapporteur explains the State’s procedural and substantive human rights obligations relating to the conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity. The procedural obligations include ‘(a) to assess impacts and make environmental information public; (b) to facilitate public participation in environmental decision-making, including by protecting the rights of expression and association; and (c) to provide access to remedies for harm.’
In relation to substantive obligations, the report explains that, since the loss of ecosystem services and biodiversity threatens many human rights, including the rights to life, health, food, water, culture and non-discrimination, States ‘have a general obligation to safeguard biodiversity in order to protect those rights from infringement,’[23] including to protect against environmental harm from private actors.
The report describes the global failure to protect biodiversity despite numerous rounds of efforts to agree goals and targets under the auspices of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The extent and rate of loss of biodiversity is alarming and likely to significantly impact on human rights in the near future, says the Special Rapporteur. Given the transboundary and global dimensions of biodiversity benefits, threats and protection, the Special Rapporteur stresses States’ duty of international co-operation. He notes that the drivers of ‘biodiversity loss include the destruction and degradation of natural habitat, the overexploitation of valuable plants and animals, pollution, invasive alien species and climate change’ and these are issues that must be addressed internationally.
Finally, the Special Rapporteur looks at the heightened obligations of States to protect from the adverse effects of exploitation of natural resources, the rights of indigenous peoples and of people who also have close relationships to the territory that they have traditionally occupied and who depend directly on nature for their material needs and cultural life.[24] He points out that ‘protecting the rights of those who live closest to nature is not just required by human rights law; it is also often the best or only way to ensure the protection of biodiversity. The knowledge and practices of the people who live in biodiversity-rich ecosystems are vital to the conservation and sustainable use of those ecosystems.’[25]
The Special Rapporteur also presented his report on his mission to Madagascar (A/HRC/34/49/Add.1).
Panel discussion on climate change and the rights of the child
Climate change and the rights of the child was the subject of a panel discussion during the Council session, led by representatives of the Philippines, Vietnam and Bangladesh. The Council also heard from UNICEF, a member of the Committee on the Rights of the Child and an NGO, Green Hope Foundation. Further information is available here and a report of the discussion will be made available in due course.
Other initiatives of interest
Independent Expert on Foreign Debt The mandate of the ‘Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights,’ was extended for a period of three years, and the Council requested the Independent Expert to pay particular attention to: the effects of foreign debt on the full enjoyment of all human rights; the impact of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations on the capacity of States to design and implement their policies and programmes; and measures taken by Governments, the private sector and international financial institutions to alleviate such effects in developing countries. The Council also requested the Independent Expert to develop guiding principles for human rights impact assessments for economic reform policies and to organize expert consultations for that task. The resolution (A/HRC/RES/34/3) was adopted after a vote of 34 for, 16 against and no abstentions.
Mental health and human rights
A report by the High Commissioner for Human Rights on ‘mental health and human rights’ was also submitted to the Council (A/HRC/34/32). The report identifies some of the major challenges faced by users of mental health services, persons with mental health conditions and persons with psychosocial disabilities. These include stigma and discrimination; violations of economic, social and other rights; and the denial of autonomy and legal capacity.
The report concludes that a comprehensive approach to addressing the situation of persons with mental health conditions and persons with psychosocial disabilities requires the protection of autonomy, agency and dignity policy shifts that recognize exclusion and marginalization as the causes and consequences of poor mental health. It recommends that States introduce measures to improve the quality of mental health service delivery, to put an end to involuntary treatment and institutionalization and to create a legal and policy environment that is conducive to the realization of the human rights of persons with mental health conditions and psychosocial disabilities.
Appointment of new Special Rapporteur on the Right to Development
A new mandate on the Right to Development was established in September 2016 pursuant to resolution 33/14 and the mandate holder was appointed at this 34th session of the Council. Following the recommendation of the Consultative Group, the President of the Council appointed Mr Saad Alfarargi from Egypt. The Consultative Group describes Mr Alfarargi as ‘a development expert and a former Permanent Representative of Egypt and Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the UN Office at Geneva.’ He was formerly UN Assistant Secretary General of UNDP, a senior adviser to the Prime Minister of Egypt and Chief of the Presidential Bureau for Economic Affairs at the Egyptian Presidency.
Special Procedures mandate holders
The OHCHR submitted a report entitled ‘Facts and figures with regard to the special procedures in 2016’ (A/HRC/34/34/Add.1) which provides interesting statistics and information on the activities of the Special Procedures such as information about gender balance on the Special Procedures, the State responsiveness to Communications from Special Procedures, follow-up activities undertaken, statistics on sponsors of resolutions establishing mandates.
Lucy McKernan
Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
30 March 2017
[1] A/HRC/RES/34/16, preambular paragraph 8.
[2] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 17.
[3] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 27.
[4] Human Rights Council resolution on economic, social and cultural rights, March 2017, A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 7.
[5] A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 8, emphasis added.
[6] A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 12.
[7] See General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/299 on ‘Follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level,’ paragraph 3.
[8] Report of the Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council, ‘Question of the realisation in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights,’ 14 December 2016, A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 15.
[9] A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 17.
[10] A/HRC/34/25, paragraphs 22-25.
[11] A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 41.
[12] A/HRC/34/51, paragraph 75.
[13] Report of the Secretary-General on ‘the right to work and the enjoyment of all human rights by women, with a particular emphasis on the empowerment of women,’ March 2017, A/HRC/34/29, paragraphs 30-35.
[16] paragraph 9, emphasis added.
[17] paragraph 14, emphasis added.
[19] A/HRC/RES/34/20, operative paragraph 6(m).
[20] A/HRC/34/49, paragraph 5.
SNAPSHOT – the SDGs at the Human Rights Council, March 2017
The Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) continued to be prominent in resolutions and debates on economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights at the 34th session of the Human Rights Council. At least six ESC rights resolutions adopted at this session, referred to the SDGs and the annual full Day Meeting on the rights of the child addressed the theme ‘Protection of the rights of the child in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development’ lead by Uruguay and the EU. This was also the theme of a report of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (A/HRC/34/27) and a resolution adopted by the Council (A/HRC/RES/34/16) which contained some interesting paragraphs such as this one noting the human rights foundations of the 2030 Agenda:
‘Recalling further that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is guided by the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations, grounded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, international human rights treaties, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocols, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ……and that the Agenda is to be implemented, followed-up and reviewed in a manner that is consistent with the obligations of States under international law.’[1]
And this paragraph linking climate change and the 2030 Agenda:
‘Welcoming the entry into force of the Paris Agreement, adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, noting that climate change exacerbates risks to those in the most vulnerable situations, including children, and underlining that the effective implementation of the Agreement reinforces the 2030 Agenda.’[2]
The resolution also called for a child-rights based approach to the SDGs:
‘Encourages States to promote a child rights-based approach in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda, in accordance with their obligations under international law and underpinned by the principles of, inter alia, human rights and fundamental freedoms for all, equality and non-discrimination, the best interests of the child, the child’s right to life, survival and development and participation, sustainability, transparency, international cooperation and accountability.’[3]
Echoing some concepts in the ESC rights omnibus resolution (see below), the Council:
‘encourages States to take into account in the national reviews of progress on the Sustainable Development Goals the reports and recommendations from the existing human rights review processes in which States already participate.’[4]
The resolution specifically requested the High Commissioner for Human Rights to engage in the SDGs follow-up processes:
‘contribute to the work of the high-level political forum on sustainable development, in consultation with relevant stakeholders, … particularly by providing inputs from a child rights perspective to the yearly thematic reviews of progress at the forum, focusing on achievements and challenges…’[5]
Finally, the Council requested the Special Rapporteur on the sale and sexual exploitation of children to participate in international forums and to advise on effective practices to realise the rights of child victims of sale and sexual exploitation in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and to undertake thematic research on the effective implementation of Goals 5, 8 and 16.[6]
Portugal’s annual omnibus resolution on ESC rights (A/HRC/RES/34/4) also focused on the SDGs, recognising the strong links between ESC rights and the 2030 Agenda:
‘the commitments made by States in the 2030 Agenda to leave no one behind, and to reach the furthest behind first, founded on the dignity of the human person, and reflecting the principles of equality and non-discrimination ... .’[7]
Another important element of this resolution was its recognition of the important role of the human rights mechanisms in the implementation and monitoring of the SDGs:
‘Notes with appreciation the contributions of international human rights mechanisms, including the Human Rights Council and its subsidiary bodies, international human rights treaty bodies, the special procedures and the universal periodic review in promoting the implementation of the 2030 Agenda in accordance with States’ human rights obligations, encourages States to give due consideration to information, observations and recommendations from human rights mechanisms when implementing and monitoring progress of the 2030 Agenda, and to promote the cooperation of all stakeholders towards the full integration of human rights into the said processes.’[8]
Finally, the resolution requests the Secretary-General to submit to the Human Rights Council a report on ‘the role of economic, social and cultural rights in the transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies’. The topic was chosen to align with the theme for the 2018 High Level Political Forum of the Sustainable Development Agenda ‘transformation towards sustainable and resilient societies.’[9]
The report of the Secretary General on ESC rights (A/HRC/34/25) also provided a comprehensive discussion of the linkages between economic, social and cultural rights and the SDGs framework, highlighting that the two agendas are converging and that many of the SDGs targets mirror the human rights framework, the concept of indivisibility of rights and the normative content of ESC rights, such as the concepts of availability, accessibility, affordability, and quality. Further, it highlights that the central principles of the 2030 Agenda, such as leaving no one behind and reaching the furthest behind, reflect the human rights principles of equality and non-discrimination which cut across all of the SDGs[10] and that reducing inequality within and between countries is targeted in Goal 10 and is also crucial for achieving many of the other Goals.[11]
On accountability, the report calls for the 2030 Agenda accountability framework to be strengthened and linked with established human rights accountability mechanisms. It underlines the importance of international co-operation in this context and the need to address global inequalities and identifies participation of rights-holders in decisions that affect the enjoyment of their rights and accountability of multi-stakeholder partnerships, including business and private sector partners, as essential elements of effective accountability.[12]
One of the very interesting aspects of the report is the discussion of the contributions of international human rights mechanisms. The report notes that more than half of the SDGs targets are already being monitored by UN human rights mechanisms and that recommendations and concluding observations of those mechanisms can ‘play an important role in identifying key human rights issues at the country level and in prioritizing the most excluded and marginalized individuals and groups that will be relevant to the implementation of the Goals.’[13] A number of the human rights treaty bodies and many of the Special Procedures mandate holders are already engaged in work to highlight and exploit the linkages between the SDGs and human rights. The Human Rights Council has also explored this topic through resolutions, panel discussions and the UPR and inputs to the HLPF. The report urges that this engagement be deepened and become the norm.
Overall, in negotiations and discussions throughout the session, States continued to be interested in highlighting the 2030 Agenda and some were keen to underline the links with human rights (seen in the Child rights and ESC rights resolutions), but most remained reluctant to identify specific ways in which the human rights mechanisms could engage in the SDGs process. In addition, many States continued to insist on only referring to the SDGs by quoting the language of the Agenda or relevant GA resolutions and to insist that Geneva based mechanisms should not be discussing the SDGs as it was a matter for New York.
In an interesting and positive development, Chile, Denmark, Ecuador Luxembourg, Portugal, Rwanda and Uruguay made a Joint Statement on this topic under Item 8. The Statement announces a new initiative on Human Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. It begins by noting that ‘many people have been left behind by globalization and excluded from the benefits of socio-economic development’ and highlighting acute and rising inequalities both within and between countries. It describes human rights and the 2030 Agenda as interdependent and mutually reinforcing and says that if the SDGs are to ‘leave no one behind’, ‘then human rights obligations and commitments must be applied, realised and protected by all UN member States’ and conversely, human rights can only be realised if the SDGs are implemented and poverty eradicated.
The sponsors of the Joint Statement therefore ‘believe that it is imperative for the Council to give careful consideration to the nature of our role: how can the UN’s human rights pillar – including this Council, the UN human rights mechanisms, OHCHR, NHRIs and civil society - best support and contribute to the realisation of the SDGs, leaving no one behind.’ The State sponsors eschew an abstract theoretical debate or more report writing, and instead call for an action-oriented and inclusive conversation on topics such as ‘how can the UN human rights system support States to realise the SDGs at country-level, including by delivering effective human rights capacity-building and technical support, and sharing best practice.’
Specifically, the new initiative proposes an informal open-ended meeting later in 2017, to discuss how the human rights pillar can best contribute to the realisation of, and follow-up to, the SDGs, with the ultimate aim of pursing ‘a practical programme of work premised on seizing every available opportunity provided to the UN Human Rights system to support States as they work to implement the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, leaving no one behind.’
This is a very welcome initiative, and whilst we might have hoped the Statement would attract a greater number of State sponsors, including more African and Asian States, it is an important first step which opens the space for a more focused dialogue on this important topic. The leadership of the State sponsors will be crucial in bringing together a broader cross-regional group of States to champion a rights-based approach to the SDGs, as will the continuing work of the OHCHR, Special Procedures and treaty bodies in producing research, analysis, recommendations and proactive initiatives that assist States to see concrete ways to embed human rights in their SDGs plans. As States are finalising and activating those plans, now is the time to reinforce the message that effective and sustainable achievement of the aims of the 2030 Agenda will not be possible without embracing human rights in the implementation, follow-up and review processes.
31 March 2017
Lucy McKernan Geneva Representative, Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[1] A/HRC/RES/34/16, preambular paragraph 8.
[2] A/HRC/RES/34/16, preambular paragraph 9.
[3] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 6.
[4] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 17.
[5] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 27.
[6] A/HRC/RES/34/16, operative paragraph 31.
[7] Human Rights Council resolution on economic, social and cultural rights, March 2017, A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 7.
[8] A/HRC/RES/34/4, paragraph 8.
[9] See General Assembly resolution A/RES/70/299 on ‘Follow-up and review of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development at the global level’, paragraph 3.
[10] Report of the Secretary-General to the Human Rights Council, ‘Question of the realisation in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights’, 14 December 2016, A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 15.
[11] A/HRC/34/25, paragraph 17.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 60th session of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Right
March 2017
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) held its 60th session from 20 to 24 February 2017. This Update provides a summary of the meetings and key developments.This session was unusual because it was only for one week and no State dialogues were scheduled. Therefore, much of the Committee’s session was held in private in order to discuss thematic issues, working methods, non-reporting States, proposed General Comments and Communications under the OP-ICESCR. During its opening meeting, the Committee held a minute of silence in honour of the recently deceased Sir Nigel Rodley, former member and Chairperson of the Human Rights Committee and Arundhati Ghose, former member of CESCR.
Committee membership and office holders Three new members of the Committee commenced their terms this session: Ms Sandra Leibenberg (South Africa) Ms Laura-Maria Craciunean-Tatu (Romania) Mr Michael Windfuhr (Germany)
The Chairpersonship of Mr Waleed Sadi came to an end and the Committee elected Ms Virginia Bras Gomes (Portugal) to the Chair. A new Bureau was also elected, consisting of: Ms Heisoo Shin (Republic of Korea), Mr Zdzislaw Kedzia (Poland) and Mr Mohamed Ezzeldin Abdel-Moneim (Egypt) as Vice Chairs of the Committee, and Lydia Carmelita Ravenberg (Suriname) as the Rapporteur of the Committee. A new working group on communications was also determined.
State Reporting Procedure During the ‘pre-session’ (27 February - 3 March) the Committee considered Lists of Issues for the following States: Colombia, Mexico, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Russian Federation The Committee has published Lists of Issues for these States HERE. The dialogue for each of these States will be held at the 62nd Session (18 September – 6 October 2017).
Follow up At this session the Committee agreed to a new follow up procedure which will commence operation in the 61st session in June. Additional information about the new procedure will be made available in June.
Overdue and non-reporting States There are a large number of States Parties to the Covenant who are significantly overdue in submitting their State report, including many States Parties for whom it is their initial report. To address this issue the Committee held a private meeting with non-reporting States on 23 February 2017 and nine States participated in this meeting.
One outcome of the meeting was that where a State submits a long overdue initial report, it will be offered a dialogue as soon as possible after the report is submitted and without the need for a List of Issues or Replies. The Committee is conscious of ensuring that, in these circumstances, there is sufficient time for civil society to participate in the process.
The Secretariat has published a summary of the reporting status of all State Parties to the Covenant. It shows which States are overdue in reporting, including some States that have never reported. Civil society organisations may wish to use the report to identify when a State is due to submit its report, whether it is overdue and to encourage the State to engage in the reporting process.
Another useful resource which provides the reporting status for each State for all human rights treaties can be found HERE.
Thematic areas of work
ESC rights in the context of business activities. The Committee held its ‘Day of Discussion’ on ‘the Draft General Comment on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities’ on 21 February 2017. The Day of Discussion was open to all stakeholders and the level of participation was very high with over 100 participants, including 19 States and the European Union, national human rights institutions, civil society organizations, trade unions, corporate lawyers, human rights lawyers, researchers and academics.
Our blog on the Day of Discussion can be found HERE. More information about the Day of Discussion is available HERE.
Refugees and Migrants The Committee adopted a Public Statement on ‘The Duties of States Towards Refugees and Migrants under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (E/C.12/2017/1).
The Statement provides clear and concise guidance to States on their duties under the ICESCR towards refugees, asylum seekers and migrants. It confirms that States’ obligations apply to ‘all persons under its jurisdiction’ which includes refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, including those in an irregular situation (ie. documented and undocumented migrants).
The Committee highlights that States have immediate obligations to ensure that their measures to realise Covenant rights do not discriminate on the grounds of nationality or legal status and that any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference or other differential treatment on those grounds must be in accordance with the law, pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to the aim pursued. A lack of available resources is not a sufficient justification for discriminatory treatment and the non-discrimination obligations require States to pay specific attention to the practical obstacles faced by vulnerable groups, such as asylum seekers and migrants.
The Committee notes the exception set out in Article 2(3) of the Covenant which permits developing countries to determine to what extent they will guarantee the economic rights recognised in the Covenant to non-nationals. This applies only to developing countries and only to ‘economic rights’ such as access to employment and does not relate, for example, to the right of each child to education, which should be recognised independently of nationality or the legal status of her or his parents.
The Committee explains also that the essential minimum content of each right must be ensured to all people under the ‘State’s effective control, without exception’ and, importantly, States ‘would not, in principle, be justified in restricting the enjoyment of the essential content of the Covenant rights on the basis of a lack of resources, even when confronted with a sudden and quantitatively significant flow of refugees.’ It stresses that ‘core obligations are non-derogable, they continue to exist in situations of conflict, emergency and natural disaster.’
The Committee also underlines the specific vulnerability of undocumented migrants, who often lack the documentation necessary to access social services and whose irregular legal status and the fear of being deported inhibits their access to services and willingness to complain, for instance, about mistreatment at work. The Statement then steps through the obligations and some of the common challenges with respect to health, work, housing and social security rights, emphasising that any restrictions on access to these services/rights should be reasonable and proportionate.
The importance of data collection regarding refugees, asylum seekers and migrants, to aid policy and strategy development and service provision, is also highlighted in the Statement. Finally, the Committee recalls the obligations of international co-operation and notes the importance of these obligations in the context of a sudden influx of refugees and migrants and states that it sees: ‘any measure that States parties adopt to support the realisation of the rights of the Covenant on the territory of other States as contributing to the aims of the Covenant.’
Proposed General Comments The Committee discussed in private a proposed General Comment on article 15 and one on economic, social and cultural rights, development and the environment. It also considered and accepted a proposal to commence the elaboration of a new General Comment related to land and economic, social and cultural rights.
Communications under the OP-ICESCR The Committee considered two Communications during this session and found both inadmissible. This continues the trend of a high number of inadmissible Communications. The decisions will be published in the coming weeks.
Practical matters During the May/June 2017 session there will be a change of practice in respect of the time for NGOs to brief the Committee. The convention has been for this briefing to occur on the Monday morning of the week during which the relevant State dialogue is scheduled. However, instead, the NGO briefings will be held:
Monday 29 May 15:00 - For NGO briefings on Australia, Uruguay & Netherlands Tuesday 6 June 15:00 - For NGO briefings on Liechtenstein & Sri Lanka Monday 12 June 10:00 - For NGO briefings on Pakistan
The deadline for NGO reports for the Pre-sessions has changed. NGO reports will now be due 8 weeks (but preferably 10 weeks) before the start of the Pre-session. Therefore, for the next Pre-session (9 October – 12 October 2017 – Argentina, Germany & Turkmenistan) the deadline for NGO reports is 14 August 2017.
Next session
The sixty-first session of the Committee will be held from 29 May to 23 June 2017 during which the Committee will consider the reports of:
Australia (30 & 31 May) Liechtenstein (7 & 8 June) Netherlands (1 & 2 June) Pakistan (12, 13 & 14 June) Sri Lanka (8 & 9 June) Uruguay (31 May & 1 June)
The Programme of Work for the 61st session (including the schedule of Dialogues) is HERE.
The deadline for civil society reports/submissions in respect of the review of these countries is 18 April 2017 (preferable), but 5 May at the latest.
For those intending to attend the session, accreditation requests must be submitted to the CESCR Secretariat (
There will be no Pre-sessional Working Group meeting at this session.
Updated Working Paper – Human Rights Law Sources: UN Pronouncements on Extra-Territorial Obligations
Extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) are increasingly recognized as essential to ensuring a global framework built on human rights. As a consequence, civil society is demanding that ETOs be applied through human rights monitoring, enforcement, accountability and remedial mechanisms, resulting in a growing body of pronouncements enforcing ETOs in practice. This Working Paper, updated February 2017, outlines the application of extra-territorial obligations (ETOs) by United Nations mechanisms, including the Concluding Observations of Treaty Bodies, General Comments and Recommendations adopted by Treaty Bodies, and within the work of UN Special Procedures including Special Rapporteurs and Independent Experts appointed by the Human Rights Council. As such, it provides a current understanding of how ETOs are monitored and enforced by UN human rights mechanisms.
The Working Paper is available HERE.
New page - Human Rights Guiding Principles on private schools
In response to the need to clarify the existing legal human rights framework as it applies to the role of private actors in education, and in an effort to provide normative guiding principles against which to analyse privatisation in and of education from a human rights perspective, the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), the Right to Education Project (RTE) and the Open Society Foundation – Education Support Program (OSF-ESP) have been working to establish the process for the development of Human Rights Guiding Principles on the obligations of States regarding private actors in education.
Key information on the process and development of these Guiding Principles is available on this regularly updated webpage: http://bit.ly/GPprivatisation
57 head of States signed a declaration without precedent against commercialisation of education
The 57 head of the member States of the Francophonie organisation published on the 27 of November the “Antananarivo Declaration” which concludes the 16th General Assembly of the International Organisation of La Francophonie (OIF). The Declaration contains a paragraph addressing the issue of commercialisation of education and supporting public schools. This declaration is the strongest declaration so far by States against commercialisation of education, in favour of public schools, and supporting the regulation of private actors in education. The declaration recognises in particular, the importance of civil society’s role in the work against commercialisation of education and requests the OIF to work in partnership with civil society on the issue.
Paragraphe 39 of the Antananarivo Declaration which can be found here http://bit.ly/2gMyRS5 [in French], follows the important mobilisation of the Francophone civil society through an Appeal of the Francophone civil society against commercialisation of education, and conveys some of its key demands. It reads:
“39. Noting the development of academic and educational establishments with a commercial purpose, and committed to public, free and of quality education for all, we ask the OIF and the Conference of the Ministers of Education of States and Governments of the Francophonie (Confémen), in collaboration with civil society, to continue the reflection raised during the Kinshasa Summit (2012), and to take measures to promote efficient institutional mechanisms for the regulation of private actors in education, in order to ensure quality and equity of education services;”
-
For more information in French on privatisation of education and our work on the subject, you can visit http://bit.ly/privfr
-
For more information in English, see http://bit.ly/educprivat
-
To stay informed on all the latest developments concerning private actors in education and human rights, join our mailing list http://bit.ly/privatnews
