Explore the vast range of titles available.

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has a new mechanism to receive individual complaints and issue views, which makes the question of how the Committee should interpret the broad articles of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights more pressing than ever. Most commentators on the legitimacy of the CESCR’s interpretation have argued that interpreters should make better use of Articles 31–33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in order to improve the legitimacy of their findings. In this article, we argue conversely that the individual communication mechanism should be evaluated and reformed in terms of legitimate authority. In the context of the Committee’s process of interpretation, we contend that proportionality is better suited than the various interpretive options of the VCLT to offer a consistent procedure that is able to generate legitimacy by attenuating the tension between personal and collective autonomy.

Human rights activists frequently claim that human rights are indivisible, and the United Nations has declared the indivisibility, interdependency, and interrelatedness of these rights to be beyond dispute. Yet in practice a significant divide remains between the two grand categories of human rights: civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic, social, and cultural rights on the other. To date, few scholars have critically examined how the notion of indivisibility has shaped the complex relationship between these two sets of rights. InIndivisible Human Rights, Daniel J. Whelan offers a carefully crafted account of the rhetoric of indivisibility. Whelan traces the political and historical development of the concept, which originated in the contentious debates surrounding the translation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights into binding treaty law as two separate Covenants on Human Rights. In the 1960s and 1970s, Whelan demonstrates, postcolonial states employed a revisionist rhetoric of indivisibility to elevate economic and social rights over civil and political rights, eventually resulting in the declaration of a right to development. By the 1990s, the rhetoric of indivisibility had shifted to emphasize restoration of the fundamental unity of human rights and reaffirm the obligation of states to uphold both major human rights categories-thus opening the door to charges of violations resulting from underdevelopment and poverty. AsIndivisible Human Rightsillustrates, the rhetoric of indivisibility has frequently been used to further political ends that have little to do with promoting the rights of the individual. Drawing on scores of original documents, many of them long forgotten, Whelan lets the players in this drama speak for themselves, revealing the conflicts and compromises behind a half century of human rights discourse.Indivisible Human Rightswill be welcomed by scholars and practitioners seeking a deeper understanding of the complexities surrounding the realization of human rights.

This article contributes to literature on economic and social rights by examining how everyday places and spaces translate structural inequalities into individualized violations of international norms. Drawing on data from a participatory action research project in New York called The Legal Disruption Project (LDP), it argues for new models of knowledge production that bridge gaps between the experiences of marginalized populations and human rights practitioners. The LDP demonstrates how centering the voices of affected communities can contribute substantive insights to effective remedies for human rights violations. In particular, the article suggests potential for explicitly spatial remedies defined through participatory processes of community engagement.

Food insecurity poses one of the most pressing development and human security challenges in the world. In Feeding the Hungry, Michelle Jurkovich examines the social and normative environments in which international anti-hunger organizations are working and argues that despite international law ascribing responsibility to national governments to ensure the right to food of their citizens, there is no shared social consensus on who ought to do what to solve the hunger problem. Drawing on interviews with staff at top international anti-hunger organizations as well as archival research at the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the UK National Archives, and the U.S. National Archives, Jurkovich provides a new analytic model of transnational advocacy. In investigating advocacy around a critical economic and social right—the right to food—Jurkovich challenges existing understandings of the relationships among human rights, norms, and laws. Most important, Feeding the Hungry provides an expanded conceptual tool kit with which we can examine and understand the social and moral forces at play in rights advocacy.

This article argues that a new understanding of the indivisibility of human rights has emerged through the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD has blurred the distinction between civil and political rights, on the one hand, and economic and social rights, on the other. After showing how this distinction has been blurred in the Convention, the article critically analyses the impact this has had on the concept of indivisibility, as well as its consequences for international human rights law more generally. It shows that there is now a shift away from a preoccupation with different categories of rights and towards concern for the real and actual enjoyment of human rights.

This book develops principles of adjudication to facilitate accountability for violations of Economic and Social Rights. Economic and Social Rights engage with areas relating to social justice and their violation tends to impact on the most vulnerable members of society. Taking the UK as a case study, the book draws on international experience and comparative practice, including progressive reform at the devolved subnational level, that demonstrate the potential reach of Economic and Social Rights when the rights are given legal standing in domestic settings according to their status in international law. The work looks at different models of incorporation of rights into domestic law and sets out existing justiciability mechanisms for their enforcement as well as future models open to development. In so doing the book develops principles of adjudication drawn from deliberative democracy theory that help address some of the critiques of social rights adjudication. This book will have a global and cross-sectoral appeal to legal practitioners, the judiciary and the civil services, as well as to researchers, academics and students in the fields of human rights law, comparative constitutional law and deliberative democracy theory.

This chapter contains sections titled: The Vance Conception of Economic and Social Rights Justifying Economic and Social Rights Implementing Economic and Social Rights The Widespread Acceptance of Economic and Social Rights Note References

The 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change is relevant to human rights law, not for what it says about human rights— which is next to nothing—but for what it says about the need to address the risk of climate change taking global temperatures above 1.5 or 2 °C. The Agreement could work, or it could fail by a large margin, but those who want to influence the outcome can still do so. That includes the human rights community. Since climate change is plainly a threat to human rights, how should the UN human rights institutions respond? Should they use their existing powers of oversight to focus attention on how States parties implement (or fail to implement) commitments made in the Paris Agreement? Or should they recognize a right to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment? Either choice would represent a significant contribution to the debate on human rights and climate change, giving humanity as a whole a voice that at present is scarcely heard.

When the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) released a letter in early 2012 addressing the financial and economic crises, it was long overdue. Finally, and around four and a half years after the crises began, the body responsible for monitoring those rights that had been most severely impacted had spoken. But what had been said? This article examines the alterations to the doctrine of non-retrogression that the 2012 Letter instigated. It does so by reference to the ‘Business as Usual’ and ‘accommodation’ theories of emergency response. The Letter to States is argued to have taken the Committee away from an approach to non-retrogression that treated times of normality and emergency in a similar way, and towards an approach that allows derogation-style deviations from the Covenant. This, it is argued, could have detrimental effects for the protection of economic and social rights. The difficulties in applying such an approach are considered.

Although significant literature and jurisprudence has amassed on rights-based climate litigation over recent years, less research and case law has emerged on poverty-related court cases and the fulfilment of economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) in Canada. Fewer still are studies exploring the interlinkages between these areas of inquiry. The purpose of this paper is to explore, using Canada as a case study, rights-based developments in climate litigation cases and how these could impact the innovative advancement of ESCR (e.g. to food, housing and water). Typically, issues of justiciability and standing emerge, impeding the realization of such rights. Given the grave threats we now face, climate cases and social movements must be brought together to better hold state actors accountable for their rights obligations. We implore the legal community to explore ways to traverse juridical obstacles to realize the interdependencies of human rights and protect the planet from calamitous climate change.