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.

Is there a conflict between development on the one hand and democracy and/or human rights on the other? The issue began to be seriously examined some forty years ago1 and the controversy has simmered because there has been empirical evidence to indicate at least some shortterm validity to those who do see a conflict and press the primacy of growth. They take off from premises like Einstein’s, “An empty stomach makes a poor political adviser.” The controversy in recent years has not so much been for and against human rights as over which category of it should have precedence: civil and political rights or economic, social and cultural rights. Originally, the bill of rights had remained confined only to the first category. But after World War II, when the newly formed United Nations began to consider the need for a universal declaration and, later, for a binding covenant on the subject, inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights was vehemently and successfully argued, especially by the socialist bloc of countries. Later the issue even became an element in the cold war. While the West assumed the title of ‘Free World’ on the basis of its relative guarantees of civil and political rights, the East claimed credit for its primacy to economic rights. The developing countries too, unable or uninclined for various reasons and to varying degrees to accept international standards in guaranteeing the freedoms to their people, began when challenged to claim an overriding need to concentrate on the economic

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 paper discusses the limitations associated with the basic classification of human rights into several categories. The topic of whether international trends have an impact on the view of the State regarding the significance of implementing rights through the acceptance of individual complaint procedures is complex. Starting with an acknowledgment of the infinite extent of the issue, this paper displays a belief in the fallacious conceptions of differences in human rights. It investigates and assesses the institutional contribution to the advancement of human rights through a chronological analysis of historical processes that give rise to changes in the 20th century. To address this particular distinction, this paper examines the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action and the new Optional Protocol for validation and endorsement. By highlighting many similarities in the language and nature of State responsibilities, it challenges the reader to consider whether non-justiciability provides a basis in the first place. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the function of dispute resolution mechanisms during the implementation phase. From a practical standpoint, it compels the reader to contemplate if the committee procedures outlined in international conventions serve just as symbolic representations of non-cooperation by States or are put into effect. This paper ultimately presents the reader with some thought-provoking material in the dichotomy between enforcement and justiciability.

Everyone has a human right to science (RtS), as enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Despite its significance for scientists and society, this right has not received the attention it deserves. To remedy this, the United Nations called for input from academic and scientific communities in 2009. Its Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is currently drafting a General Comment-a document of authoritative guidance to state parties on the normative contents of the RtS. The scientific community is therefore in a unique position to influence how this right is elucidated within a human rights context. Informed by a systematic review of the relevant literature, we first explore the history, importance, and content of the RtS. We then examine a few important topics that fall within the remit of the RtS but were absent or inadequately addressed in the extant literature, and conclude by discussing the implications of the RtS for science policy.

Although the scope of the right to culture has never been more recognized nor clarified, culture itself is currently portrayed in some human rights narratives as a tool of oppression and an obstacle to human rights, especially women's rights. Certainly, cultural rationalizations that justify human rights violations and the misappropriation of culture by dominant (male) elites put a dent in the recognition of collective cultural rights. However, the article argues that the binary understanding of universality versus culture and collective cultural rights ultimately harms women's rights, as such understanding does not reflect all women's experiences, priorities, and strategies. The article uses the example of indigenous women to highlight the importance of culture for some women. It suggests a paradigm shift from portraying minority and indigenous women as victims of their cultures to pushing for their empowerment through and beyond their cultures. In essence, the piece advocates for a multilayered, nuanced approach on women's rights that addresses universalism but also considers postcolonial feminist and anthropological critiques of human rights.

Privatization is an ever more dominant model of economic and social rights (ESR) realization. Thus far, however, there has been relatively little attention paid to privatization in ESR scholarship and practice, resulting in a significant lacuna from both a normative and an empirical perspective. Taking as its starting point the delineation of ESR obligations in terms of the tripartite typology of respect, protect, and fulfill, this article critiques how that framework (and the treaty bodies which employ it in their work) addresses privatization from an ESR perspective. The author outlines a new approach—focused on the obligation to fulfill—which would contribute significantly to the ability of ESR law as it stands to capture and address the scope of state decision-making and (in)action at issue in privatization situations.

States hold international human rights obligations to protect rights-holders from infringements by third parties and to fulfil access to rights. States also increasingly rely on businesses to provide essential human rights resources, including for housing, food, and healthcare. How these obligations apply where States rely on businesses has not been adequately conceptualised, particularly regarding the scope of business infringements in this context, and how the obligation to fulfil relates to market regulation. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has not directly addressed these questions, but recent General Comments develop ambitious regulatory obligations in this area. However, their methodology is questionable, often collapsing the distinction between obligations to protect and to fulfil. This article reconstructs the obligations to provide distinct content under each. It delineates State duties to protect from profiteering and to fulfil human rights through market regulation. It concludes by arguing that this reconstruction may challenge central aspects of globalised capitalism based on the human rights harm inherent therein.

The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights represents a milestone in efforts to redress the imbalance in justiciability mechanisms for economic, social, and cultural rights at the international level. Six years after the Optional Protocol entered into force, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has an opportunity to develop the foundations of both its admissibility and merits jurisprudence. This article analyzes its evolving jurisprudence in light of the imperative to build the normative legitimacy of the Committee's work under the Optional Protocol. The challenge of navigating the tensions between respecting the sovereignty of states in the realm of domestic budgetary and social policy decisions and intervening to require accountability for economic, social, and cultural rights violations lies at the heart of the normative legitimacy of the Committee's jurisprudence. Based on a close analysis of its emerging jurisprudence, it is argued that the Committee has developed sound admissibility criteria, and a solid model of review to guide it in applying the reasonableness standard in Article 8(4) of the Optional Protocol. This jurisprudential approach has enabled the Committee to chart a skillful course thus far between sovereignty and accountability. This bodes well for strengthening the normative legitimacy of the Optional Protocol and advancing the broader project of the justiciability of economic, social, and cultural rights.

INTRODUCTION: This research investigates the utilization of artificial intelligence and machine learning in comprehending various climatic variations, emphasizing the associated use of legal and ethical considerations. This escalating impact of climatic change necessitates innovative approaches and the potential of AI/ML to offer tools for analysis and prediction. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective here, was to assess the effectiveness of AI/ML in the deciphering of varying climatic patterns and projecting the future trends. Concurrently, this study aims for the identification and analysis of legal and ethical challenges that may arise from the integration of these technologies in climatic research and policy. METHODS: Here, the literature review forms the basis for understanding various AI/ML applications related to climate science. This study employs various case analyses to examine the existing models to gauge the accuracy and efficiency of predictions. Legal frameworks and ethical principles need to be scrutinized through the qualitative analysis of relevant policies and guidelines. RESULTS: This extensive research reveals the various significant contributions of AI/ML in the enhancement of climatic modeling precision and the prediction of extreme events. However legal and ethical considerations such as data privacy, accountability, and transparency also emerged as crucial challenges which required careful attention. CONCLUSION: While AI/ML exhibited great potential in the advancement of climate research, a balanced approach is imperative to navigate the associated legal and ethical concerns. Striking this equilibrium will be pivotal for ensuring responsible and effective deployment of these technologies in the pursuit of best understanding and mitigating varying climatic variations.