Accueil » Plate-forme de Dublin » Etapes vers la protection: la deuxième Plate-forme de Dublin pour les défenseurs des droits humains, septembre 2003 » Comptes-rendus des ateliers » Rapport des ateliers anglophones

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights workshop

‹ Security workshophautRapports des ateliers francophones ›

Workshop – Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

11/9/2003 - Working Group B (Anglophone) Chair:

Noeline Blackwell Rapporteur:

Donncha O’Connell Volunteer:

Rosemary Warner

NOTE: Due to the late running of the plenary sessions there was limited time for this workshop.

A speaker from Brazil said that a focus on poverty makes activism more constructive. She claimed that individual and systemic poverty was at the root of most human rights and political problems in Brazil.

An Indonesian speaker highlighted the close connection between multinational corporations and militarisation and the critical role of the US in all of this.

A speaker from Zimbabwe said that experience of colonialism was still being deconstructed in many African countries and that the education system was not adequate for the building of human rights awareness.

A speaker from Nepal was critical of the notion of ‘progressive realisation’ of ESC rights under the ICESCR and emphasised the importance of justiciability. Even in countries where international law superceded domestic law the weakness of ESC rights at the international level was reflected domestically – this gave rise to particular concerns in Nepal in relation to the imposition of fees and access to education in a case that is still ongoing.

A speaker from the Carter Center said that we should be more focused on the General Comment in relation to progressive realisation of ESC rights which diminishes the economic excuses put forward by states. She stressed the importance of working through UN Committees.

A speaker from Israel bemoaned the lack of constitutional guarantees of ESC rights in that country and the non-binding nature of international mechanisms to which the state was a party.

A priest from the Philippines criticised awards made by UNESCO to officials which were then used against human rights activists in that country. He asked whether or not these awards could be withdrawn by UNESCO.

Another US speaker said that the position in the US re ESC rights was worse than in other countries in that there was not just an absence of philosophical commitment to such rights but an outright opposition to them. He called for international solidarity with poverty workers in the US and said that the Death Penalty in the US was a symptom of a disease – racism.

A speaker from South Africa said that ESC rights were a most contested terrain. There was a need to build the capacity of civil society at the base and not in the boardrooms. In South Africa many people are now begging for what they once had in terms of ESC rights. Activism for ESC rights must focus on causes and not symptoms.

A participant from Amnesty International (Irish Section) made a written submission to the effect that the World Bank and IMF ought to be reformed so that human rights criteria could be employed in their work. The absence of such a remit was not unconnected with poor corporate accountability and the existence of corruption that could not happen without the collusion (passive or otherwise) of the system.

A participant from Amnesty International (International Secretariat) raised concerns about the use of international human rights consultants in HR-impact assessments of aid / development assistance. She felt uncomfortable about the use of such consultants in showing local NGOs how to utilise ESC rights on the basis that ‘we’ have more to learn from such groups – who understand indivisibility – than ‘we’ can teach them. She also said that it could play into the hands of multi-nationals who are happy to tick boxes without centralising local groups in the work.