Front Line commissioned SERAC (the Social and Economic Rights Action Center) to produce an on-line manual specifically focused on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. We are very grateful for the support of Concern which enabled us to produce this manual.
In the production of this manual we benefitted from the expert advice of the Human Rights Council of Australia, authors of The Rights Way to Development, however, responsibility for any errors in the manual rest with Front Line.
Economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) are human rights recognized and embedded in the International Bill of Human Rights. Together with civil and political rights (C&P rights), ESC rights constitute part of an integral, interrelated, interdependent, and indivisible international human rights corpus enshrined in important legal instruments such as the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights , International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. As preeminently proclaimed by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights , the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom of speech and belief, freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his ESC rights, as well as his C&P rights.
The principle of the interdependence and indivisibility of all human rights has become solidly entrenched in the jurisprudence of municipal courts, regional and international judicial and quasi-judicial human rights bodies. For example, the European Court of Human Rights held in paragraph 26 of the October 9, 1979 decision in Airey v. Ireland that “there is no water-tight division between civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.” In its Concluding Observations (CAT/C/XXVII/Concl.5) , the Committee against Torture found that the Israeli policies on closure and house demolitions may, in certain instances, amount to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The prevailing consensus on the indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights belies the historical preeminence accorded C&P rights over ESC rights based on cold war-related ideological quibbles as well as the now discredited conceptual arguments which sought to show C&P rights as being in a qualitatively different category from ESC rights. This relegation of ESC rights denied many an important, rights-based platform to challenge the terrible social and economic conditions to which they are subjected. It also arguably ensured that the community of human rights advocates remained largely comprised of politically conscious professionals who did not see or act upon the necessity to directly engage the poor in the promotion and protection of human rights.
To be certain, ESC rights are valid, enforceable, justiciable and claimable under both municipal and international law. In relation to the justiciability of ESC rights, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights , the UN body responsible for monitoring the implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, has stated that, “in relation to civil and political rights, it is generally taken for granted that judicial remedies for violations are essential. Regrettably, the contrary assumption is too often made in relation to economic, social and cultural rights. This discrepancy is not warranted by either by the nature of the rights or by the relevant Covenant provisions. The Committee further holds that “while the general approach of each legal system needs to be taken into account, there is no Covenant right which could not, in the majority of systems, be considered to possess at least some significant justiciable dimensions.” See the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment Number 9 on the Domestic Application of the Covenant.
Today, the issue is no longer whether ESC rights are valid human rights but rather how they may be usefully, effectively and practically translated to the benefit of humankind, particularly those that are worse off socially and economically. This is the ultimate justification for this online manual which is offered as a contribution to the sharing, learning and doing now underway around the world in pursuit of the full realization of ESC rights.
The manual is an easy-to-use resource aimed at building human and institutional capacity to effectively use ESC rights, and responds to human rights defenders’ need for aid in integrating ESC rights into their active work. Although you will find that the cases cited are mostly of a legal nature, and that the governing standards are framed within international law, this manual is not aimed at lawyers alone but offered as resource to all concerned with the promotion and defense of ESC rights, including grassroots activists and their organizations.
Please select from the following list:
The essential elements of the State’s obligation to implement all economic, social and cultural rights are encapsulated under Article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It states: “each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures.” (Italics added) While the exact scope of these legal obligations continues to be debated, there is an emerging consensus, forged by the clarifications offered by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General Comment Number 3 on the Nature of States Parties Obligations (issued at its Fifth session in 1990).
Three key elements of Article 2(1) can be identified as follows:
The Committee has concluded that this provision requires States parties to take immediate steps to create the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of the rights by everyone. This duty is not limited or qualified by other considerations such as by the idea of “progressive realization”. Concrete steps must be taken towards the implementation of Covenant obligations immediately upon ratification of the Covenant by a State. For instance, effective
legislative measures must be taken to enhance the implementation of the rights, including the repeal of pre-existing inconsistent laws or policies. What constitutes “all appropriate means” must be decided based on the right under consideration and within the particular context of each state. In relation to housing, it may include education, democratization of administrative procedures, and the establishment of support-based programs for enhancing access of low-income groups or individuals to credit or other economic opportunities to acquire adequate housing acquisition. In this respect, activist organizations can conduct periodic reviews or evaluations of existing housing policies and programs in order to identify other measures that may be taken to realize the right to adequate housing.
Although by far the most important principle in considering States obligations, it is also the most controversial as the claim of lack of resources is often used by States to avoid responsibility for implementing the rights under the Covenant. However, according to the Committee, it requires that all available resources must be used equitably and judiciously in the satisfaction of, at least, the minimum requirements of the rights, particularly to the advantage of the most vulnerable sections of the population. On this point, the Committee concluded in paragraph 12 of its General Comment Number 3 that even in times of severe resource constraints, the vulnerable members of society must be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programs.
The burden of showing that available resources are being or have been utilized to the highest possible extent rests on the State party. This principle provides a basis for mobilizing efforts against pervasive corruption and theft of national resources by State officials that continues to hinder the capacity of many States to implement the rights under the Covenant.
This requires States to “move expeditiously and effectively as possible” towards the goal of full realization of the rights in the Covenant. It also does not allow an indefinite postponement of action vital to the enjoyment of the rights. In addition, some provisions of the Covenant, for example the prohibition of discrimination, require immediate observance and are therefore not subject to the principle of “progressive realization.”
Equality and non-discrimination
Article 2(2) of the Covenant prohibits discrimination of any kind as to race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status, in the exercise of the enunciated in the Covenant. This provision offers a crucial benchmark for monitoring compliance or violation of the Covenant. The ESC rights approach views rights as freedoms and entitlements, and is grounded in the principles of equality and non-discrimination. The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination observed
in L.K. v. Netherlands that the adoption of temporary measures intended to bring about de facto equality (i.e. affirmative action programs) is not a violation of the right to non-discrimination so long as such measures do not lead to the maintenance of unequal or separate standards for different groups and provided that they are not continued after the objective for which they are taken have been achieved. That observation reinforces the need to pay particular attention to marginalized groups and individuals vulnerable to rights violations at the hands of State and non-state actors.
In addition to the obligations created under article 2(1) & (2), States Parties also bear generic obligations of conduct and obligations of outcome. More specifically, these are the obligations to respect, protect, promote, and fulfill economic, social and cultural rights. According to the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment Number 3 on States Parties’ Obligations, the concept of a minimum core obligation denotes a duty to satisfy “at the very least, minimum essential levels” of the rights recognized in the Covenant. The core content of a right refers to its constitutive elements without which the right is hollow and meaningless. It represents the threshold or baseline entitlement of the right that must be fulfilled by all States parties irrespective of their peculiar economic, social, political or other factors. Satisfaction of the minimum core content of a right by itself does not equate to full compliance with the Covenant, rather, it triggers the obligation ensure the full satisfaction of the right in all its other aspects.
States assume an obligation to refrain from actions or conduct that contravene or are capable of impeding the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. Essentially, the obligation is neither contingent on “availability of resources” nor subject to the notion of “progressive realization”. The obligation to respect is of an immediate nature and simply implies respect for the rule of law.
This duty pertains to the regulatory functions of the State to prevent encroachments on economic, social and cultural rights, primarily, by non-state actors. It also implies a duty to punish violators of those rights. This may necessitate the adoption of legislative, administrative or policy measures to prevent unwarranted interference in the enjoyment of ESC rights by quasi-government authorities and other powerful economic and political interests in society. For example, in relation to the right to education, the equality and nondiscrimination principle of the Covenant requires the State to intervene to ensure that parents and legal guardians do not prevent equal access of boys and girls to educational opportunities. In this respect, Article 2(2) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, mandates States parties to “take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child’s parents, legal guardians, or family members.” Similarly, by this obligation, the government is required to protect its tenant population from the wanton infractions by landlords of the right to adequate housing. It also obligates the government to protect its citizens from the extreme human and environmental devastation that may be wreaked by multinational companies.
This requires States parties to ensure the widest possible knowledge and awareness of ESC rights. For example, its promotional obligation may require that steps be taken to counter traditional beliefs and practices which inhibit enrolment of girls in schools, thereby expanding access to education. It may also mean a review of existing official information disclosure policies or the adoption of “freedom of information” legislation that would guarantee citizens’ access to important information.
Otherwise described as an ‘obligation of result or outcome’, the obligation to fulfill is easily the most problematic because it hinges on the identification of resources for the satisfaction of aspects of ESC rights. It is the responsibility of States to take steps towards the full implementation of all ESC rights. This obligation is said to be qualified by available resources and subject to progressive realization. But as the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has explained, “available resources” must be equitably and judiciously used in the satisfaction of, at least, the minimum requirements of the rights, particularly to the advantage of the most vulnerable sections of the population. States parties bear the burden of showing that available resources are being or have been utilized to the highest possible extent in the fulfillment of the rights recognized under the Covenant. So it is simply not enough for a State to claim that it lacks the resources to achieve the fulfillment of ESC rights.
In interpreting the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has consistently held that it is incumbent upon States parties and other actors in a position to assist, to provide “international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical” which can enable developing countries to fulfil their ESC rights obligations. For example, the international community has a duty to cooperate to enable the States parties to fulfil their obligations under the right to development.
States are obligated to ensure that victims of violations of ESC rights have access to effective remedy. See the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its General Comment on the Domestic Application of the Covenant (No. 9). See also the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Two excellent resources on the obligations of non-state actors are an article on the Work on Multilateral Development Bank from Ripple in Still Waterand Non-State Actor’s Responsibility for Socio-Economic Rights. Further, standards governing non-state actors’ human rights responsibilities are ever-emerging. One such text is the Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy that states, in pertinent part,
Multinational enterprises include enterprises, whether they are of public, mixed or private ownership, which own or control production, distribution, services or other facilities outside the country in which they are based. (Paragraph 6);
Multinational enterprises play an important part in the economies of most countries and international relations. On one hand, they can contribute to the more efficient utilization of capital, technology and labour; promote economic and social welfare; and can contribute to the improvement of living standards and the satisfaction of basic needs. On the other hand, multinational enterprise operations may lead to abuse of concentrations of economic power, and conflicts with national policy objectives and the interests of workers. (Paragraph 1);
Multinational enterprises should respect the sovereign rights of States, obey the national laws and regulations, give due consideration to local practices and respect relevant international standards. (Paragraph 8); and
When multinational enterprises operate in developing countries, where comparable employers may not exist, they should provide the best possible wages, benefits and conditions of work, within the framework of government policies. These should be related to the economic position of the enterprise, but should be at least adequate to satisfy basic needs of workers and their families. Where they provide workers with basic amenities such as housing, medical care or food, these amenities should be of a good standard. (Paragraph 34)
Major advances in holding non-state actors accountable for social and economic rights violations are also apparent when examining privatization exercises where the public sector underwrites private investment risks and/or sells state-owned assets to private actors. Some of the attendant dangers of privatization from an ESC rights perspective include:
The Public Services International Research Unit is a good resource on specific ways that privatization in the healthcare, water, and waste removal services sectors can further marginalize the poor and other vulnerable groups.
The following case studies illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to hold non-state actors accountable for ESC rights violations:
Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC), a Nigerian-based non-governmental, non-partisan human rights organization concerned with the promotion and protection of social and economic rights in Nigeria. SERAC seeks to build awareness about economic, social and cultural rights and explores strategies for securing their realization.
The World Bank independent Inspection Panel
To adequate housing, to dignity of the human person, to a private and family life, to equality and non-discrimination, to development, and to participation.
Human Rights Research and Reporting, Policy Analysis, Advocacy, Community Mobilization, Legal Assistance, Applied Budget Analysis
Forcibly Evicted Persons
On July 15, 1996, the Lagos State Government announced plans to forcibly evict residents of 15 major slum communities from their homes and businesses as part of an $89.1 million World Bank-funded Lagos Drainage and Sanitation Project (LDSP). A pilot project implemented earlier in two central slum communities forcibly evicted over 2,000 people without notice, compensation or resettlement. The evictions were carried out by LDSP officials, backed by armed police and military personnel, who brutalized the residents as they sought to salvage personal belongings while bulldozers tore down their homes, businesses, health care centers and other structures in the communities.
SERAC’s investigations revealed that the majority of the targeted communities’ residents were unaware of the LDSP and thereat of evictions. Despite the World Bank’s non-cooperation, SERAC obtained crucial “classified” documents that exposed the likely impact of the LDSP, which when fully implemented would deprive an estimated 1.2 million people of homes, businesses, schools and health centers. SERAC initiated a program to assist communities to protect their rights. In June 1998 it filed a Request for Inspection before the World Bank independent Inspection Panel asserting that the LDSP violated the Bank’s Operational Directives by failing to provide adequate notice, full consultations, compensation, resettlement and rehabilitation of persons affected by “involuntary resettlement.” It alleged further that the project was in violation of a number of the residents’ human rights, in particular the right to adequate housing and right to dignity.
Forced eviction constitutes a violation of internationally recognized human rights. The human rights approach provided both the language and a rational framework for raising the consciousness of the affected communities regarding protections to which they are entitled and to which the government and the World Bank were bound by national, regional and international human rights laws to uphold. These, as well as the Bank’s Operational Directives, prohibit the practice of forced eviction except strictly in accordance with due process. That human rights approach provided invaluable leverage in the unequal power relations between the government, the World Bank and the local communities.
Following an on-site investigation in September 1998, the World Bank Inspection Panel concluded that it was “not satisfied that the [Bank] management had fully complied with [its] resettlement policy,” in so far as it had “failed to provide for resettlement and compensation of some affected people.” The Panel “acknowledge[d] the concerns and efforts of SERAC for exhibiting such courage in defending the rights of the affected people,” adding that “[SERAC’s] presence in the equation has made it possible for the Requesters to develop better dialogue …” The LDSP has been left abandoned and the majority of residents’ homes saved. The project, which was to be replicated in fifteen communities, has been halted pending adequate compensation for and resettlement of those that would have been affected.
In a world which is experiencing profound transformation, the Caux Round Table of business leaders from Europe, Japan and the United States is committed to energizing the role of business and industry as a vital force for innovative global change.
The Round Table was founded in 1986 by Frederik Philips, former President of Philips Electronics, and Olivier Giscard d'Estaing, Vice-Chairman of INSEAD, as a means of reducing escalating trade tensions. It is concerned with the development of constructive economic and social relationships between the participants' countries, and with their urgent joint responsibilities toward the rest of the world.
At the urging of Ryuzaburo Kaku, Chairman of Canon Inc., the Round Table has focused attention on the importance of global corporate responsibility in reducing social and economic threats to world peace and stability. The Round Table recognizes that shared leadership is indispensable to a revitalized and more harmonious world. It emphasizes the development of continuing friendship, understanding and cooperation, based on a common respect for the highest moral values and on responsible action by individuals in their own spheres of influence.
Introduction
The Caux Round Table believes that the world business community should play an important role in improving economic and social conditions. As a statement of aspirations, this document aims to express a world standard against which business behavior can be measured. We seek to begin a process that identifies shared values, reconciles differing values, and thereby develops a shared perspective on business behavior acceptable to and honored by all.
These principles are rooted in two basic ethical ideals: kyosei and human dignity. The Japanese concept of kyosei means living and working together for the common good enabling cooperation and mutual prosperity to coexist with healthy and fair competition. "Human dignity" refers to the sacredness or value of each person as an end, not simply as a mean to the fulfillment of others' purposes or even majority prescription.
The General Principles in Section 2 seek to clarify the spirit of kyosei and "human dignity," while the specific Stakeholder Principles in Section 3 are concerned with their practical application.
In its language and form, the document owes a substantial debt to The Minnesota Principles, a statement of business behavior developed by the Minnesota Center for Corporate Responsibility. The Center hosted and chaired the drafting committee, which included Japanese, European, and United States representatives.
Business behavior can affect relationships among nations and the prosperity and well-being of us all. Business is often the first contact between nations and, by the way in which it causes social and economic changes, has a significant impact on the level of fear or confidence felt by people worldwide. Members of the Caux Round Table place their first emphasis on putting one's own house in order, and on seeking to establish what is right rather than who is right.
Section 1. Preamble
The mobility of employment, capital, products and technology is making business increasingly global in its transactions and its effects.
Law and market forces are necessary but insufficient guides for conduct.
Responsibility for the policies and actions of business and respect for the dignity and interests of its stakeholders are fundamental.
Shared values, including a commitment to shared prosperity, are as important for a global community as for communities of smaller scale.
For these reasons, and because business can be a powerful agent of positive social change, we offer the following principles as a foundation for dialogue and action by business leaders in search of business responsibility. In so doing, we affirm the necessity for moral values in business decision making. Without them, stable business relationships and a sustainable world community are impossible.
Section 2. General Principles
Principle 1. The Responsibilities Of Businesses: Beyond Shareholders toward Stakeholders
The value of a business to society is the wealth and employment it creates and the marketable products and services it provides to consumers at a reasonable price commensurate with quality. To create such value, a business must maintain its own economic health and viability, but survival is not a sufficient goal.
Businesses have a role to play in improving the lives of all their customers, employees, and shareholders by sharing with them the wealth they have created. Suppliers and competitors as well should expect businesses to honor their obligations in a spirit of honesty and fairness. As responsible citizens of the local, national, regional and global communities in which they operate, businesses share a part in shaping the future of those communities.
Principle 2. The Economic and Social Impact of Business: Toward Innovation, Justice and World Community
Businesses established in foreign countries to develop, produce or sell should also contribute to the social advancement of those countries by creating productive employment and helping to raise the purchasing power of their citizens. Businesses also should contribute to human rights, education, welfare, and vitalization of the countries in which they operate.
Businesses should contribute to economic and social development not only in the countries in which they operate, but also in the world community at large, through effective and prudent use of resources, free and fair competition, and emphasis upon innovation in technology, production methods, marketing and communications.
Principle 3. Business Behavior: Beyond the Letter of Law Toward a Spirit of Trust
While accepting the legitimacy of trade secrets, businesses should recognize that sincerity, candor, truthfulness, the keeping of promises, and transparency contribute not only to their own credibility and stability but also to the smoothness and efficiency of business transactions, particularly on the international level.
Principle 4. Respect for Rules
To avoid trade frictions and to promote freer trade, equal conditions for competition, and fair and equitable treatment for all participants, businesses should respect international and domestic rules. In addition, they should recognize that some behavior, although legal, may still have adverse consequences.
Principle 5. Support for Multilateral Trade
Businesses should support the multilateral trade systems of the GATT/World Trade Organization and similar international agreements. They should cooperate in efforts to promote the progressive and judicious liberalization of trade and to relax those domestic measures that unreasonably hinder global commerce, while giving due respect to national policy objectives.
Principle 6. Respect for the Environment
A business should protect and, where possible, improve the environment, promote sustainable development, and prevent the wasteful use of natural resources.
Principle 7. Avoidance of Illicit Operations
A business should not participate in or condone bribery, money laundering, or other corrupt practices: indeed, it should seek cooperation with others to eliminate them. It should not trade in arms or other materials used for terrorist activities, drug traffic or other organized crime.
Section 3. Stakeholder Principles
Customers
We believe in treating all customers with dignity, irrespective of whether they purchase our products and services directly from us or otherwise acquire them in the market. We therefore have a responsibility to:
provide our customers with the highest quality products and services consistent with their requirements;
treat our customers fairly in all aspects of our business transactions, including a high level of service and remedies for their dissatisfaction;
make every effort to ensure that the health and safety of our customers, as well as the quality of their environment, will be sustained or enhanced by our products and services;
assure respect for human dignity in products offered, marketing, and advertising; and respect the integrity of the culture of our customers.
Employees
We believe in the dignity of every employee and in taking employee interests seriously. We therefore have a responsibility to:
provide jobs and compensation that improve workers' living conditions;
provide working conditions that respect each employee's health and dignity;
be honest in communications with employees and open in sharing information, limited only by legal and competitive constraints;
listen to and, where possible, act on employee suggestions, ideas, requests and complaints;
engage in good faith negotiations when conflict arises;
avoid discriminatory practices and guarantee equal treatment and opportunity in areas such as gender, age, race, and religion;
promote in the business itself the employment of differently abled people in places of work where they can be genuinely useful;
protect employees from avoidable injury and illness in the workplace;
encourage and assist employees in developing relevant and transferable skills and knowledge; and
be sensitive to the serious unemployment problems frequently associated with business decisions, and work with governments, employee groups, other agencies and each other in addressing these dislocations.
Owners / Investors
We believe in honoring the trust our investors place in us. We therefore have a responsibility to:
apply professional and diligent management in order to secure a fair and competitive return on our owners' investment;
disclose relevant information to owners/investors subject to legal requirements and competitive constraints;
conserve, protect, and increase the owners/investors' assets; and
respect owners/investors' requests, suggestions, complaints, and formal resolutions.
Suppliers
Our relationship with suppliers and subcontractors must be based on mutual respect. We therefore have a responsibility to :
seek fairness and truthfulness in all our activities, including pricing, licensing, and rights to sell;
ensure that our business activities are free from coercion and unnecessary litigation;
foster long-term stability in the supplier relationship in return for value, quality, competitiveness and reliability;
share information with suppliers and integrate them into our planning processes;
pay suppliers on time and in accordance with agreed terms of trade; and
seek, encourage and prefer suppliers and subcontractors whose employment practices respect human dignity.
Competitors
We believe that fair economic competition is one of the basic requirements for increasing the wealth of nations and ultimately for making possible the just distribution of goods and services. We therefore have a responsibility to:
foster open markets for trade and investment;
promote competitive behavior that is socially and environmentally beneficial and demonstrates mutual respect among competitors;
refrain from either seeking or participating in questionable payments or favors to secure competitive advantages;
respect both tangible and intellectual property rights; and
refuse to acquire commercial information by dishonest or unethical means, such as industrial espionage.
Communities
We believe that as global corporate citizens we can contribute to such forces of reform and human rights as are at work in the communities in which we operate. We therefore have a responsibility in those communities to:
respect human rights and democratic institutions, and promote them wherever practicable;
recognize government's legitimate obligation to the society at large and support public policies and practices that promote human development through harmonious relations between business and other segments of society;
collaborate with those forces in the community dedicated to raising standards of health, education, workplace safety and economic well-being;
promote and stimulate sustainable development and play a leading role in preserving and enhancing the physical environment and conserving the earth's resources;
support peace, security, diversity and social integration;
respect the integrity of local cultures; and
be a good corporate citizen through charitable donations, educational and cultural contributions, and employee participation in community and civic affairs.
Various grassroots activists, labor unions, religious leaders and other groups
The right to work and rights at work, to an adequate standard of living
The poor
Networking, advocacy, applied budget analysis, community mobilization, legislative advocacy
More than eighty communities in the United States now have laws requiring government contractors and some other employers that receive tax breaks or subsidies to provide lower-income workers with better wages. In what is popularly termed “The Living Wage Movement”, public services are being used to raise the standard of living of the working poor through ordinances passed by referendums or legislation that require designated employers to pay wages higher than federal or state minimum wages. Typically, the wage rate is set at the level required to bring a family of four out of poverty, or US$18,000 per annum according to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services formulations. Important, positive by-products of the increased wages include less turnover for businesses, more company loyalty, better customer service, and strong transferrable lessons for laying the organizational framework for other social justice initiatives (e.g. affordable housing).
SITRADYMELSAAC Electrical Union, in collaboration with Rights Action
To work and rights at work, to freedom of opinion and expression, to freedom of association, to an adequate standard of living, to health, to life
Legal assistance and litigation, networking, advocacy, alternative dispute resolution, human rights research and reporting
Fernando Lopez Lopez, a skilled mechanic, was killed while working at the San Jose power plant in Puerto Quetzal, Guatemala. His death was the direct cause of his employer’s negligent safety policies. The employer, DYMEL, was a Salvadoran construction subcontractor working for a US firm. Lopez’s co-workers organized a labor union in January 1999, and urged the company to institute policies and procedures adequate to ensure the highest attainable occupational health and safety standards. In response, the workers were fired.
The workers thereafter petitioned the Guatemalan courts and received a judgment on June 8, 1999 that directed DYMEL to re-instate them and to respect their right to organize. The company never complied with the order.
The workers launched a ten-month vigil on the steps of Guatemala’s Presidential Palace to draw attention to their cause. They also networked with other members of civil society who spearheaded their own projects. For example, Rights Action organized a speaking tour for one of the union leaders, and launched a letter-writing campaign. After a series of negotiations, on October 8, 2002, seventy-one members of the trade union received financial settlements totaling approximately 85% of their back-pay.
Tragically, however, since the settlement, many of the workers remain unemployed. It appears that they have been “black-listed” by local employers. Two union leaders, for example, have reported that, although they applied for positions at twenty-five separate factories and construction sites and were given preliminary indications that they would be hired, the men were not awarded the jobs when their potential employers ran their information by the Human Resources Department for background checks. Human rights defenders continue to issue appeals for the unemployed union leaders, and are now attempting to source jobs for them outside of the country.
Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers in collaboration with the Canadian Union of Public Employees and the New Zealand Water Pressure Group
The right to water, to an adequate standard of living, to development, to participation, to freedom of opinion and expression, to freedom of association, to life
The poor
Networking, community mobilizing, advocacy
At least six people died during April 2000 mass protests in Bolivia that began after a multinational consortium signed a 40-year concession to provide water and sewer services for Cochabamba, the country’s third largest city. The consortium, led by International Water Limited (IWL) was the single bidder in the sale of the city’s water and sewer services, also assuming responsibility for supplying water for irrigation and electrical generation to the Cochabamba Valley. The sale was precipitated by the World Bank’s urging that Bolivia prioritize water privatization in Cochabamba, arguing that all water users should pay water bills that reflect the full cost of water treatment and delivery, irrespective of their poverty.
The mass protests stemmed from the exorbitant user fee increases for water and sewer services. In some cases, Cochabamba families were billed at rates equal to 20% of their monthly earnings (the median monthly earnings then were approximately US$100.)
To counter the deleterious effects portended by the water privatization scheme, local groups (including the Cochabamba Federation of Factory Workers) partnered with foreign non-governmental organizations (e.g., the Canadian Union of Public Employees). In one solidarity action, the New Zealand Water Pressure Group hosed down the local Bolivian consulate office with a bright red fire truck, boldly displaying signs saying, “Bolivia, the world is watching you”. The human rights defenders organized a city shut-down, forcing an agreement to reverse the user fee increases, and eventually ensuring that the 40-year concession agreement was never honored.
The Social and Economic Rights Action Center a African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights Decision
on Communication 155/96 The Social and Economic Rights Action Center and the Center for Economic and Social Rights / Nigeria Case Summary
Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR)
African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights
To life, to property, to health, to family life, to a healthy environment, to development, to food, to an adequate standard of living, of self-determination
On the merits of a March 1996 communication filed by the Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights found that the Federal Republic of Nigeria was in violation of articles 2 (equality of rights), 4 (right to life), 14 (right to property), 16 (right to health), 18(1) (right to family life), 21 (peoples’ right to the free disposal of wealth and natural resources) and 24 (right to a healthy environment) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights. The communication alleged that the Nigerian government: (a) directly participated in air, water and soil contamination of oil-producing lands, thereby endangering the health of the Ogoni People; (b) failed to protect the Ogoni from harm caused by the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Shell Consortium and instead used its security forces to facilitate the damage; and ( c) failed to provide or permit studies of potential or actual environmental and health risks caused by the oil operations. During a March 1997 site visit, members of the African Commission observed the environmental degradation, and were shown Ogoni villages and homes that had been attacked, burned, and destroyed.
Welcoming the opportunity to “make clear that there is no right in the African Charter that cannot be made effective” and that “international law and human rights must be responsive to African circumstances”, the Commission made a series of particular advances in the economic, social and cultural rights regime. First, the Commission declared that all rights - both civil and political rights and social and economic rights- entail four layers of both negative and positive duties incumbent on a State that undertakes to adhere to a rights regime (i.e. the duty to respect, protect, promote and fulfil these rights). With respect to the duty to respect, the Commission noted that “the State is obliged to respect the free use of resources owned or at the disposal of the individual alone or in any form of association with others ... for the purpose of rights-related needs. And with regard to a collective group, the resources belonging to it should be respected, as it has to use the same resources to satisfy its needs.” On the duty to protect, he Commission observed that State protection must include an effective interplay of laws and regulations that found an environment where the individual may fully realize their rights and freedoms. According to the Commission, the duty to promote encompasses the need for the State to promote tolerance, raise awareness and build infrastructures. For the duty to fulfill, the Commission identified a “positive expectation on the part of the State to move its machinery towards the actual realization of the rights.”
Second, the Commission advanced the right to adequate housing on the Continent by stating that, “although the right to housing or shelter is not explicitly provided for under the African Charter, ... when housing is destroyed, property, health, and family life are adversely affected. [T]hus ... the combined effect of Articles 14, 16, and 18(1) reads into the Charter a right to shelter or housing...” Moreover, the Commission extended the right to shelter to “embody the individual’s right to be let alone and to live in peace - whether under a roof or not.” This decision established important legal precedent in the region as it affirmed that the displaced, evicted, and landless each have fundamental rights to shelter and adequate housing.
Third, the Commission became one of the first regional human rights monitoring bodies to find a State in violation of the right to food. Its decision inseparably linked the right to food with the dignity of human beings, the right to health, education, work and political participation. The Commission also reinforced that the State must protect and improve existing food sources, ensure access to adequate food for all citizens, and should not destroy or contaminate food sources or allow private parties to do the same.
Fourth, with respect to the rights to health and a healthy environment, the Commission found that compliance with the spirit of the Charter includes paving the way for independent scientific monitoring of threatened environments, publicizing environmental and social impact studies prior to major industrial developments, environmental monitoring and information-sharing and consultation with stakeholder communities.
Finally, the Commission concretized the necessary role of States to work with and against multinational governments to ensure that social and economic rights are respected protected, promoted, and fulfilled. Observing that “the intervention of multinational corporations may be a potentially positive force for development if the State and the people concerned are ever mindful of the common good and the sacred rights of individuals and communities”, the Commission nonetheless noted that damaging acts may be perpetuated by private parties. The Commission relied upon decisions from two other regional human rights monitoring bodies, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (Velásquez Rodriguez v. Honduras) and the European Court of Human Rights (X and Y v. Netherlands) to support its holding that the minimum conduct expected of governments is to positively act to protect citizens from private parties seeking to interfere with the enjoyment of their rights.
Economic, Social and Cultural rights are specific rights and include those rights listed below:
A primary, guiding text on the right to development is the Declaration on the Right to Development which provides in Article 1, Paragraph 1 that the right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.
As clarified by the United Nations Independent Expert on the Right to Development, the right to development is:
The international community has a duty to cooperate to enable the States parties to fulfil its obligations under the right to development. Otherwise implementing a plan of development with fundamental institutional changes within individual nation-states may not be possible. Such international cooperation cannot be considered only in terms of transfer of resources. On their own part, developing countries must enact legislation that empowers beneficiaries at the grassroots level, allocates investment and restructures production to promote equity and sustainable growth with resources (i.e., gross domestic product, output and employment, legal, technical and institutional resources) available.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights bear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to development. For example, States are obligated to ensure the right to a process that expands the capabilities or freedom of individuals to improve their well-being and to realize what they value. As such, the United Nations General Assembly noted in paragraph 9 of its Resolution 56/150 that the realization of the rights to food, health and education may be important development entry points to the realization of the right to development.
Some important quantifying and qualifying tools that are useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to development are:
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right to own land and other property continue to be made. Some initial resources on the right are:
The following case studies and summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to development:
A primary guiding text on the right to work and rights at work is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states, in pertinent part,:
Article 6:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.
2. The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.
Article 7:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of just and favorable conditions of work which ensure, in particular:
(a) remuneration which provides all workers, as a minimum with:
(i) fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind, in particular women being guaranteed conditions of work not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work;
(ii) a decent living for themselves and their families in accordance with the provisions of the present Covenant;
(b) Safe and healthy working conditions;
(c) Equal opportunity for everyone to be promoted in his employment to an appropriate higher level, subject to no considerations other than those of seniority and competence;
(d) rest, leisure and reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay, as well as remuneration for public holidays.
Article 8:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure:
(a) the right of everyone to form trade unions and join the trade union of his choice, subject only to the rules of the organization concerned, for the promotion and protection of his economic and social interests. No restrictions may be placed on the exercise of this right other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others;
(b) The right of trade unions to establish national federations or confederations and the right of the latter to form or join international trade-union organizations;
(c) The right of trade unions to function freely subject to no limitations other than those prescribed by law and which are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public order or for the protection of the rights and freedom of others;
(d) The right to strike, provided that it is exercised in conformity with the laws of the particular country.
2. This article shall not prevent the imposition of lawful restrictions on the exercise of these rights by members of the armed forces or of the police or of the administration of the State.
An excellent resource on this right is Module 10 of Circle of Rights on “The Right to Work and Rights at Work”.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights bear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to work and rights at work. States are obligated to ensure the right to:
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to work and rights at work is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
One common misconception surrounding the right to work is that, when it is fully realized, everyone has a job. To the contrary, the right to work and its associated provisions do not require that the State provides everyone with a job. But, the State must meet the non-derogable core obligations of the right in line with its generic obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
In this regard, for example, the State must align its macroeconomic policies and relationships to promote and protect the right to work and rights at work. Between 1978 and 1995, unemployment rose in 72% of the countries on which the International Labour Organisation (ILO) tracked and published statistics during the years that they received funding from the International Monetary Fund.
The following case summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to work and rights at work:
A primary, guiding text on the right to the highest attainable standard of health is article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides:
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.
2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include those necessary for:
(a) The provision for the reduction of the stillbirth-rate and of infant mortality and for the healthy development of the child;
(b) The improvement of all aspects of environmental and industrial hygiene;
(c) The prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other disease;
(d) The creation of conditions which would assure to all medical service and medical attention in the event of sickness.
An additional resource on this topic is Module 14 of Circle of Rights on “The Right to Health”.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightsbear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to health. States are obligated:
to ensure the right of physical and economic access to health facilities, goods and services on a non-discriminatory basis, especially for vulnerable or marginalized groups. This core obligation includes the right to access to trained medical and professional personnel who receive domestically competitive salaries;
The full realization of the right to the highest attainable standard of health also requires that:
Some important quantifying and qualifying tools that are useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to health include the:
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right to health continue to be made. Some initial resources on the right are:
The following case studies and summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to health:
The United Nations Human Rights Committee observed in its General Comment Number 6 that,
the right to life has been too often narrowly interpreted. The expression ‘inherent right to life’ cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner and the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures. In this connection, the Committee considers it desirable for States Parties to take all possible measures to reduce infant mortality and increase life expectancy, especially in adopting measures to eliminate malnutrition and epidemics.
Significant advances toward the full realization of the economic, social and cultural rights dimensions of the right to life continue to be made. One initial resource on the right is Center for Economic and Social Rights and the Indian Case;
Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation
An additional resource on the right is Front Line's online Civil and Political Rights Manual entry on the right to life.
The following case studies and summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to life:
Two important quantifying and qualifying tools that are useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to life are the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Millennium Development Goals.
A primary, guiding text on the right to water and sanitation is articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. When the right to water is fully realized, people have access to a sufficient quantity and quality of water to meet their basic needs that is supplied under the best possible conditions in a non-discriminatory manner.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights bear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to water. States are obligated to ensure:
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to water is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. As a caveat, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights advises that the adequacy of water should not be interpreted narrowly by mere reference to volumetric quantities and technology.
Some potential right to water violations include:
Major advances in holding non-state actors accountable for social and economic rights violations are also apparent when examining privatization exercises where the public sector underwrites private investment risks and/or sells state-owned assets to private actors. Some of the attendant dangers of privatization from an ESC rights perspective include:
The Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) is a good resource on specific ways that privatization in the water sector can further marginalize the poor and other vulnerable groups. Of particular note is PSIRU’s criticisms of the World Bank’s water resources sector strategy.
General Comment Number 15 on the Right to Water
The following case summary illustrates how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to water and sanitation:
A primary, guiding text on the right to an adequate standard of living is article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides, “[t]he States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.”
One common misconception about the right to an adequate standard of living is that it limitedly covers food, clothing and housing needs. However, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the principal supervisory body to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, has concluded that the constituent rights emanating from article 11(1) of the Covenant’s recognition of the right to an adequate standard of living are not limited to food, clothing and housing. For example, in its General Comment Number 15, the Committee found that the right to water falls within the category of guarantees essential for securing an adequate standard of living.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights bear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to an adequate standard of living. At bare minimum, the right includes:
Some important quantifying and qualifying tools that are useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to an adequate standard of living include:
Some potential right to an adequate standard of living violations include:
In addition, the Public Services International Research Unit is a good resource on specific ways that privatization in the healthcare, water, and waste removal services sectors can further marginalize the poor and other vulnerable groups.
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right to an adequate standard of living continue to be made. Some initial resources on the right are:
The following case studies and summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to an adequate standard of living:
The right to own land and other property includes the right of everyone to private ownership and the right to the use and enjoyment of land and other property. Part and parcel of this is the right to exclude other from such use and enjoyment or privately owned land and other property.
In recent years, the relationship between this constituent right to exclude others from property use and enjoyment and the full promotion and protection of other ESC rights has been particularly tenuous with regards to intellectual property rights. This tension is most apparent to human rights defenders working to protect the rights of People Living with HIV/AIDS (PLWHA), including their rights to the highest attainable standard of health and their rights to benefit from scientific advancement. Under the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the “TRIPS Agreement”), for example, medications essential to the management and treatment of HIV/AIDS were accorded strengthened patent protection that, in practical terms, made it impossible for most PLWHAs worldwide to have access to the drugs. This was cured, in part, by the Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement & Public Health (the “Doha Declaration”) in which the WTO Ministers agreed to exempt least-developed countries from the stringent measures demanded by TRIP until 2016.
The General Recommendation 21 of Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women further provides that the right to own, manage, enjoy and dispose of property is central to a woman’s right to enjoy financial independence, and in many countries will be critical to her ability to earn a livelihood and to provide adequate housing and nutrition for herself and for her family.
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to own land and other property is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right to own land and other property continue to be made. One initial resource on the right is Module 18 of Circle of Rights on “Land Rights”.
The following case summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to own land and other property:
The right to participation is implicit in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Articles 8 (on freedom of association), 13 (on education), and 15 (on cultural life) and explicit in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The right to participation is spelt out in the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development and in the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Individuals, groups and communities hold a human right to be involved in decision-making, planning and implementation processes affecting their ESC rights and are entitled to information that enables the decision-making process to be meaningful. It follows that states and non-state actors, particularly development agencies have a duty to enable people affected by a development activity to participate in ways capable of transforming their social, political and economic conditions.
The following case summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to participation:
One important quantifying and qualifying tool for monitoring program service delivery on the right to participation is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
The right to self determination is firmly entrenched in the International Bill of Rights as well as most major international human rights instruments. For example article 1 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provides:
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
2. All peoples may, for their own ends, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources without prejudice to any obligations arising out of international economic co-operation, based upon the principle of mutual benefit, and international law. In no case may a people be deprived of its own means of subsistence.
3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
As clarified by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in its General Comment Number 10, paragraph 2 [of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights] affirms a particular economic context of the right of self-determination. ... This right entails corresponding duties for all states and the international community. States should indicate any factors or difficulties which prevent the free disposal of their natural wealth and resources contrary to the provisions of this paragraph and to what extent that affects the enjoyment of other rights set forth in the Covenant.
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right of self-determination continue to be made. Some initial resources on the right are:
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right of self-determination is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
A primary guiding text on the right to social security is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides:
Article 9:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights bear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to social security. For example, States are obligated to ensure:
Consistent with U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment Number 3, even in times of severe resource constraints, the vulnerable members of society must be protected by the adoption of relatively low-cost targeted programs. One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to social security is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Significant advances toward the full realization of the right to social security continue to be made. Some initial resources on the right are:
The following case summary illustrates how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to social security:
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightsbear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to a healthy environment. For example, States are obligated to:
The United Nations Special Rapporteur on Toxic Waste Dumping is one good source of information about how governments and non-state actors can meet their right to a healthy environment obligations. For general information about this right, Module 15 of Circle of Rights on “The Right to a Healthy Environment” serves as another good resource.
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to a healthy environment is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted by States Parties under Articles 16 and 17 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Jurisprudence on the right to a healthy environment is ever-emerging. Two important cases are Minors Oposa v. Secretary of the Department of Environmental Natural Resources (DENR) and Mexico v. Metalclad.
The following case summaries illustrate how human rights defenders have used the ESC rights approach to promote and protect the right to a healthy environment:
A primary guiding text on the right to family life is the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which provides in article 10:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize that:
1. The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children. Marriage must be entered into with the free consent of the intending spouses.
2. Special protection should be accorded to mothers during a reasonable period before and after childbirth. During such period, working mothers should be accorded paid leave or leave with adequate social security benefits.
3. Special measures of protection and assistance should be taken on behalf of all children and young persons without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law.
The United Nations Human Rights Committee has clarified in its General Comment Number 28 that, “in giving full effect to the recognition of family in the context of (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) article 23, it is important to accept the concept of the various forms of family, including unmarried couples and their children and single parents and their children, and to ensure the equal treatment of women in these contexts ... “
States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rightsbear non-derogable core obligations with respect to the right to family life. States are obligated to ensure:
One important quantifying and qualifying tool that is useful when monitoring program service delivery on the right to family life is the Revised Guidelines Regarding the Form and Contents of Report to be submitted