Philip Alston

Ships Passing in the Night: The Current State of the Human Rights and Development Debate seen through the Lens of the Millennium Development Goals

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the most prominent initiative on the global development agenda and have a great deal in common with human rights commitments. But neither the human rights nor development communities has embraced this linkage with enthusiasm or conviction. This article explores the reasons why the two agendas resemble ships passing in the night, even though they are both headed for very similar destinations. The empirical evidence examined includes analyses prepared by a range of human rights NGOs, the MDG National Plans adopted by many developing countries, and the relevant analyses undertaken by UN human rights treaty bodies and special rapporteurs. The author calls upon the human rights community to engage more effectively with the development agenda, to prioritize its concerns rather than assuming that every issue needs to be tackled simultaneously, and to avoid being overly prescriptive.

The Right to food

ALMOST A THIRD OF THE POPULATION IS UNDERNOURISHED. 10.3 million people are undernourished and the prevalence has been rising (FAO, 2016). Half of households restrict themselves to two meals a day (UBOS, 2014). The most recent available data shows almost half the population as food energy deficient (i.e. their diet did not to provide minimum energy needed) (WFP, 2013). Those living in poverty, women, and children were the most food insecure. Children in the poorest wealth quintile were twice as likely to be stunted or underweight as the richest. One quarter of women-headed households were food insecure, compared to one fifth headed by men (WFP, 2013).

Conjuring up New Human Rights: A Proposal for Quality Control

Writing in 1968, the year of the 20th anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Richard Bilder concluded that “in practice, a claim is an international human right if the United Nations General Assembly says it is.” Fifteen years later, as the 35th anniversary is celebrated, the authoritative role that Bilder correctly attributed to the General Assembly is in serious danger of being undermined.

A Third Generation of Solidarity Rights: Progressive Development or Obfuscation of International Human Rights Law?

In recent years there has been growing support, manifested in various international fora, for the notion that a third generation of human rights, composed of solidarity rights, is emerging. The principal assumptions behind this concept are: (1) that the principal categories or sets of human rights presently recognized by international law (civil and political rights on one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other) can be termed respectively first and second generation rights; (2) that these rights are not sufficiently flexible or dynamic to be able to respond adequately to present circumstances; (3) that there is a set of more or less homogeneous demands which are distinguished primarily by the fact that solidarity is a prerequisite to their realization; and (4) that these new demands are presently in the process of acquiring international recognition as human rights.

Adjudicating Constitutional Priorities in a Transnational Context: A Comment on Soobramoney’s Legacy and Grootboom’s Promise

ABSTRACT This article discusses the first two social rights cases to go to the Constitutional Court under the 1996 Constitution. Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC) involved a claim of a breach of the right to health care brought by one person pursuant to s 27 of the Bill of Rights. Grootboom v Oostenburg Municipality 2000 (3) BCLR 277 (C) involves a claim of breaches of rights to housing or shelter brought by some 900 persons under ss 26 and 28. The article seeks to demonstrate why the Courts judgment in Soobramoney would be problematic if replicated in future cases, most immediately in the appeal decision in Grootboom. The authors argue that the result in Soobramoney may have been correct, but that its reasoning on several fronts should not be treated as a dispositive precedent in the face of better understandings that will evolve as the courts, and the Constitutional Court itself, gradually feel their way forward in the adjudication of social rights. Similarly, the judgment in Grootboom is found wanting for having been far too deferential to government justifications as to why the failure to meet even the core shelter needs of the applicant adults was not a violation of s 26. At the same time, the High Court in Grootboom was too ready to interpret childrens rights to shelter under s 28 as absolute priorities without locating that interpretation in a discussion of the concept of core minimum entitlements, a concept which should have been equally applicable to the s 26 claims of the applicant adults as to the s 28 claims of the children. The doctrinal analysis of the two cases is situated within an interpretative account of the relationship between the South African Bill of Rights and both international human rights law and foreign constitutional law.

Against a World Court for Human Rights

In 2011 a Swiss-sponsored initiative, endorsed by some of the world’s leading human rights lawyers, called for a World Court of Human Rights to be created. It would be permanent, have jurisdiction over 21 different human rights treaties, apply to non-state actors as well as states, and issue binding judgments that could ultimately be enforced by the Security Council. This paper argues that the proposal is fundamentally misconceived. In addition to practical issues such as political feasibility and cost, the proposal overstates the role that can and should be played by judicial mechanisms, downplays the immense groundwork that needs to be undertaken before such a mechanism could be helpful, sets up a straw man to be attacked by those who thrive on exaggerating the threat posed by giving greater prominence to human rights instruments at the international level, and distracts attention from far more pressing and important issues.

International Trade as an Instrument of Positive Human Rights Policy

International human rights policies have long been dominated by an overriding concern with violations of a narrow range of rights rather than focusing on constructive policies for the promotion of respect for the whole range of human rights. As a logical consequence of this preoccupation with curative rather than preventive measures, recent human rights policy discussions have primarily centered around the application of various sanctions. This obsession with violations and the subsequent imposition of sanctions has also characterized proposals to link human rights and trade, and it has been a feature of relevant legislation enacted in a number of states, including the United States. However, a comprehensive strategy for the promotion of respect for human rights cannot rely exclusively on sanctions which address only a small part of the overall problem, are readily manipulated for extraneous political purposes, and have rarely proved to be particularly effective. The purpose of the present article is to consider, in the light of relevant precedents, recent international proposals which could provide a more positive orientation for international human rights policies in the context of multilateral action linked to world trade policies. In essence, these proposals involve the creation of a link between, on the one hand, further liberalization of world trade and in particular the extension of provisions for preferential treatment of developing countries and, on the other hand, the promotion of respect for human rights in the form of fair labor standards. One of the most notable proponents of this approach is the Report of the Independent Commission on International Development Issues under the chairmanship of Willy Brandt, referred to as the Brandt Report. In a separate section dealing with fair labor standards the report notes:

The Convention on the Rights of the Child. United Nations Lawmaking on Human Rights.@@@The Best Interests of the Child. Reconciling Culture and Human Rights.@@@The Rights of the Child. International Instruments.

In November 1989, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) after nearly a decade of debate over its merits and provisions. Less than a year later, it was ratified by twenty countries, the threshold number required for implementation. No other UN human rights treaty was ever ratified so rapidly and with such enthusiasm. In this carefully researched book, Lawrence J. LeBlanc provides a historical overview of the origins of the CRC and childrens rights work, places the issues and problems into the broader perspective of the United Nations lawmaking process, provides an in-depth analysis of the childrens rights enumerated in the treaty, and projects the prospects for effective implementation of the CRC. He outlines why the convention comes at the best possible time and how it represents the single most important international document on childrens rights. With the CRCs broad ratification, its political significance continues to grow. Close cooperation among the UN monitoring committee, UNICEF and other UN agencies, and nongovernmental organizations make it difficult for governments to ignore their pledges. Although the conditions under which many of the worlds children are living give rise to legitimate concern about the CRCs real impact, LeBlanc demonstrates that our greatest hope comes from working to reduce the thin line between commitment and clichi. Lawrence J. LeBlanc is the author of The United States and the Genocide Convention and The OAS and the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights. He is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University.