In this episode, we will focus
on international enforcement mechanisms -
that is, the ways in which states
can be held accountable for their implementation
of their economic and social rights obligations
under international law.
In doing so, we'll concentrate on the processes
associated with the International Covenant
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Much of our discussion will be on
what is known as the state reporting procedure.
However, we'll also look briefly
at the complaints and inquiry mechanisms
that were established by the Optional Protocol
to the Covenant which came into force in 2013.
All of these processes involve the UN Committee
on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
This is a body made up of 18 independent experts.
These experts are nominated by the states
which have agreed to be bound by the Covenant,
and are elected to serve four year terms.
The Committee usually meets three times a year.
Let's start with the reporting process.
Governments that have agreed to be bound by the Covenant
submit what are known as 'State reports',
or Periodic reports', to the Committee every five years.
These reports outline the laws, policies
and other measures that the states have adopted
to implement the Covenant.
And they should also provide evidence
about the effect of these measures
on people's enjoyment of Covenant rights.
In practice, State reports are often late
and the Committee is very busy,
which can cause delays beyond the five year cycle.
Once a state has submitted it's report,
five committee members, known as the Pre-sessional
Working Group, meet to discuss that report in private,
in advance of the public examination of the State.
The Working Group also considers information
from UN agencies,
the office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights,
national human rights institutions, and civil society.
Reports submitted by civil society
and national human rights institutions
are referred to as 'shadow' or 'parallel reports'.
During its meeting, the Pre-sessional Working Group
decides on a list of questions
that it wants the government to provide
further written information on.
This is formally know as the 'List of Issues'.
National human rights institutions
and civil society
also have the opportunity
to provide written responses to the list of issues,
and to provide updates on relevant topics
up to the point of the examination.
The List of Issues forms the basis
of a public examination of a government delegation
at a meeting of the Committee in Geneva.
The Committee members ask the delegation
questions about the State report
and its response to the list of issues.
In doing so, the Committee often uses evidence
provided by national human rights institutions
and civil society to question the information
put forward by the State.
Following the public examination,
the Committee produces a report
which summarises its key concerns
and makes recommendations to the government for action.
This is known as the 'Concluding observations'.
States are required to publish
these recommendations and follow up on them.
They are also required to report
on what they have done to implement
these recommendations in their next
state report five years later.
Concluding observations have a crucial role to play
in advocacy efforts at the domestic level,
which seek to hold governments
to account in terms of their human rights obligations.
For instance, they can serve as the basis of questions
to Ministers or civil society campaigns
on specific economic and social rights issues.
They can also be picked up on by parliamentary committees
and others working on economic
and social rights related issues.
Beyond the national context, Concluding observations
may function as the basis of advocacy work
focused on other UN human rights bodies -
for instance, the Universal Periodic Review process
of the Human Rights Council.
Let's turn now to the processes
that are set out in the Optional Protocol to the Covenant.
First, the complaints process:
the Committee may consider individual communications
alleging violations of the Covenant
by states that have agreed to be bound
by the Optional Protocol.
Complaints can be brought by, or on behalf of,
individuals or groups of individuals
under the jurisdiction of the particular state
who allege that their Covenant rights have been infringed.
The complaint has to satisfy strict criteria
for the Committee to consider it.
Amongst other things, it must be made within
one year of exhausting domestic remedies
and it cannot be anonymous or manifestly the ill-founded.
When it considers a complaint on its merits,
the Committee will issue 'views'
as to whether the state has committed
a violation of the Covenant.
It may also make recommendations.
If the Committee finds that there has been a violation,
and makes recommendations, the State must send
a written response within six months
setting out the actions it has taken
in relation to the Committees findings.
The Optional Protocol also provides
for an inquiry procedure.
States which have agreed to be bound by the Protocol
must opt in to this procedure.
They can do so by making a declaration
that they recognise the competence
of the Committee to carry out inquiries
into 'grave or systematic violations'
of Covenant rights by the State.
The Optional Protocol also includes
an inter-state complaints procedure
which states can choose to opt in to.
This allows states to make complaints against other states,
and have complaints made against them.
In practice however, there has never been
an inter-state complaint brought before any UN treaty body.
We need to remember however, that only a relatively
small number of the states that have agreed
to be bound by the Covenant have done the same
with regard to the Optional Protocol
and the processes it provides for.
Does this mean that where a state
hasn't agreed to the Protocol
and the procedures it sets out,
that there are no remedies available
at the international level for violations
committed by those states?
Not necessarily.
Other international and human rights treaties
that contain economic and social rights
have similar enforcement processes to the Covenant.
These treaties include the Convention on the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities,
the Convention on the Rights of the Child,
the Convention on the Elimination of
All Forms of Discrimination against Women,
the Migrant Workers Convention,
and the Convention on the Elimination
of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
Where a state hasn't volunteered to be bound
by the complaints and inquiry procedures
relating to the Covenant, it is always worth
looking to see if the enforcement mechanisms
under those other treaties can be used.
The website of the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights has information on which countries
have agreed to be bound by specific individual
complaints and inquiry procedures.
It should be clear at this point
that there are a number of international avenues
that can be used to enforce economic and social rights.
The choice of avenue will depend
on a range of different factors.
These include the rights issue involved,
the treaties which the state has volunteered to be bound by,
and whether the state has agreed
to allow complaints or inquiries to be brought against it
in relation to specific treaties.
Usefully, there are a wide range
of resources focused on how national human
rights institutions, civil society and individuals
can engage with different UN enforcement mechanisms.
Some of these can be found on
the website accompanying this series.