Economic rights and the right to development

2019 ◽  
pp. 151-172
Author(s):  
Eduard Jordaan
Keyword(s):  
Economic Rights ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
The Right

Economic and Social Rights

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
William F. Felice
Keyword(s):  
Capabilities Approach ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Political Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Human Needs ◽  
Social Basis ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
The Right ◽  
Politics And Law

Economic rights refer to the right to property, the right to work, and the right to social security. Social rights are those entitlements necessary for an adequate standard of living, including rights to food, housing, health, and education. Since economic rights have a social basis, and social rights have an economic basis, both classifications are considered of equal importance and interdependent. The intellectual and social dimensions of economic and social rights have evolved from at least four spheres: religion, philosophy, politics, and law. Throughout history, individuals and groups debated and accepted obligations to help the needy and prevent suffering. There were both religious and secular dimensions to these undertakings. Early human rights advocates moreover proclaimed an interdependence between civil and political rights and economic and social rights and criticized those who made too sharp a distinction between them. A central debate over economic and social rights relates to their legal validity. Some scholars argue that by their very nature, economic and social rights are not “justiciable.” Another issue is the link between economic and social rights in meeting basic human needs and the alleviation of global poverty. The right to development is also important in debates on economic and social rights, as it attempts to correct the economic distortions left by the legacy of colonial domination. Perhaps the most promising new approach to economic and social rights is Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, which focuses on what individuals need for adequate functioning.

The African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights and the Demystification of Second and Third Generation Rights under the African Charter: Social and Economic Rights Action Center (SERAC) and the Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) v. Nigeria

2005 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 129-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justice C. Nwobike
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Oil Companies ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
Failure To Protect ◽  
Action Center ◽  
The Right ◽  
African Commission

AbstractThis article argues that the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in the Ogoni case represents a giant stride towards the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights of Africans. This is predicated on the African Commission's finding that the Nigerian Government's failure to protect the Ogoni people from the activities of oil companies operating in the Niger Delta is contrary to international human rights law and is in fact a step backwards since Nigeria had earlier adopted legislation to fulfill its obligation towards the progressive realization of these rights. The findings of the African Commission demonstrate that economic, social and cultural rights are not vague or incapable of judicial enforcement. They also illustrate how the Charter can be interpreted generously to ensure the effective enjoyment of rights. Novel and commendable as the decision is, it is not without its shortcomings. These shortcomings lie in the failure of the Commission to pronounce on the right to development, its silence on the desirability of holding transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations, and the institutional weakness of the Commission in enforcing its decisions.

Justiciability of Socio-Economic Rights Under the Constitution of Malawi: Unbundling the Right to Development

2021 ◽  
Vol 7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gilbert Shed Pindano
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
National Policy ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
The Social ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Right ◽  
Legal Force

Most governments in sub-Saharan Africa have for long steered away from giving legal force to socio-economic rights, even though political and civil rights have had due recognition for some time. The main reason is that socio-economic rights are polycentric, meaning their justiciability has resource implications which most governments cannot fulfil in a short space of time. There has been a shift though, since South Africa enacted its Constitution after 1994, ushering in a new period where socio-economic rights not only became recognised but they were also given legal force, albeit with limitations. Malawi followed suit and enacted a new Constitution in 1994 which was unlike the earlier ones that did not recognise socio-economic rights. The only anomaly is that the Constitution does not put all socio-economic rights under the Bill of Rights, meaning that even though some of these rights now have legal force, others such as the right to health do not. These were drafted as principles of national policy, which are just guidelines referred to when the government is making policy. There is a redeeming factor though, which is the right to development. This article contends that all the socio-economic rights that are recognised as principles of national policy do have legal force under the right to development. Even though the right to development is not qualified, the social rights under it are justiciable and it is up to the courts to give them the correct interpretation.

Part V Economic and Social Rights, Ch.17 Indigenous Rights to Development, Socio-Economic Rights, and Rights for Groups with Vulnerabilities: Articles 20–22, 24, and 44

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pérez-Bustillo Camilo ◽  
Hohmann Jessie
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Rights ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Indigenous Worldviews ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
History Of ◽  
Women And Children ◽  
The Right ◽  
Core Issues

This chapter looks at Articles 20, 21, 22, 21, and 44, considering rights to development, socio-economic rights, and rights for groups with particular vulnerabilities. These provisions are centred on: the economic, social, and cultural rights of indigenous peoples, with a particular focus on the right to health; their right to development; and the rights of those indigenous individuals and groups who are particularly vulnerable, including women and children, and again with a particular focus on women's rights to be free from violence. The provisions highlight the evolving place of indigenous rights within the overall framework of international law and international human rights. However, the negotiating history of the provisions demonstrates that some of the core issues addressed in these Articles remain contested. The right to development itself, let alone a vision of development in harmony with indigenous worldviews, remains controversial and resisted by states.

QUO VADIS HUKUM ISLAM (ANTARA IDEALITAS DAN REALITAS INDONESIA)

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-108
Author(s):  
Dinda Izzati
Keyword(s):  
Political Rights ◽  
Right To Life ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Christian Communities ◽  
Basic Assumptions ◽  
Eastern Indonesia ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Quo Vadis ◽  
The Right

Evidently, a few months after the Jakarta Charter was signed, Christian circles from Eastern Indonesia submitted an ultimatum, if the seven words in the Jakarta Charter were still included in the Preamble to the 1945 Constitution, then the consequence was that they would not want to join the Republic of Indonesia. The main reason put forward by Pastor Octavian was that Indonesia was seen from its georaphical interests and structure, Western Indonesia was known as the base of Islamic camouflage, while eastern Indonesia was the basis for Christian communities. Oktavianus added that Christians as an integral part of this nation need to realize that they also have the right to life, religious rights, political rights, economic rights, the same rights to the nation and state as other citizens, who in fact are mostly Muslims. This paper aims to determine and understand the extent to which the basic assumptions of the Indonesian people view the role of Islam as presented in an exclusive format.

Fulfilling the Right to Food for South Africa: Justice, Security, Sovereignty and the Politics of Malnutrition

2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 112-152
Author(s):  
Busiso Helard Moyo ◽  
Anne Marie Thompson Thow
Keyword(s):  
South Africa ◽  
Food Systems ◽  
Food System ◽  
Food Sovereignty ◽  
Food Justice ◽  
System Transformation ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right

Despite South Africa’s celebrated constitutional commitments that have expanded and deepened South Africa’s commitment to realise socio-economic rights, limited progress in implementing right to food policies stands to compromise the country’s developmental path. If not a deliberate policy choice, the persistence of hunger, food insecurity and malnutrition in all its forms is a deep policy failure.  Food system transformation in South Africa requires addressing wider issues of who controls the food supply, thus influencing the food chain and the food choices of the individual and communities. This paper examines three global rights-based paradigms – ‘food justice’, ‘food security’ and ‘food sovereignty’ – that inform activism on the right to food globally and their relevance to food system change in South Africa; for both fulfilling the right to food and addressing all forms of malnutrition. We conclude that the emerging concept of food sovereignty has important yet largely unexplored possibilities for democratically managing food systems for better health outcomes.

Accountability in Global Governance

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Global Governance ◽  
International Organizations ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Austerity Policy ◽  
Comprehensive Study

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document