Where's your rigour? A short response to The Economist's articles on private education

On 1st August 2015, The Economist published in its printed edition two articles supposed to analyse the growth of private education in developing countries: "Learning Unleashed" and "The $1-a-week school".  Unsurprisingly, the articles come strongly in favour of private education, in particular low-fee private schools. More regrettably however, the articles were based on wrong facts, were self-contradictory, and appeared highly ideological. We made a short response, and sent it to the editor. It was not published by The Economist (others were) - but here it is:

Dear Sir/Madam,

The question of the role to give to private schools within education systems, in particular in developing countries, is a complex debate that necessarily requires a nuanced reflection.

Yet, your articles from 1st August on low-cost private schools and for-profit education exactly lack the nuance that would make them useful and credible. The articles – rightly – describe some of the challenges faced by State schools, but ignore the evidence showing equally poor quality or little innovation in private schools – as for instance well summed up in the last Global Monitoring Report (p. 216).  They are full of self-contradictions: just by way of example, on one hand “governments that are too disorganised or corrupt” and “should get out of the way”; while you recommend these same incapable governments “subsidise private schools”, “regulate schools to ensure quality”, and “run public exams” – seemingly ignoring education companies’ own scandals. And so on – with many other oversights revealing a profound conceptual bias of the paper in support of private schools.

In this context, most regrettable perhaps is the claim that those who disagree are “ideological” – I quote: “NGOs tend to be ideologically opposed to the private sector”. This is such a misnomer, whereas together with dozens of international, national, and community-based civil society partners around the world – including teachers’ unions – we have been working hard in the last 12 months gathering evidence on the ground, engaging in dialogues with all parties, and researching what the basic legal human rights requirements within which private schools can and should be allowed to operate are. Far from opposing private schools, far from ignoring the complex reality – which we live every day – of schooling in developing countries, we’re looking for practical solutions which uphold human rights principles. Not misinformed solutions, like the simplistic suggestion to provide vouchers, which “parents top up” when it has been proven in Chile to create high and unbearable inequalities, but solutions that guarantee human dignity as legally protected under international law, ensuring that education is primarily focused on the best interest of the child.

Are Human Rights Council resolutions, UN expert bodies’ opinions, and international law “ideological”? We will be under no illusion. Your lack of rigour in dealing with such a serious issue is not only highly disappointing, but it also calls us to reflect on which side ideology lies – and on the true influence of the warning you made yourselves: “Pearson, which owns 50% of The Economist, has stakes in both Bridge and Omega”.

Best regards

The Economist frontpage of 1st August 2015 (c) The Economist

• UN Updates

Human Rights Council: States should act to end enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders

(Geneva) – Human rights defenders advocating in relation to land-grabbing, corporate accountability, indigenous rights, labour rights, and other economic, social and cultural rights issues are at increased risk of enforced disappearance, according to a new report.

The report by the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances will be discussed by the UN Human Rights Council when it convenes for its 30th session in Geneva in September and ISHR and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights are urging States to use the opportunity to highlight and press for accountability in cases of enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders.

‘We are deeply concerned at the worsening incidence of enforced disappearances and other attacks against corporate accountability activists, trade unionists, and land and environment rights defenders, particularly those advocating or protesting against major business projects and investments,’ said ISHR's Michael Ineichen.

‘Enforced disappearances, together with related violations such as arbitrary arrest, are increasingly used not only to punish protest and dissent, but also to intimidate and deter others from engaging in human rights advocacy,’ Mr Ineichen said.

‘By way of example, the enforced disappearance and ultimate death of Chinese human rights lawyer and housing rights activist Cao Shunli was intended both to silence her and send a chilling message to others,’ Mr Ineichen said. ‘So too the more recent enforced disappearance or arbitrary detention of Chinese economic, social and cultural rights defenders such as Mi Chongbiao, Guo Yushan, Su Changlan’.

In addition to highlighting other cases of enforced disappearance of economic, social and cultural rights activists, such as Sombath Somphone in Laos, the report highlights the increased labelling of such activists as ‘rebels, insurgents, terrorists or as being against development’; terms which are used to ‘justify, condone or minimise human rights violations committed against them’.

‘It is imperative that high-level government officials not only refrain from using and condemn such labels when used by others, but also publicly recognise the vital and legitimate role of human rights defenders in promoting economic, social and cultural rights and sustainable development,’ Mr Ineichen said.

Significantly, the report also found that ‘when an individual becomes a victim of enforced disappearance as a result of exercising or promoting economic, social and cultural rights, the enjoyment of those rights is also violated.’

‘Enforced disappearances of human rights defenders are grave human rights violations in and of themselves but also amount to violations of the rights for which they are advocating,’ said Lucy McKernan of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR), which participated in consultations for the report.

‘In many cases, the effective protection of economic, social and cultural rights relies upon the work of human rights defenders. The enforced disappearance of a housing rights lawyer, for example, may leave a community who relies on that defender much more vulnerable to arbitrary eviction and deter other community members from claiming their housing rights’ Ms McKernan said.

‘Seen this way, enforced disappearances of human rights defenders violate not only the Declaration on Enforced Disappearance and the Declaration on Human Rights Defenders, but the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights itself’.

In line with recommendations made in the report and previously advocated by both ISHR and GI-ESCR, States should enact specific laws and policies, and establish dedicated protection mechanisms, to ensure that human rights defenders are able to operate freely and safely and without fear and restriction. States also have an obligation to prevent and eradicate enforced disappearances, whether perpetrated by State or non-State actors, and ensure that any enforced disappearance of a human rights defender is subject to prompt and thorough investigation, with perpetrators prosecuted and punished and victims and their families provided with adequate and effective remedy.

With the report to be considered by the Human Rights Council on 15 September during an ‘Interactive Dialogue’ with the UN Working Group on Enforced or Involuntary Disappearances, ISHR and the GI-ESCR call on States to use the opportunity to highlight and push for accountability in relation to cases of enforced disappearances of ESC rights defenders and to outline the steps and measures that they will take to prevent, punish and remedy any such acts.

This Sunday, 30 August marks the International Day of the Victims of Enforced Disappearances.

Contacts:

International Service for Human Rights – Michael Ineichen on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Lucy McKernan on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

• UN Updates

Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights – Annual Report 2014

Annual Report 2014 Message from the Co-Executive Directors

The Global Initiative began in 2010, as an initiative to advance the realization of economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights globally, tackling the endemic problem of poverty and social injustice through a human rights lens. Our vision is of a world where ESC rights are fully respected, protected and fulfilled and on equal footing with civil and political rights, so that all people are able to live in dignity. To realize this vision, our role is one of catalyzing social change through strategic leveraging of international spaces. This is work that we undertake in close partnership with local partners and advocates from around the world; what we like to call “making the UN work for the poor.” To this aim, the Global Initiative is registered as a 501(c)(3) non-profit in the USA with offices there and Geneva, Switzerland. It enjoys Consultative Status with the UN, as well as Observer Status with the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

The Global Initiative works to advance three strategic priority areas:

• Strategic litigation and legal advocacy;

• Advancing women’s and ESC rights; and

• Human rights and development.

Through these strategic areas, we contribute to the advancement of substantive ESC rights while at the same time tackling cutting edge and emerging issues that dramatically impact people’s lives. Issues like land, water, sanitation, housing, education and health, among others. The achievements we made in these three areas in 2014 are highlighted in this annual report.

There is, however, an important thread which ties this work together and it lies at the heart of the work we do, and our approach to human rights advocacy. All of the work in our three strategic priorities has benefited from a similar methodology that has increasingly been recognized as our unique contribution to the field of ESC rights advocacy. Namely, working with local and national groups to use international human rights law and access international human rights mechanisms to achieve impact at the domestic level. This methodology not only amplifies the voices of local advocates and activists by leveraging the power of international law and mechanisms, but also informs the content, meaning and interpretation of international human rights law from the perspective of marginalized individuals, groups and communities. As such, this two-way exchange of information and advocacy results both in specific change at the local level and structural change within the international human rights normative framework.

In Geneva, we often serve as a bridge for local partners seeking to engage with UN human rights mechanisms, offering support, advice and connections. Many of these partnerships you can read about in this report. We are also uniquely placed to advocate on ESC rights issues in our own capacity and our ongoing presence in Geneva has allowed us to deepen our engagement across UN human rights mechanisms - providing a clear and consistent voice for ESC rights. This ongoing engagement has enabled us to step into new spaces and engage in exciting new ways. As examples, in 2014 we were able to provide periodic ‘Advocacy Updates’ and ‘Updates from Geneva’ which highlight important advancements, events and discussions related to ESC rights, as well as though pieces such as one on Legal accountability of non-State actors for human rights violations abroad. We were also able to engage with UN experts on a range of ESC rights issues, for example by emphasizing the extra-territorial human rights obligations and their critical role in formulating an effective and relevant human rights response to climate change with the Independent Expert on Human Rights and the Environment, and by hosting an NGO Consultation with Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing to address recent and emerging themes related to the right to housing worldwide.

These and other activities have resulted in our becoming a visible leader, and this in turn has led to our being regularly invited to provide our own substantive expertise as an organization working globally on ESC issues. For example, in 2014 the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights invited a select few non-governmental organizations to meet with him to discuss priorities. The large traditional players (organizations like Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, etc.) were at the table, and we are honored to be able to say that so was the Global Initiative. Even though we are undoubtedly much smaller, and far newer as an organization, we believe that this recognition demonstrates that we are valued for the high quality of our advocacy work and the unique perspective that we provide to the Geneva human rights scene and beyond. We think it bodes well for the fact that we are a unique organization, playing an important role, and making a contribution which is not only significant, but urgently needed in today’s world.

We are happy to report that we have ended 2014 on a sound financial footing which lays the foundation for organizational growth in 2015 and beyond. We are extremely grateful to our donors for the financial support we receive, and for their shared vision.

Finally, while 2014 was a year of growth and achievement, it was also one of loss. We met Opiata Odindo many years before founding the Global Initiative, and his tireless dedication to fighting for the rights of the poor in Kenya has been an ongoing inspiration to us personally. In 2013, we were thrilled when he agreed to join our Board, and as a Board member he helped to chart the course of this organization with thoughtfulness and a deep seated commitment to the cause. Our friend passed away in Nairobi, Kenya on 16 August 2014 after a battle with cancer, but we will remain ever grateful to him for his encouragement, warmth and leadership.

We look forward to the Global Initiative’s continued work and engagement with our partners worldwide to ensure that all of the gains we have achieved so far continue to move us toward the transformative impact we seek. To that end, in 2015 the Global Initiative will engage in a strategic planning and organizational development planning process to culminate in a consolidation and focused strategy aimed at building upon our strengths with the aim of contributing to even more meaningful change in the years to come.

Mayra Gomez and Bret Thiele

Co-Executive Directors

Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Access a full copy of the Annual Report HERE.

• UN Updates

ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 29th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Summer 2015

The 29th session of the Human Rights Council dealt with ESC and related rights issues such as: education, extreme poverty and human rights, women’s economic and social rights, cultural rights, climate change, health and business and human rights, with a particularly strong emphasis on women's human rights.

For a detailed report on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the 29th session of the Human Rights Council see HERE.

• UN Updates

Human Rights Committee addresses ETOs and Indivisibility with ESC Rights

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (GI-ESCR) welcomes the Human Rights Committee addressing issues of extra-territorial human rights obligations and the indivisibility of human rights, particularly the economic, social and cultural rights aspects of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Informed in part by a Parallel Report submitted by the GI-ESCR and the International Human Rights Clinic at the Western New England School of Law, the Committee recently questioned Canada on its extra-territorial obligations (ETOs), including the ETO to protect rights abroad by regulating Canadian corporations and by providing accountability and remedial mechanisms when rights are violated abroad. 

The Committee commented that "A country could not just provide corporate identity to a company and then be unperturbed by whatever the company could do around the world."  When Canada challenged the extra-territorial jurisdiction of the Covenant, the Committee reminded the Canadian delegation that "The final arbiter for the interpreting the Covenant was the Committee, not individual States."

In its Concluding Observations, the Committee expressed its concern "about allegations of human rights abuses by Canadian companies operating abroad ... and about the inaccessibility to remedies by victims of such violations."  The Committee also regretted "the absence of an effective independent mechanism with powers to investigate complaints alleging abuses by such corporations that adversely affect the enjoyment of the human rights of victims, and of a legal framework that would facilitate such complaints."  The Committee went on to recommend that Canada "a) enhance the effectiveness of existing mechanisms to ensure that all Canadian corporations, in particular mining corporations, under its jurisdiction respect human rights standards when operating abroad; b) consider establishing an independent mechanism with powers to investigate human rights abuses by such corporations abroad; c) and develop a legal framework that affords legal remedies to people who have been victims of activities of such corporations operating abroad. "

On the issue of indivisibility of human rights, and in particular the economic and social rights aspects of the Covenant, the Committee questioned Canada on homelessness and denial of access to health care for migrants, pointing out that both may rise to the violation of the right to life guaranteed in Article 6 of the Covenant.  In its Concluding Observations the Committee reminded Canada that it "should ensure that all refugee claimants and irregular migrants have access to essential health care services irrespective of their status."

Canadian media soon reported on these important developments, with two articles appearing HERE and HERE.

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Parallel Report is available HERE.

The Concluding Observations are available HERE.

The issue of indivisibility continued during a Half Day of Discussion related to drafting General Comment No. 36 on the content of Article 6 of the Covenant.  There the Committee again looked at the economic, social and cultural  rights aspects of the Covenant, including considering a Written Submission by the GI-ESCR submitted jointly with the Social Rights Advocacy Centre and ESCR-Net as well as an oral intervention by Bruce Porter of SRAC.  The Committee looked as issues ranging from homelessness to denial of access to health care, water, sanitation and food as rising to potential violations of the right to life and was urged to continue to interpret the Covenant, including Article 6 as requiring both negative and positive legal obligations and remedies.

The Joint Written Intervention is available HERE.

A report on the Half Day of Discussion are forthcoming.

• UN Updates

Using CEDAW to Secure Women’s Land and Property Rights: A Practical Guide

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is pleased to release it’s latest publication aimed at strengthening the capacity of human rights advocates to advance rights globally.

The purpose of Using CEDAW to Secure Women’s Land and Property Rights: A Practical Guide is to provide advocacy information, advice and tools to those wishing to use the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and its Optional Protocol to secure the land and property rights of women.  Our Guide is directed at NGOs and advocates working on these specific issues.  Many very good general guides on engaging with CEDAW are available online.[1]  We do not intend to repeat the material that can be found in those Guides, but to provide a more targeted resource that provides substantive and practical guidance particular to the land and property rights of women.

The Global Initiative would like to express it sincere thanks to Alicia Estrada, Karen Santana, Lauren Carasik, and Anka Mason at International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law for their valuable contributions to this Guide.

The Guide can be downloaded HERE.

• UN Updates

UN CEDAW Committee Issues Landmark Decision on Women’s Inheritance Rights in Tanzania

UN CEDAW Committee Issues Landmark Decision on Women’s Inheritance Rights in Tanzania At its sixtieth session, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women [‘CEDAW Committee’] decided a landmark case upholding women’s equal inheritance rights in Tanzania. The case involved two widows who were prevented from inheriting their late husbands’ property and were subsequently left homeless. The two women, E. S. and S. C. (represented by the Women’s Legal Aid Centre and the International Women’s Human Rights Clinic of Georgetown University Law Center) argued that millions of other women in Tanzania like them also experience similar violations, whether as widows, daughters, mothers or other female relatives of the deceased.

In their decision, the CEDAW Committee highlighted that States parties have an obligation to adopt laws of intestate succession that comply with the principles of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women [‘Convention’], and that ensure equal treatment of surviving females and males. It specifically recalled its General Recommendation No. 29 on the ‘economic consequences of marriage, family relations and their dissolution,’ which expressly mentions that State parties are required to ensure that disinheritance of the surviving spouse is prohibited. It also recalled its General Recommendation No. 21 on ‘equality in marriage and family relations,’ which notes that States parties are required to give women equal rights to administer property. It highlighted that “the right of women to own, manage, enjoy and dispose of property is central to their financial independence and may be critical to their ability to earn a livelihood and to provide adequate housing and nutrition for themselves and for their children, especially in the event of the death of their spouse.”

In the present case, the CEDAW Committee observed that E. S. and S. C. “were left economically vulnerable, with no property, no home to live in with their children and no form of financial support,” and expressed the view that “such state of vulnerability and insecurity has restricted the authors’ economic autonomy and has prevented them from enjoying equal economic opportunities.” It ruled that Tanzania’s legal framework which treats widows and widowers differently in terms of ownership, acquisition, management, administration, enjoyment and disposition of property, “is discriminatory and thereby amounts to a violation of article 2 (f) in conjunction with articles 5, 15 and 16 of the Convention.” It held that Tanzania should grant E. S. and S. C. appropriate reparation and adequate compensation commensurate with the seriousness of the infringement of their rights, and that Tanzania should ensure that all discriminatory customary laws limiting women’s equal inheritance rights are repealed or amended and brought into full compliance with the Convention.

A copy of the decision (Communication No. 48/2013) is available HERE.

• UN Updates

ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 28th session of the UN Human Rights Council, Spring 2015

April 2015

The 28th session of the Human Rights Council saw States considering a broad range of economic, social and cultural rights and associated issues.

Traditionally the March session of the Human Rights Council is considered the busiest session of the year because of the High-Level Segment and the attendance of State dignitaries - this March session was no different.  Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights received significant attention with reports and resolutions in relation to the housing, food, environment and cultural rights mandates.  In addition there was a full day discussion on human rights and climate change, the annual ESCR omnibus resolution focusing on social protection floors and a new initiative on the right to work.

For a detailed report on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights at the 28th session of the Human Rights Council see HERE.

• UN Updates

Canada's extra-territorial human rights obligations to be scrutinized under both human rights Covenants

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

The Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), is set to scrutinize Canada regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under the Covenant.  Canada will appear before the Committee in July 2015 for its periodic review.

The Committee has made clear that the ICCPR includes extra-territorial obligations to respect and to ensure human rights, including by regulating and otherwise holding corporations accountable to those obligations for their activities abroad.

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report laying out the extra-territorial obligations under the ICCPR and requesting that the Committee include scrutiny on those obligations within the periodic review of Canada.

The List of Issues recently adopted by the Committee, which defines the scope of review, requires Canada to "inform the Committee of any measures taken or envisaged to monitor the human rights conduct of Canadian oil, mining, and gas companies operating abroad" and to "also inform what the available legal venues are in the State party for victims of human rights abuses arising from overseas operations of Canadian extractive firms."  As the GI-ESCR Parallel Report makes clear, the jurisprudence of the Committee provides a clear articulation of the extra-territorial application of ICCPR obligations, including the legal obligation to regulated Canadian corporations to ensure that they do not violate human rights abroad, and the legal obligation to provide access to justice in the event of such violations.

The Global Initiative has since submitted a Parallel Report for the periodic review which will call on the Committee to hold Canada accountable for extra-territorial obligations in the context of Canadian corporations involved in building Israeli settlements in Palestine and extractive industries in Central America.

The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE.

The List of Issues can be found HERE.

The Joint Global Initiative and Western New England School of Law Human Rights Clinic Parallel Report can be found HERE.

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), is set to scrutinize Canada regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under that Covenant.  Canada will appear before the Committee in February 2016 for its periodic review.

Like the Human Rights Committee, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has made clear that the ICESCR includes extra-territorial obligations to respect, protect and fulfill human rights abroad.

The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights successfully intervened with a Parallel Report to ensure that the List of Issues included Canada's extra-territorial obligations.

In the List of Issues adopted by the Committee, it asked Canada to "provide information on measures taken, including legislative, regulatory, policies and guidance to ensure that private companies respect economic, social and cultural rights throughout their operations, including when operating abroad" as well as to "also inform on remedies available for victims and describe grievance mechanisms in place and elaborate on their mandates."

According to Bret Thiele, Co-Executive Director of the GI-ESCR, "These examinations of Canada under both key human rights Covenants provide advocates the opportunity to address the issue of extra-territorial obligations and corporate accountability and provides the Committees the opportunity to further reaffirm that the ICCPR and ICESCR contain extra-territorial human rights obligations to which States parties must adhere."

Thiele added that "It is hoped that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in particular builds on its ETO pronouncements with stronger statements on the extra-territorial obligation to fulfill human rights, including through both bilateral and multilateral development cooperation and trade agreements."

The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE.

The List of Issues can be found HERE.

• UN Updates