Our strategic presence in Geneva sets us apart as the sole NGO exclusively committed to economic, social, cultural, and environmental rights. This permits us to play a pivotal role in promoting and protecting these rights globally.
Consultation on the impact of the privatisation in/of education on girls' right to education
The United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) is preparing a General Recommendation on girls and women’s right to education, which is a document produced by the Committee to give guidance on the interpretation of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. For this purpose, the Committee is holding a half-day discussion on the topic on 7th July.
Non-governmental organisations and experts are also invited to send written contributions by 20th June (more information here).
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Right to Education Project are preparing a contribution on the impact of the privatisation in/of education on girls' right to education. Both organisations have been conducting research and/or reflecting on privatisation in/of education from a human rights perspective and would like to draw to CEDAW’s attention some of the impacts privatisation has on girls’ education.
For the preparation of this contribution to the CEDAW, we are collecting thoughts, data, and comments, and we would like to invite all civil society organisations working in the education field to share with us information and evidence we could refer to in our paper. Your input will be crucial in informing the contribution we are putting together.
To facilitate this consultation, here is a list of guiding questions:
1. In your view, has privatisation in/of education led to the exclusion of women and girls from enjoying equal access to educational opportunities or otherwise impeded their ability to realise their right to education on equal footing with men and boys? If so, why? Do you have some examples?
2. Has privatisation in/of education resulted in other detrimental impacts on women and girls, such as the use of gender insensitive curricula or the propagation of gender stereotypes? If so, why? Do you have some examples?
3. Does your organisation have any specific research or case studies highlighting the impact of privatisation on women and girls?
4. What do you think are the key messages to communicate to the CEDAW Committee around the issue of privatisation in/of education and its impact on girls?
You can send your ideas via the Right to Education’s online forum here http://www.right-to-education.org/page/right-education-discussion-forum, or you can contact directly Delphine Dorsi (Right to Education Project) This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., and Mayra Gomez (Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights): This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. if you prefer.
NEW Practitioners Guide: the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development and the Right to Participation
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is pleased to release its latest publication aimed at strengthening the capacity of human rights advocates and development practitioners to advance rights globally.
The purpose of our latest Practitioners Guide, on the Human Rights-Based Approach to Development and the Right to Participation, is to provide an analysis of how to best incorporate the right to active, free and meaningful participation in development. The Guide also includes several case studies and provide lessons learned on how to better incorporate the right to participation into human rights-based development.
The human rights concept of empowerment is not something done to people or given to people. It is a participatory process that engages people in reflection, inquiry and action in order to understand the power they themselves have to influence and change their lives.
For participation to be truly rights based, development agencies and other actors need to include local stakeholders in every facet of the development process, ensure they understand and have the capacity to make decisions about the project, and respect the right of the local population to deny a project. Beyond being good practice, the concept of participation is firmly rooted in international law and results in more sustainable human development.
There are five major steps for development practitioners to incorporate participants according to a human rights based framework, and each of these are covered in detail within this Practitioner’s Guide.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights thanks Kristin Frye and Katarina Deshotel and Professor Paul Nelson of the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Pittsburgh as well as Aled Dilwyn-Fisher for their substantial contributions to making this publication possible.
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights scrutinizes China on extra-territorial obligations
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights scrutinizes China regarding extra-territorial human rights obligations
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), scrutinized China regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under the Covenant. China is appearing before the Committee at its May of 2014 session.
The Committee has made clear that the ICESCR includes extra-territorial obligations to respect, protect and fulfill 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 ICESCR and requesting that the Committee include scrutiny on those obligations within the periodic review of China. The Parallel Report relies in part on the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations, which provide the clearest and most comprehensive reaffirmation of extra-territorial obligations under international human rights law.
The List of Issues recently adopted by the Committee, which defines the scope of review, requires China to “provide information on measures taken, including legislation, regulations, policies and guidance, to ensure that businesses respect economic, social and cultural rights throughout their operations – including when operating abroad –, in particular in the extractives sector and in commercial operations involving the appropriation of land.”
This examination of China provides advocates the opportunity to address the issue of extra-territorial obligations and provides the Committee the opportunity to more clearly articulate the extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR, including specifically referencing the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations. To that end, the Global Initiative and the International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law submitted additional Parallel reports related to China’s extra-territorial obligations under the ICESCR as well as factual situations involved China’s violations of those obligations.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE
The List of Issues can be found HERE
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report on the legal analysis for the periodic review can be found HERE
The Joint Global Initiative – International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law factual Parallel Report can be found HERE
The Global Initiative's oral intervention can be found HERE.
Oral Statement regarding China by GI-ESCR to Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
52nd Session (28 April – 9 May)
Consideration of State Party Reports:
Second Periodic Report of the People’s Republic of China
Oral Statement by Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
My statement on behalf of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, addresses the extra-territorial obligations of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) under the ICESCR and in particular in relation to:
the regulation of corporate entities domiciled within its territory and operating overseas;
entities acting under its authority outside its territory, including State-Owned Enterprises (SOEs) operating overseas;
its policies on official development assistance, on international agriculture and trade and for State-Owned overseas investment or credit entities (including International Financial Institutions such as the proposed BRIC Development Bank) for decisions affecting human rights outside its territory.
The extra-territorial application of State obligations under human rights treaties is well established in international law: it is supported by the UN Charter[1], the International Law Commission’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts[2] and the International Court of Justice.[3] The Committee has recently affirmed the extra-territorial obligations of States under the Covenant in its Concluding Obligations in respect of Germany[4], Austria[5] and Norway[6] and in its General Comments and Statements.[7]
The extent and nature of States’ extra-territorial obligations have been helpfully summarized in the Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations in the Area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.[8]
Non-state actors
In relation to business entities domiciled in the PRC, but acting outside its territory, we submit that the PRC has obligations to take measures to ensure that such entities do not nullify or impair the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights of persons outside its territory affected by the entity’s operations.[9]
Our supplementary report provides examples of Chinese domiciled companies that have operations overseas that have allegedly been involved in serious violations of the ICESCR in other countries. The lack of Chinese regulation or oversight of these companies has meant that there is no accountability for these human rights abuses.
Many Chinese companies operating overseas are SOEs and therefore acting under the State’s authority. Clearly the PRC has Covenant obligations to respect and protect human rights in respect of those entities’ overseas operations.
For instance Chinese transnational corporation Sinohydro which is wholly owned by the State is a partner in a hydroelectric dam construction project in Honduras, which has involved violent forced evictions in contravention of international law and violations of the rights to food, water and indigenous people’s rights. The projects failed to consult with local communities or obtain their free, prior and informed consent to the taking of their traditional lands, leading to loss of livelihoods and forcing the community into poverty.
We urge the Committee to affirm China’s extra-territorial obligations to respect and to protect Covenant rights abroad by, inter alia, regulating the activities of business entities domiciled in its territory, including State-Owned entities, for activities undertaken abroad and to ensure that accountability mechanisms and remedies are available to victims of those violations.
International development assistance and investments
The financial support and other development decisions of international financial institutions and investment entities such as the proposed BRICs Development Bank and the China Africa Development Fund can both contribute to the fulfillment of human rights as well as result in violations of human rights outside the territories of the member States.
Our report provides examples of serious ICESCR violations associated with development projects funded and supervised by Chinese State-Owned development and investment entities.[10] In part as a consequence of the PRC’s lack of human rights regulation, human rights impact assessment, monitoring mechanisms and complaints mechanism, there has been no accountability for those human rights abuses.
For example a number of oil exploration projects in Kenya financed by various Chinese SOEs, including the China Development Bank and undertaken by the China National Offshore Oil Company which was granted exclusive exploration rights to more than half of Kenya’s substantial exploration oil blocks. The project has involved forced evictions, and violations of the rights to food and water. Similarly, copper and cobalt mining projects in the DRC undertaken by Chinese SOEs and financed by Chinese development and investment banks have reportedly involved forced evictions of local communities into poverty and homelessness, violations of the right to food and water (depriving subsistence farmers of their land and water resources and forcing them into reliance on other food sources and into poverty) and appalling working conditions. They have also been connected to child labor.
These violations may have been prevented had China had in place, as is required by the Covenant, legislation and policies that require SOEs and Chinese officials representing the PRC in international development assistance and financing entities, to:
undertake human rights impact assessments prior to project/ funding approval;
put in place and implement effective monitoring mechanisms in respect of projects;
ensure the effective and accessible accountability mechanisms are in place and remedies available for victims of violations.
Conclusion
In summary, the GI-ESCR urges the Committee to make recommendations highlighting the PRC’s extra-territorial obligations to respect, to protect and, where relevant, to fulfill ICESCR rights in relation to:
entities acting under its authority outside its territory, including State-Owned Enterprises;
corporations and business entities domiciled in China, acting outside its territory; and
its policies on official development assistance, on agriculture and trade and State-Owned overseas investment or credit entities (including International Financial Institutions such as the proposed BRIC Development Bank) for decisions affecting human rights outside its territory - through human rights impact assessments and effective monitoring and complaint mechanisms.
5 May 2014
Bret Thiele Co-Executive Director Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Lucy McKernan UN Liaison – Geneva Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
[1] Charter of the United Nations, Art. 55 & 56, 26 June 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. 993, 3 Bevans 1153, entered into force 24 October 1945.
[2] See, International Law Commission, Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, Arts. 1, 2 and 3 (adopted by the ILC in 2001).
[3] International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (9 July 2004).
[4] EC/C.12/AUT/CO/5 of 2011
[5] E/C.12/AUT/CO/4 of 2013
[6] E/C.12/NOR/CO/5 of 2013
[7] See: E/C.12/2002/11, General Comment 15 (2002) on the Right to Water; E/C.12/GC/18, General Comment 18 (2005) on the Right to Work; E/C./GC/19, General Comment 19 (2008) on the Right to Social Security; and E/C.12/2011/1, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ‘Statement on the obligations of States parties regarding the corporate sector and economic, social and cultural rights’ (2011).
[8] The Maastricht Principles are a restatement of law based on existing conventional and customary international law. They were adopted by leading experts from around the world, including a former member of the Human Rights Committee and members and former members of other treaty bodies. Drawn from international law, the Maastricht Principles clarify the content of extra-territorial State obligations to realize economic, social and cultural rights but also explicitly apply to the full spectrum of civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.
[9] As was found by the Committee in respect of Norway in 2013 – see note 6 above.
[10] Such as the Export-Import Bank of China, the China Development Bank, the China Construction Bank and the China Africa Development Fund.
ESC Rights Update from Geneva: 25th of the UN Human Rights Council, Spring 2014
Spring 2014
Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights were well represented at the 25th session of the Human Rights Council in March. There were at least 5 resolutions directly dealing with ESC rights, on: economic, social and cultural rights; food; housing; cultural rights, and environment. Experts in relation to three of those rights also reported to the Council during this session, namely the: Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living; Special Rapporteur on the right to food; and Independent Expert on the issue of human rights obligations relating to the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy and sustainable environment .[1] Whilst the Council was scheduled to appoint new mandate holders for the Special Rapporteurs on Adequate Housing and Food (and others), the appointments were postponed pending further negotiations amongst States. It is believed that some States were unhappy with the geographical spread of candidates nominated by the President.
Below is a summary of the activity relating to ESC rights generally, the right to food and the right to adequate housing at the 25th session of the UN Human Rights Council.
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
The ESC rights resolution was again led by Portugal and was adopted without a vote[2] after some last minute amendments. The omnibus resolution entitled ‘Question of the realisation in all countries of economic, social and cultural rights’[3] again called on States to sign and ratify the ICESCR and whilst it ‘welcomed’ the entry into force of the Optional Protocol, the use of weak language, calling on States to ‘consider’ signing the OP was disappointing. The resolution also acknowledged the Secretary-General’s report on access to justice[4] and ESC rights and requested the Secretary-General to prepare a further report for 2015, this time focusing on social protection floors.
The resolution contained new language on access to effective remedies and referred to the joint UN Social Protection Floor Initiative and ILO recommendation 202 (2012) on that topic. The resolution also included new language on the post-2015 development agenda focusing States’ attention on some of the specific areas in which the human rights framework can strengthen the MDGs post-2015: ‘Underlining the imperative need to accelerate efforts towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, and recognizing the crucial importance of giving due consideration to the realization of [ESCRs] in the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda’ and ‘to equality, social protection and accountability’.
Continuing with its outlier role vis-à-vis ESC rights, the US was the only State to explain its position in relation to this resolution. Not being a party to the ICESCR, the US pointed out that by joining consensus on this resolution it does not become bound by the Covenant. The US also ‘regretted’ reference to the ‘right to development’ which it says does not have an international understanding and which the US does not consider a human right in the legal sense. Finally, the US noted its view that the Human Rights Council is not the agreed venue for reaching consensus on the post-2105 development agenda and ‘nothing in the resolution should be construed as pre-determining’ it.
Right to Adequate Housing
The Special Rapporteur on the right to adequate housing, Raquel Rolnik, presented her final report[5] to the Council and engaged in an Interactive Dialogue, together with the Special Rapporteur on the right to food. Her report focused on security of tenure and presented 10 Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure for the urban poor. The report noted that globally, tenure insecurity was responsible for many millions of people living under daily threat of eviction, lack of access to services, or discrimination by public and private actors, and that the poorest bear the brunt of tenure insecurity. She emphasized that tenure rights extend beyond mainstream notions of private ownership and include multiple tenure forms including collective models.
The Report also included the Rapporteur’s two country reports for 2013: the United Kingdom and Indonesia. Following a controversial country mission to the UK last year, the UK Ambassador in her oral statement pointed out the UK’s disagreements with the Special Rapporteur’s report and that they do not consider the Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure to be appropriate for the UK.
In the Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteur, State interventions were generally positive and supported the Guiding Principles on Security of Tenure. The co-sponsors, Germany and Finland emphasized non-discrimination and the particular vulnerability of women to insecure tenure and the differential adverse impact on women. A couple of States pointed out the role played by non-State and business actors in protecting security of tenure.
After a break of two years since the last resolution on adequate housing, Germany and Finland, put forward a strong draft resolution, including new language on security of tenure. The resolution was adopted without a vote after being orally revised[6]. The final text was slightly weakened (compared with the original draft) although retained many strong provisions which advanced the Council’s pronouncements on this right. The resolution extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further 3 years and added a clause recalling the Code of Conduct for Special Procedures Mandate Holders and stressing compliance.[7]
New language expressed concern about: the numbers of people living in unserviced and unplanned urban poor settlements and their vulnerability to disease, disasters, unemployment and lack of education; the number of foreclosures in recent years and the inadequate protections for tenants in private rental; and the disproportionate impact of the deterioration in the general housing situation on a number of groups. Further, new language recognized the importance of security of tenure and the need to promote a variety of tenure forms in urban development, land management and land administration.
It was pleasing to see the post-2015 development agenda also received attention for the first time in this resolution which called on States to ‘give due consideration’ to the right to adequate housing in the elaboration of the post-2015 development agenda.
Finally, new language was introduced which strengthened the call on States to cooperate with the Special Rapporteur by calling for ‘constructive dialogue’ in relation to follow-up and implementation of her or his recommendations.
In negotiations, South Africa, Egypt, the US and the GRULAC States played a vocal role. There were anecdotal reports that the negotiations for this resolution were difficult. Many were disappointed in particular by the retrogressive stance taken by South Africa on this and other resolutions before the Council this session. In particular, a number of NGOs, including South African NGOs, commented on South Africa’s contribution in its first Council session since it became a member[8] and given its strong domestic protection of ESC rights.
Again, the US was the only State to provide an explanation of its position and it was very similar to that provided in relation to the ESC rights resolution. In addition, the US stated that it read references to ‘non-discrimination’ as referring to the defined term in international law, and, wrongly, that security of tenure is not a human right, nor it is an element of the right to adequate housing in international law.
Right to Food
The Special Rapporteur on the right to food, Olivier De Schutter, presented to the Council his final report entitled ‘The Transformative Potential of the Right to Food’[9], including reports on his country visits to Malaysia and Malawi. The culmination of his six years work as Special Rapporteur, the report summarizes his previous recommendations, provides his diagnosis of the problems in fulfilling the right to food for all and proposes a new paradigm and way forward which involves a radical and democratic redesign of food systems. De Schutter advocates the movement away from a system that prioritizes efficiency and increased production, to one that pays attention to distribution, food sovereignty, support of small-scale producers, adequate nutrition and ecological sustainability. He emphasizes the need for monitoring and accountability mechanisms and participatory policy-making and for an international enabling environment which means reform by the North particularly in relation to international trade and agricultural policies.
In the Clustered Interactive Dialogue with the Special Rapporteurs, many States took the floor to comment on De Schutter’s report and term as mandate holder. Comments were generally positive and supportive. Many pointed out the importance of food sovereignty and supporting small-scale producers and a number of countries also emphasized the central role of women in food security and that empowering women was a necessary precursor to eradicating hunger. Many countries of the Global South were eager to underscore the critical importance of an enabling international environment and in particular a shift in international trade and agricultural policies. These comments should be seen in the context of the December 2013 WTO Ministerial Meeting which agreed the ‘Bali package’ including a controversial ‘peace clause’ relating to developing country public stockholding programs for food security - a result widely seen as evidence that, unfortunately, free trade is still viewed by some as trumping the right to food.
The resolution on the right to food, led again by Cuba, was also adopted without a vote after oral revisions.[10] Despite efforts by some States to push for the ‘stream-lining’ of resolutions, the resolution remains 8 pages and 51 operative paragraphs in length.
The resolution extends the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a further 3 years. It contains only a small amount of new language. Importantly, a definition of the right to food[11] was introduced in the preambular paragraphs. Some new language links work by the Human Rights Council with the UN Conference on Sustainable Development and that of the Committee on World Food Security which is developing voluntary and non-binding principles for responsible agricultural investments and refers to the 2013 FAO Report ‘The State of Food Insecurity in the World 2013’. Additional new language is also introduced relating to international cooperation support for adapted technologies, ‘research on rural advisory services’, ‘access to financing services’ and the ‘establishment of secure land tenure systems’ and also highlighting the need to facilitate access of small-scale food producers, to national and international markets and their empowerment in value chains.
The EU raised its on-going concern about the ‘causal linkage proposed in [OP15] between … current distortions in the agricultural trading system’ and ‘local producers and poor farmers to compete and sell their products’ which it says is a simplification and does not take account of the complexity of issues relating to food security.
The next session of the Council, in June 2014, will again consider ESC rights and the GI-ESCR will have a forthcoming update on those developments.
3 April 2014 Lucy McKernan
UN Liaison This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[1] A/HRC/25/53 and Add.1
[2] And with some 62 co-sponsors, although the co-sponsorship list had not closed at date of publication.
[3] A/HRC/25/L.16
[4] A/HRC/25/31
[5] A/HRC/25/54, Add.1–2 and Add. 4
[6] A/HRC/25/L.18/Rev.1 – co-sponsored by 63 States.
[7] This was one of a number of amendments proposed by Egypt and others, relating to the role of the Special Procedures mandate holders.
[8] See http://seri-sa.org/index.php/38-latest-news/237-press-statement-south-african-delegation-at-the-human-rights-council-may-weaken-the-international-status-of-the-right-to-adequate-housing-27-march-2014
[9] A/HRC/25/57 and Add.1–2
[10] A/HRC/25/L.26
[11] Taken from Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 12
Legal accountability of non-State actors for human rights violations abroad: Developments in Geneva
Legal accountability of non-State actors for human rights violations abroad: Developments during March 2014 in Geneva
‘No work, no water, no school, no temple. Just malaria’ is how one Cambodian villager described their situation after some 1,100 families were evicted from their lands to make way for a huge casino in the Botum Sakor National Park.
The Chinese developer, Union Development Group, bulldozed the lands, destroyed the rice fields and set fire to the houses of those who had refused the pitiful compensation amounts offered[1] leaving the affected villagers with nothing. In the same month we heard of forced relocations in Sierra Leone of hundreds of families from verdant agricultural land causing loss of livelihoods and poverty, carried out by London-based African Minerals Limited and the government.[2] In the vast majority of cases of cross-border human rights abuses by non-State actors, there is no accountability and the victims receive no redress.
In the face of widespread impunity for such human rights abuses NGOs, including the GI-ESCR, victims and States, are calling for non-State actors to be bound by enforceable legal obligations to comply with human rights standards. This is being pursued from two different angles in the human rights system and both received close attention this month in Geneva.
First, in relation to States, many are calling for recognition of the existing extra-territorial obligations of States under human rights treaties – ie. International law obligations to persons outside a States’ territory. This is accepted by many States and confirmed by jurisprudence from a number of treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice.[3] Regarding corporate activities abroad, the extra-territorial obligation to protect obliges States to ensure that businesses incorporated or domiciled within their jurisdiction do not violate human rights abroad. Furthermore, States have extra-territorial obligations to respect, protect and fulfil human rights abroad including through decisions made as part of inter-governmental organisations including international financial institutions (such as the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development[4]).[5]
Second, there is a strong push for greater accountability of business actors for human rights abuses through a binding international legal instrument (a treaty) and increasing frustration with the slow pace of implementation and unenforceability of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.
At the Human Rights Council and the Human Rights Committee these issues were under discussion this month and they are likely to continue to create much interest and excitement in the months leading up to the June session of the Council when the mandate of the Working Group on business and human rights is due to be renewed and as the issue of extra-territoriality is brought before several treaty bodies.
Extra-territorial obligations
The Human Rights Committee during its review of the US this month again challenged the US to abandon its legally flawed position of denying the extra-territorial application of the ICCPR. The US delegation maintained its position that the treaty (Article 2.1) should be interpreted to mean that States have obligations only in respect of persons within its jurisdiction AND territory and that the drafting history of the treaty supported that view. The US is particularly sensitive because of the implications for its Guantanamo Bay prison and recent controversies over its NSA cross-border telecommunications surveillance program. A New York Times article[6] which discussed a leaked legal memo from a former senior US State Department lawyer advising against the US position enlivened the issue giving the Committee further ammunition.
Mr Kaelin[7] challenged the US asking: whether the delegation recognised that its position on extraterritoriality allowed it to commit violations everywhere except in its own territory?; and whether it agreed that the non-applicability of the Covenant to extraterritorial activities was a dangerous position to take as it leads to impunity for rights violations? [8] The Committee’s conclusions[9] which came out today reiterated its ‘regret’ at the US’s position and called on the US to ‘interpret the Covenant in good faith’ and ‘acknowledge [its] extra-territorial application’.
The Human Rights Committee has already issued concluding observations on the issue of home State regulation of transnational corporations in the context of a German company operating a coffee plantation in Uganda which was implicated in the violent forced eviction of 2,000 villagers and the destruction of their homes and property.[10] Just recently the ICESCR Committee also affirmed extra-territorial obligations in its conclusions on Norway which urged it to ensure that investments in foreign companies operating in third countries made by the Norway Government pension fund are subject to a comprehensive human rights impact assessment and to adopt measures to prevent human rights contraventions abroad by corporations which are domiciled in Norway. In relation to Austria the Committee called upon the State to adopt a human rights-based approach to its policies on official development assistance and on agriculture and trade, through human rights impact assessments, including ensuring that there is an accessible complaint mechanism for victims in receiving countries.[11]
Push for a treaty on transnational corporations
In the same week, Ecuador and South Africa hosted a side event at the Council to discuss the idea of a binding treaty on transnational corporations. There was a lot of interest from both States and NGOs. Those hoping for some detail as to the content or coverage of a treaty and its possible enforcement mechanism were disappointed as the event aimed more at scoping political support. States’ positions generally lined up along Global South / North divisions with Ethiopia, Cuba and Bolivia voicing their support for a TNCs treaty, and Ireland and the European Union urging States to give the Guiding Principles more time to be implemented and to work to improve the functioning of the Working Group on business and human rights. The latter States drew attention to current efforts to implement the Guiding Principles, such as National Action Plans and the EU Initiative on conflict minerals and cautioned against diverting attention and efforts towards a treaty at the expense of implementation of the GPs. The EU representative urged States to ‘cherish what we have’ in the GPs pointing out the long and difficult history in achieving consensus on the GPs resolution.
Cautions also came from Dr Michael Addo on behalf of the Working Group and Mr John Knox, Special Rapporteur on the Environment, that a treaty might not be the silver bullet that some are suggesting A similar position was taken by Professor John Ruggie[12] is his recent Issues Brief.[13] They point to the long negotiation period for any new treaty, a number of previous failed attempts to agree binding principles in this area[14] and the question of whether the most pertinent host States (eg: the US, Canada, the UK and European States) are likely to ratify a TNCs treaty in any event. Mr Addo gave a strong defence of the Working Group’s work and the GPs. Mr Knox rightly identified the key problem as enforcement and access to remedies. He suggested, in a similar vein to Ruggie, a more focused, and therefore achievable, treaty exercise which did not attempt to be all encompassing but focused on finding solutions to a part of the problem.
In the meantime, Norway is busy consulting with States and NGOs to see what support it has for its June resolution and to what extent this push for a TNCs treaty might undermine its aim for a consensus resolution on the business and human rights mandate.
Hopefully the two processes are not construed as mutually exclusive and can advance side by side. A treaty is a very important long-term goal, whereas the Guiding Principles are currently operational and amendable to further work on improving and strengthening their content. Strengthening the Guiding Principles, including having them incorporate the recognized extra-territorial obligations of States to protect rights abroad, could prove to be particularly critical if, as is plausible, an inter-governmental treaty process takes the Guiding Principles as its normative starting point or baseline.
The recently released OHCHR commissioned report on ‘Corporate liability for gross human rights abuses: Towards a fairer and more effective system of domestic law remedies’[15] also weighs into the debate. The report pursues the Ruggie suggestion of focusing on ‘gross human rights violations’ and will be critiqued for this narrowing. Further, whilst the report ‘does not make any case for extraterritorial solutions over local solutions (or vice versa)’[16] it is sceptical, finding:
First it is not yet clear that, in relation to business and human rights, close convergence of legal standards and procedures is a desirable, let alone feasible, project. Second, there would be immense implementation difficulties associated with a treaty aimed at addressing the full range of gross human rights abuses, and all the contexts and circumstances in which they potentially arise. Finally, such a solution is unlikely to overcome many of the most serious barriers to remedy....[17]
The Report identifies extraterritoriality issues as a barrier to access to remedy[18] however it points out the legally flawed suggestion in the Guiding Principles that States do not have treaty obligations to regulate the extra-territorial activities of businesses domiciled in its territory.[19] Therefore an important part of the work to strengthen the Guiding Principles will be to update date them on developments on extra-territoriality emanating from the treaty bodies and the International Court of Justice and usefully restated in the Maastricht Principles on Extra-territorial Obligations.
Watch this space as the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights considers the same questions in relation to China (and others) and expect the US to increasingly be an outlier on the issue of extra-territoriality. Watch this space also as the question of a TNCs treaty shapes up as a South/ North tussle leading up to the June Council session. Expect a lot more effort and focus on National Action Plans by countries of the Global North and some diplomatic manoeuvring by Norway to include language in its resolution that might satisfy some States who support moves towards a TNCs treaty. Let’s hope that a dual track approach can be maintained, recognising the valuable work on the long-term goal of a binding international treaty on business and human rights, and on the medium-term goal of updating and strengthening the Guiding Principles and the role of the Working Group.
27 March 2014
Lucy McKernan UN Liaison – Geneva Global Initiative on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
[1] ‘Cambodian Villagers Land Bulldozed for UDG Casino Complex’, CorpWatch Blog, 14 March 2014, available at www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=15936
[2] ‘Whose Development? Human Rights Abuses in Sierra Leone’s Mining Boom’ Human Rights Watch, February 2014, available at www.hrw.org/reports/2014/02/19/whose-development-0
[3] See, e.g.,, International Court of Justice, Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (9 July 2004) at para. 109; Maastricht Principles on Extra-Territorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (adopted 28 September 2011).
[4] See joint NGO Statement about the disappointing backwards step on human rights protections and due diligence in its Draft Environment and Social Policy, available at http://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/related_material/140304_EBRDStatement.pdf
[5] See our work on the World Bank’s complicity in human rights abuses associated with the Chioxy Dam project by way of example: http://globalinitiative-escr.org/chixoy-dam/
[6] Savage, C. ‘US seems unlikely to accept that rights treaty applies to its actions abroad’, New York Times, 6 March 2014, see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/07/world/us-seems-unlikely-to-accept-that-rights-treaty-applies-to-its-actions-abroad.html?_r=0
[7] Committee member from Switzerland
[8] These are not direct quotes but from my notes when observing the dialogue with the US. For an unofficial summary of the dialogue prepared by OHCHR see: http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=14383&LangID=E
[9] See http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=INT%2fCCPR%2fCOC%2fUSA%2f16838&Lang=en
[10] See http://globalinitiative-escr.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/ICCPR-Con-Obs-Germany-2012.pdf
[11] See here http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/_layouts/treatybodyexternal/Download.aspx?symbolno=E%2fC.12%2fAUT%2fCO%2f4&Lang=en
[12] Former UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights
[13] Ruggie, J.G., ‘A UN Business and Human Rights Treaty? An Issues Brief by John G. Ruggie’, 28 January 2014, available at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/UNBusinessandHumanRightsTreaty.pdf
[14] including the ‘Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights’ considered (2004) but never approved by the UN Commission on Human Rights.
[15] Zerk, J. ‘Corporate liability for gross human rights abuses: Towards a fairer and more effective system of domestic law remedies’, report prepared for the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, available at http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Business/DomesticLawRemedies/StudyDomesticeLawRemedies.pdf
Launch of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials
The International Service for Human Rights, Australian Permanent Mission to the United Nations in Geneva, and the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights hosted at the United Nations in Geneva a lunchtime reception and launch of The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Commentary, Cases, and Materials by Ben Saul, David Kinley, and Jaqueline Mowbray (Oxford University Press, 2014) Economic, social and cultural rights have come of age. This book brings together all essential documents, materials, and case law relating to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and its Optional Protocol. It presents extracts from primary materials alongside critical commentary and analysis, placing the documents in their wider context and situating economic, social, and cultural rights within the broader human rights framework.
At the launch, Lucy McKernan of the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasized the crucial role of NGOs and human rights defenders in the development of ESC rights at the international level and the implementation of ESC rights on the ground.
The GI-ESCR remarks can be read HERE.
For more information and to order copies of the book, see HERE.
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 its 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.
Human Rights Committee scrutinizes the United States regarding extra-territorial human rights obligations
Human Rights Committee scrutinizes the United States regarding extra-territorial human rights obligations The Human Rights Committee, which monitors compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), scrutinized the United States regarding its extra-territorial human rights obligations under the Covenant. The U.S. appeared before the Committee in March 2014 for its periodic review.
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 the U.S.
The List of Issues recently adopted by the Committee, which defines the scope of review, requires the U.S. to discuss its understanding of the “the scope of applicability of the Covenant with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory; in times of peace, as well as in times of armed conflict”. As the Parallel Report makes clear, the jurisprudence of the Committee provides a clear articulation of the extra-territorial application of ICCPR obligations. Notwithstanding, the U.S. continues to states that the ICCPR only applies within U.S. territory.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report for the periodic review also calls on the Committee to hold the U.S. accountable for extra-territorial obligations in the context of decisions made within international financial institutions such as the World Bank.
This examination of the U.S. provided advocates the opportunity to address the issue of extra-territorial obligations and provides the Committee the opportunity to finally settle this misinterpretation by the U.S. of its treaty obligations.
UPDATE
The Human Rights Committee issued the following Concluding Observation related to ETOs under the ICCPR
4. The Committee regrets that the State party continues to maintain its position that the Covenant does not apply with respect to individuals under its jurisdiction but outside its territory, despite the contrary interpretation of article 2(1) supported by the Committee’s established jurisprudence, the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and state practice. The Committee further notes that the State party has only limited avenues to ensure that state and local governments respect and implement the Covenant, and that its provisions have been declared to be non-self-executing at the time of ratification. Taken together, these elements considerably limit the legal reach and the practical relevance of the Covenant (art. 2).
The State party should:
(a) Interpret the Covenant in good faith, in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context, including subsequent practice, and in the light of its object and purpose and review its legal position so as to acknowledge the extraterritorial application of the Covenant under certain circumstances, as outlined inter alia in the Committee’s general comment No. 31 (2004) on the nature of the general legal obligation imposed on States parties to the Covenant;’
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report regarding the List of Issues can be found HERE.
The List of Issues can be found HERE.
The Global Initiative’s Parallel Report on the legal analysis for the periodic review can be found HERE.
The Joint Global Initiative – International Human Rights Clinic at Western New England University School of Law factual Parallel Reports can be found HERE and HERE.
A Summary of the Human Rights Committee's questioning can be found HERE.
Concluding Observations on the United States can be found HERE.
Ana Clara works as a Programme Officer on Public Services with the Global Initiative for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. She holds a master’s degree in Human Rights and Humanitarian Action from Sciences Po in Paris, where she focused on economic, social, and cultural Rights, and Latin American and gender studies. She holds a Bachelor of Laws from Universidade Federal de Mato Grosso in Brazil.
Ana Clara previously worked on litigation claims concerning the right to social security and the right to health at the Public Defender’s Office and Federal Court of Justice in Brazil. She also supported the work of the Special Rapporteur on Economic, Social, Cultural, and Environmental Rights of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. Recently, she worked on strategic litigation before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights as part of the team of the Center for Justice and International Law.
Ana Clara, country is Brazil (Based in Paris).
ASHINA MTSUMI
PROGRAMME OFFICER -PUBLIC SERVICES & REPRESENTATIVE FOR AFRICA
Ashina works as the Programme Officer for Public Services and Representative for Africa with the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She is an Advocate of the High Court of Kenya, with an LL.B degree from the University of Nairobi, Kenya, and an LL.M (with distinction) in Human Rights and Democratisation in Africa from the Centre for Human Rights, University of Pretoria, South Africa.
Passionate about social justice, she has worked in the human rights sector for over six years at the intersection of global and national struggles for just systems of public service delivery to ensure everyone can enjoy their socio-economic rights, first at the Economic and Social Rights Centre-Hakijamii in Kenya and then at GI-ESCR. In particular, she has led and supported research and advocacy at local, national and global research and advocacy focused on the human rights legal framework relating to the rights to land, housing, education, health and water, for marginalised communities. Her research interests also include human rights and economic policy and the contribution that human rights obligations can make to the formulation and implementation of economic policy.
Ashina is based in Nairobi, Kenya.
BELÉN QUELLET
SENIOR COMMUNICATIONS OFFICER
Belén has a BA in International Relations. She lived in India and the Philippines just after graduating where she volunteered for three years in health and education projects. Upon her return to Argentina, where she is native from, she joined Red Solidaria as volunteer and international aid coordinator. She worked as a journalist and program manager at La Nación newspaper foundation in Buenos Aires, to later become Social Media information specialist at the US Embassy in Buenos Aires. She acted there as Liaison Officer with other sections and became Grant Officer representative. She was selected to become HelpArgentina's Executive Director to help expand fundraising opportunities abroad for NGOs from other Latin American countries, and successfully transitioned the organization into PILAS, Portal for Investment in the Latin American Social Sector. From there she moved on to working at a new media startup, RED/ACCION, as Engagement Editor and Membership coordinator before joining us as Communications Officer.
Belén is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
LORENA ZENTENO
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Lorena Zenteno is a PhD student at the University of Edinburgh. Her primary research interests include the human rights dimensions of climate change and environmental impacts, climate change justice, gender, and the judiciary’s role in the climate change crisis. Lorena has worked for several years in Chile, as a judge, as a law clerk, in the Court of Appeal of Concepcion, Santiago and in the Constitutional Chamber of the Supreme Court of Chile. She is a member of the Environment and Human Rights Commission of the National Association of the Chilean Judiciary, dedicated to study and discuss climate change and environmental impacts on human rights. Lorena is the Chilean National Rapporteur on Global Climate Litigation database for the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law of Columbia University.
She was a senior researcher for the former UN Special Rapporteur on Cultural Rights, Karima Bennoune, from September 2018 until September 2021. Supported and assisted the UN Special Rapporteur to fulfil his mandate to the UN General Assembly and UN Human Rights Council.
She holds an LL.B. from Universidad de Concepcion, a LL.M. in Environmental Law from the University of Davis, California, and a Master in Business Law from the University Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona, Spain. Lorena is a member of the the Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment.
Lorena is based in Geneva, Swiss.
ZSUZSANNA NYITRAY
PROGRAMME OFFICER -RIGHT TO EDUCATION
Zsuzsanna works as Right to Education Officer with the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Prior to joining GI-ESCR, she assisted in the drafting process of the Abidjan Principles on the Right to Education and the development and publication process of the Commentary of the Abidjan Principles as a consultant. Previously, she has worked with the Open Society Justice Initiative as an Aryeh Neier Fellow on issues such as equality and non-discrimination, Roma rights, the right to education, economic justice, access to justice and the rule of law. She has also worked as a lawyer with the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union on educational segregation, Roma rights and hate crimes. She holds an LL.M in Public International Law from the University of Edinburgh and a Law Degree from the Eötvös Loránd University Budapest.
Zsuzsanna is based in Budapest, Hungary.
DONATE
If you enjoy our work, please consider making a donation!
No amount is too small. Your contribution will help us fight for transformative change to end endemic problems of social and economic injustice.
The Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organisation. Donations are tax-deductible in many countries, including the United States.
MAGDALENA ROCHI
PROGRAMME OFFICER - CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Magdalena works as Programme Officer on Climate and Environmental Justice for the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She is an international lawyer working on the intersections between human rights, environmental and economic law. Prior to joining GI-ESCR, she worked dealing with the protection of economic and social rights in Argentina, at an NGO focused on strategic litigation and as a clerk in the judiciary. She holds an LL.B. and a JD from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, where she specialised in International Law and an LL.M from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Switzerland.
Magdalena is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
ASHINA MTSUMI
OFICIAL DE PROGRAMA - SERVICIOS PÚBLICOS Y REPRESENTANTE PARA ÁFRICA
Ashina es oficial del Programa para los Servicios Públicos y Representante para África de la Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Es abogada de la Corte Suprema de Kenia, egresada (LL.B) de la Universidad de Nairobi, Kenia, y con un máster (LL.M) en derechos humanos y democratización en África, completado con honores, en el Centro para los Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Pretoria en Sudáfrica. Ashina es una apasionada de la justicia social, y ha trabajado en el área de los derechos humanos en el marco de las luchas nacionales y mundiales por sistemas más justos de prestación de servicios públicos, que garanticen a todos el disfrute de sus derechos socioeconómicos. Primero trabajó en el Economic and Social Rights Centre de Hakijamii, Kenia, y luego, en el GI-ESCR. Concretamente, ha dirigido y apoyado la investigación y la defensa, a nivel local, nacional y mundial, del marco legal de derechos humanos para los derechos de las comunidades marginadas a la tierra, la vivienda, la educación, la salud y el agua. Sus intereses en la investigación se orientan también a los derechos humanos y las políticas económicas, así como a la contribución que el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos hace a la formulación y ejecución de las políticas económicas.
Ashina reside en Nairobi, Kenia.
ZSUZSANNA NYITRAY
OFICIAL DE PROGRAMA - DERECHO A LA EDUCACIÓN
Zsuzsanna es oficial del Programa de Derecho a la Educación de la Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Antes de unirse a GI-ESCR, colaboró, como consultora, en la redacción de los Principios de Abiyán sobre el derecho a la educación, así como en la elaboración y publicación del Comentario de los Principios de Abiyán. Previamente, Zsuzsanna trabajó con la Open Society Justice Initiative como becaria de la Aryeh Neier Fellowship, en temas como la igualdad y la no discriminación, los derechos de los romaníes (Roma Rights), el derecho a la educación, la justicia económica, el acceso a la justicia y el estado de derecho. También ha trabajado como abogada con la Hungarian Civil Liberties en la segregación educativa, los derechos de los Romaníes y los crímenes de odio. Tiene un máster (LL.M) en derecho público Internacional por la Universidad de Edimburgo y una licenciatura en Derecho por la Universidad Eötvös Loránd, Budapest.
Zsuzsanna reside en Budapest, Hungría.
BELÉN QUELLET
SENIOR AGENT DE COMMUNICATION
Belén est titulaire d’un BA en relations internationales. Juste après avoir obtenu son diplôme, elle a vécu en Inde et aux Philippines, où elle s'est portée volontaire pendant trois ans pour des projets de santé et d'éducation. À son retour en Argentine, d'où elle est originaire, elle a rejoint Red Solidaria en tant que volontaire et coordinatrice de l'aide internationale. Elle a travaillé comme journaliste et responsable de programme à la fondation du journal La Nación à Buenos Aires, pour devenir ensuite spécialiste de l'information sur les médias sociaux à l'ambassade des États-Unis à Buenos Aires. Elle y a joué le rôle d'agent de liaison avec les autres sections et est devenue représentante des agents de subvention. Elle a été choisie pour devenir la directrice exécutive de HelpArgentina afin d'aider à développer les possibilités de collecte de fonds à l'étranger pour les ONG d'autres pays d'Amérique latine, et a réussi la transition de l'organisation vers PILAS, le portail d'investissement dans le secteur social latino-américain. Elle a ensuite travaillé pour une start-up de nouveaux médias, RED/ACCION, en tant que rédactrice chargée de l'engagement et coordinatrice des membres, avant de nous rejoindre en tant que responsable de la communication.
Belén vit à Buenos Aires, en Argentine.
ANA CLARA CATHALAT
OFICIAL ASOCIADO DE PROGRAMA- SERVICIOS PÚBLICOS
Ana Clara Cathalat colabora como socia en la Global Initiative for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, mientras prosigue con su máster en derechos humanos y acción humanitaria en la Universidad Sciences Po, París. Allí centra su interés en los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales y en estudios de género en América Latina. Tiene una licenciatura en derecho por la Universidad Federal de Mato Grosso, Brasil.
Previamente, Ana Clara trabajó en reclamaciones judiciales relacionadas con el derecho a la seguridad social y el derecho a la salud en la Oficina del Defensor Público y el Tribunal Federal de Brasil. Asimismo, apoyó la labor del Relator Especial en Derechos Económicos, Sociales, Culturales y Ambientales de la Comisión Interamericana de Derechos Humanos. Recientemente, trabajó en litigios estratégicos ante la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos, como miembro del equipo del Centro por la Justicia y el Derecho Internacional.
Ana Clara, Brasil. (Reside en París).
LORENA ZENTENO
INVESTIGADORA ASOCIADA
Lorena Zenteno es estudiante de doctorado en la Universidad de Edimburgo. Entre sus principales intereses de investigación se encuentran el impacto del cambio climático y su efecto ambiental sobre los derechos humanos, la justicia ambiental, el género y el papel del sistema de justicia en la crisis por el cambio climático. Trabajó varios años en Chile como jueza y como asistente jurídico en la Corte de Apelaciones de Concepción, Santiago, y en la Sala Constitucional de la Corte Suprema de Chile. Es miembro de la Comisión de los Derechos Humanos y Ambientales de la Asociación Nacional de Magistrados y Magistradas de Chile, la cual se dedica a estudiar el impacto del cambio climático y su efecto ambiental sobre los derechos humanos. Lorena es la relatora nacional chilena de la base de datos de los litigios por el cambio climático del Sabin Center for Climate Change Law de la Universidad de Columbia.
Trabajó como investigadora principal para la Relatora Especial sobre los Derechos Culturales de las Naciones Unidas, Karina Bennoune, desde septiembre de 2018 hasta septiembre de 2021. Apoyó y asistió al Relator Especial de las Naciones Unidas en sus labores ante la Asamblea General y el Consejo de Derechos Humanos de las Naciones Unidas.
Tiene una licenciatura en derecho por la Universidad de Concepción, un máster en derecho ambiental por la Universidad de Davis, California, y un máster en derecho empresarial por la Universidad Pompeu Fabra en Barcelona, España. Lorena es miembro de la Global Network for the Study of Human Rights and the Environment.
Lorena reside en Ginebra, Suiza.
MAGDALENA ROCHI
PROGRAMME OFFICER - CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
Magdalena works as Programme Officer on Climate and Environmental Justice for the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She is an international lawyer working on the intersections between human rights, environmental and economic law. Prior to joining GI-ESCR, she worked dealing with the protection of economic and social rights in Argentina, at an NGO focused on strategic litigation and as a clerk in the judiciary. She holds an LL.B. and a JD from the University of Buenos Aires, Argentina, where she specialised in International Law and an LL.M from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, Switzerland.
Magdalena is based in Buenos Aires, Argentina.
DONATE
Si le gusta nuestro trabajo, considere hacer una donación.
Ninguna cantidad es demasiado pequeña. Su contribución nos ayudará a luchar por un cambio transformador para poner fin a los problemas endémicos de la injusticia social y económica.
La Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights es una organización sin fines de lucro 501(c)(3). Las donaciones son deducibles de impuestos en muchos países, incluyendo Estados Unidos.
This website uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience.
OFICIAL DE PROGRAMA - SERVICIOS PÚBLICOS Y REPRESENTANTE PARA ÁFRICA
Ashina es oficial del Programa para los Servicios Públicos y Representante para África de la Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Es abogada de la Corte Suprema de Kenia, egresada (LL.B) de la Universidad de Nairobi, Kenia, y con un máster (LL.M) en derechos humanos y democratización en África, completado con honores, en el Centro para los Derechos Humanos de la Universidad de Pretoria en Sudáfrica. Ashina es una apasionada de la justicia social, y ha trabajado en el área de los derechos humanos en el marco de las luchas nacionales y mundiales por sistemas más justos de prestación de servicios públicos, que garanticen a todos el disfrute de sus derechos socioeconómicos. Primero trabajó en el Economic and Social Rights Centre de Hakijamii, Kenia, y luego, en el GI-ESCR. Concretamente, ha dirigido y apoyado la investigación y la defensa, a nivel local, nacional y mundial, del marco legal de derechos humanos para los derechos de las comunidades marginadas a la tierra, la vivienda, la educación, la salud y el agua. Sus intereses en la investigación se orientan también a los derechos humanos y las políticas económicas, así como a la contribución que el cumplimiento de los derechos humanos hace a la formulación y ejecución de las políticas económicas.
Ashina reside en Nairobi, Kenia.
ZSUZSANNA NYITRAY
RESPONSABLE DE PROGRAMME - DROIT À l’ÉDUCATION
Zsuzsanna travaille actuellement en tant que responsable du droit à l'éducation pour l'Initiative mondiale pour les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. Avant de rejoindre GI-ESCR, elle a participé, en tant que consultante, au processus de rédaction des Principes d'Abidjan sur le droit à l'éducation et au développement et à la publication du Commentaire des Principes d'Abidjan. Auparavant, elle a travaillé avec l'Open Society Justice Initiative en tant que boursière Aryeh Neier sur des questions telles que l'égalité et la non-discrimination, les droits des Roms, le droit à l'éducation, la justice économique, l'accès à la justice et l'État de droit. Elle a également travaillé en tant qu'avocate pour l'Union hongroise des libertés civiles sur la ségrégation scolaire, les droits des Roms et les crimes haineux. Elle est titulaire d'un master en droit international public de l'Université d'Édimbourg et d'un diplôme de droit de l'Université Eötvös Loránd de Budapest.
Zsuzsanna vit à Budapest, en Hongrie.
ANA CLARA CATHALAT
CHARGÉE DE PROGRAMME ASSOCIÉE – SERVICES PUBLICS
Ana Clara Cathalat collabore actuellement, dans le cadre d’une bourse, à l’Initiative mondiale pour les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, tout en préparant un master en droits de l'Homme et action humanitaire à Sciences Po Paris, où elle se spécialise en droits économiques, sociaux et culturels, ainsi qu’en études de genre et latino-américaines. Elle a une licence de droit de l’Université Fédérale du Mato Grosso au Brésil.
Ana Clara a auparavant travaillé sur des actions en justice relatives au droit à la sécurité sociale et au droit à la santé auprès du Bureau de l’aide juridictionnelle et de la Cour de justice fédérale du Brésil. Elle a également appuyé les travaux de la Rapporteuse spéciale sur les droits économiques, sociaux, culturels et environnementaux de la Commission interaméricaine des droits de l'Homme. Elle a récemment travaillé sur des actions en justice dans des cas stratégiques auprès de la Cour interaméricaine des droits de l'Homme, au sein de l’équipe du Centre pour la Justice et le Droit International (CEJIL).
Ana Clara, le pays est le Brésil (Basée à Paris).
LORENA ZENTENO
ASSOCIÉE DE RECHERCHE
Lorena Zenteno est doctorante à l’Université d’Édimbourg. Ses principaux thèmes de recherche sont les dimensions du changement climatique et des problèmes écologiques relatives aux droits de l'Homme, la justice climatique, le genre, et le rôle de la Justice dans la crise du changement climatique. Lorena a travaillé pendant plusieurs années au Chili, comme juge et comme légiste, auprès des Cours d’appel de Concepción et Santiago et de la Chambre constitutionnelle de la Cour suprême du Chili. Elle fait partie de la Commission de l’environnement et des droits de l'Homme de l’Association nationale de la magistrature chilienne, dont la mission est d’étudier et de débattre des conséquences du changement climatique et des problèmes écologiques sur les droits de l'Homme. Lorena est la Rapporteuse nationale chilienne sur la base mondiale des actions en justice climatiques pour le Centre Sabin pour le droit du changement climatique de l’Université de Columbia.
Elle a occupé le rôle de chercheuse principale pour l’ancienne Rapporteuse spéciale sur les droits culturels de l’ONU, Karima Bennoune, entre septembre 2018 et septembre 2021. Elle a appuyé et soutenu la Rapporteuse spéciale de l’ONU dans l’accomplissement de son mandat conféré par l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU et le Conseil des droits de l'Homme de l’ONU.
Elle a une licence de droit de l’Université de Concepción, un master en droit de l’environnement de l’Université de Davis (California) et un master en droit des affaires de l’Université Pompeu Fabra de Barcelone (Espagne). Lorena fait partie du Réseau mondiale pour l’étude des droits de l'Homme et de l’environnement.
Lorena vit à le Chili, basé à Genève.
DONNER
Si vous aimez notre travail, pensez à faire un don !
Aucun montant n'est trop petit. Votre contribution nous aidera à lutter pour un changement transformateur afin de mettre fin aux problèmes endémiques d'injustice sociale et économique.
L'Initiative mondiale pour les droits économiques, sociaux et culturels est une organisation à but non lucratif 501(c)(3). Les dons sont déductibles des impôts dans de nombreux pays, y compris aux États-Unis.
BELÉN QUELLET
SENIOR OFICIAL DE COMUNICACIONES
Belén es licenciada en Relaciones Internacionales. Apenas se graduó, vivió en la India y en Filipinas, donde fue voluntaria durante tres años en proyectos de salud y educación. Al regresar a su nativa Argentina se incorporó a la Red Solidaria como voluntaria y coordinadora de ayuda internacional. Trabajó como periodista y gestora de programas de la fundación del diario La Nación en Buenos Aires, para luego convertirse en especialista en información de medios sociales en la Embajada de Estados Unidos en Buenos Aires. Allí actuó como oficial de enlace con otras secciones y se convirtió en oficial representante de los programas de subvenciones. Fue seleccionada como Directora Ejecutiva de HelpArgentina con la función de ampliar las oportunidades de recaudación de fondos internacionales de las ONG de otros países latinoamericanos, y logró la transición exitosa de la organización hacia PILAS, Portal para la Inversión Social en Latinoamérica. De allí pasó a trabajar en una nueva empresa de medios de comunicación, RED/ACCION, como editora y coordinadora de membresías, antes de unirse al equipo de la GI-ESCR como oficial de comunicaciones.
Belén reside en Buenos Aires, Argentina.
CAMILA BARRETTO MAIA
DIRECTORA EJECUTIVA
Camila cuenta con más de 14 años de experiencia en abogacía a niveles nacional, regional y multilateral, especializándose en la supervisión de investigaciones y litigios sobre diversos temas de derechos humanos. Ha residido en Buenos Aires, donde trabajó en el Centro de Estudios Legales y Sociales (CELS), coordinando esfuerzos internacionales durante cuatro años. Camila posee una maestría en Administración Pública y Política Pública de la Fundación Getulio Vargas en San Pablo y una licenciatura en Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad de Brasilia.
Camila reside en Brasilia, Brasil. .
ANA DI FILIPPO
RESEARCH ASSOCIATE
Ana Emilia Di Filippo is currently pursuing the qualifying Master’s to become a lawyer in Spain at the Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. She also holds two undergraduate degrees, having graduated with a Bachelor of Laws from IE University and with a Bachelor of Science in Politics, Psychology, Law and Economics (Major in Comparative Law) from the University of Amsterdam. During her studies, she specialised her research on International Tax Law, particularly focusing on its transformative power and its potential to achieve social justice worldwide. In this framework, her latest research assessed the potential of the United Nations Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation to advance procedural and substantive justice in the international tax regime.
Ana is based in Madrid, Spain.
ANA DI FILIPPO
INVESTIGADORA ASOCIADA
Ana Emilia Di Filippo está cursando actualmente el Máster habilitante para ejercer como abogada en España en la Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. También posee dos títulos de grado, habiéndose graduado con un Grado en Derecho de IE University y con un Grado en Ciencias en Política, Psicología, Derecho y Economía (con especialización en Derecho Comparado) de la Universidad de Ámsterdam. Durante sus estudios, se especializó en investigación sobre Derecho Fiscal Internacional, enfocándose particularmente en su poder transformador y su potencial para lograr justicia social a nivel mundial. En este marco, su investigación más reciente evaluó el potencial de la Convención Marco de las Naciones Unidas sobre Cooperación Fiscal Internacional para promover la justicia procedimental y sustantiva en el régimen fiscal internacional.
Ana reside en Madrid, España.
ANA CAROLINA GONZÁLEZ ESPINOSA
BOARD MEMBER
Ana Carolina is the Senior Director for Programs at NRGI. She works closely with thematic and regional program staff to advance strategic priorities, specially on just transitions and fair and sustainable economic and energy transition pathways in fossil fuel producing countries. She oversights strategy and implementation in the engagement with women, youth and communities around social and environmental governance, as well as in approaches to capacity development and influencing. Ana Carolina has more than 20 years of academic and professional experience in development, especially in relation to resource governance, communities’ participation, climate change and the energy transition.
She has been a visiting researcher at Columbia University in New York and at the Universidad Católica in Peru. She is currently an associate researcher at the Universidad Externado de Colombia. She has worked as a research and project consultant with the United Nations Development Programme, the International Finance Corporation, the Inter-American Development Bank, Transparency International—Colombia, NRGI and the Stockholm Environment Institute. She was a member of the international board of directors of the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (EITI) and the national EITI committee in Colombia, and she co-founded a coalition of civil society organizations and a non-governmental organisation in the field of governance. Most recently, Ana Carolina worked as a senior program officer of the natural resource and climate change program of the Ford Foundation, where she managed grantmaking monitoring and convening activities for the global initiative. She actively contributed to donor collaborative platforms working on climate change, communities’ land rights, transparency, accountability and energy.
Ana Carolina is from Colombia. She holds a Ph.D. in political science and two master’s degrees—in development and in comparative politics—from the Institute of Political Studies (Sciences Po) in Paris, France, as well as a bachelor’s degree in government and international relations from Universidad Externado de Colombia. She is fluent in English, French and Spanish.
SARA ALESSI
INTERN
Sara is currently working with the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as an intern. She holds a master's degree in law from the University of Turin in Italy, where she specialised in International Law and her thesis was entitled 'Rape as a War Crime: the Case of the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina', focusing on the legal and humanitarian dimensions of armed conflict and accountability mechanisms. Additionally, Sara is an LL.M. candidate from the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights. Prior to joining GIESCR, she volunteered with an Ugandan NGO to contribute to the educational and emotional well-being of children by valuing the importance of the right to education.
Sara is based in Geneva.
ANGÉLICA ZAMORA
BOARD MEMBER
Angélica Zamora is a social justice expert with more than a decade of experience in political philanthropy supporting human rights, feminist, racial and intersectional justice movements globally. She served as a manager at the Open Society Foundations (OSF), where she led regional and global programs advancing human rights and democratic values across diverse political contexts. She has designed and directed initiatives in areas such as citizen security and violence reduction, human rights and democratic resilience, especially in Latin America and the Caribbean. Prior to her tenure at OSF, Angélica was a researcher and activist supporting Colombia’s peace process and served in the country’s reparations and humanitarian assistance agency, where she engaged with communities affected by historical inequality and violence to co-design and implement programs focused on victims’ rights and access to state services in conflict-affected territories.
Angélica is from Colombia. She obtained her law degree from the Universidad Nacional de Colombia, her LL.M. from American University's Washington College of Law and a degree in Transparency, Corruption and Accountability from the Centro de Derechos Humanos at the Universidad de Chile.
BENEDETTA PANAGIA
INTERN
Benedetta is currently an intern at the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. She holds a master’s degree in law from Roma Tre University in Italy, where she specialised in international law. Her thesis, “International Sanctions and Humanitarian Action in Light of UNSC Resolution 2664”, focused on the impact of sanctions on economic, social and cultural rights and on the humanitarian dimension of sanctioning regimes. Benedetta is also an LL.M. candidate at the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights.
Benedetta is based in Geneva.
TATIANA ZINN
INTERN
Tatiana is a human rights researcher from the United States pursuing an M.A. in Human Rights Studies at Columbia University. Her work focuses on gender-based violence, conflict-related sexual violence, and international human rights law. Her current research examines ISIS’s use of sexual violence in Iraq and the role of gender-based violence in armed conflict.
Tatiana graduated with honors from UCLA with a B.A. in Global Studies. She has experience in survivor advocacy, human rights education, and research on issues related to gender, conflict, and international justice.
