Skip to content

Asking whose lives matter in the battle for social, cultural, and economic rights

Why the failure to enforce social, cultural, and economic rights means that the lives of some groups are valued more than others.

Published:
PA-24032154.jpg
PA-24032154.jpg

Press Association/Jonathan Brady. All rights reserved.

2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Over the past five decades, there has been growing recognition of economic, social and cultural rights in both international and domestic systems of law. However, there is still resistance to accepting the indivisibility between civil and political rights on the one hand and economic, social and cultural rights on the other. An example of such resistance can be found in the discussions of a new General Comment on the Right to Life by the UN Human Rights Committee, particularly in regards to the right to housing. As stressed by the UN Special Rapporteur Leilani Fahra in her last report on the right to adequate housing: “the death rate among homeless people ranges from two to ten times higher than for those who are not homeless” (A/71/310, August 2016). This is, therefore, a matter that requires urgent recognition.

The broadening of the concept of the right to life to include the protection of economic, social and cultural rights is, at its core, a matter of equality. This is because individuals in different circumstances face different threats to their right to life. If we are to guarantee the right to life for diversely situated individuals, whether they be poor or rich, woman or man, straight or gay, black or white, transgender or intersex, with disabilities, and of any age or nationality, we must recognise that hazards vary in each situation. Moreover, we must learn to recognise more than the threats imposed by circumstances where a state acts directly to kill, evict or deport someone in serious health conditions. Instead, we should also consider circumstances where the state fails to provide access to, for instance, adequate housing, health services or water. We need to consider not only negative state obligations, but also positive state obligations.