Water privatisation and socio-economic rights in South Africa

No Abstrac

In search of philosophical justifications and suitable models for the horizontal application of human rights

This article critiques the dominant view that human rights do not bind non-state actors. It ties the dominant discourse to the natural rights theory and, to a lesser extent, the positivist school of thought. A critique of these traditions reveals that there are no insurmountable philosophical barriers to recognising the application of human rights to non-state actors and the private sphere. Drawing on Marxist and feminist philosophical schools, as well as African conceptions of human rights, it argues that the view that non-state actors should be bound by human rights can be defended philosophically. The article ends with an analysis of the various options through which human rights obligations of non-state actors may be enforced within a domestic constitutional framework

The horizontal application of constitutional rights in a comparative perspective

No Abstrac

Child poverty and children’s rights of access to food and basic nutrition in South Africa : A contextual, jurisprudential and policy analysis

The rights to food and basic nutrition have been implemented rather unsystematically in South Africa through a hodgepodge of policies and indirectly by legislation. In view of the dearth of jurisprudence, this paper sought to tease out the meaning of children’s right of access to food as well as their right to basic nutrition, to analyse the significance of, and correlation between, these two rights, and to consider their implications for South African law and policy.This paper was prepared with financial support from the Norwegian Embassy through the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights and with supplementary funding from the Ford Foundation

Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Sustainable Development Goals, and Duties of Corporations: Rejecting the False Dichotomies

The attention that the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) has given to public–private partnerships in solving global concerns including poverty, sustainable development and climate change has shed new light on the question of duties of corporations in relation to economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights. At the same time, objections to recognizing the obligations of corporations in relation to human rights in general and to ESC rights in particular have continued to be made. At the formal level, these objections are reflected in new distinctions such as between the duties of states and responsibilities of corporations, between primary duties of states and secondary duties of corporations, and between obligations of compliance and obligations of performance. All these objections and distinctions are untenable and serve only to stultify the discourse on business and human rights. The current state of human rights is dynamic, not static; commodious, not stale. There is ample space in it to accommodate duties of corporations regarding ESC rights

The WHO’s 75th anniversary: WHO at a pivotal moment in history

The World Health Organisation (WHO) was inaugurated in 1948 to bring the world together to ensure the highest attainable standard of health for all. Establishing health governance under the United Nations (UN), WHO was seen as the preeminent leader in public health, promoting a healthier world following the destruction of World War II and ensuring global solidarity to prevent disease and promote health. Its constitutional function would be ‘to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health work’. Yet today, as the world commemorates WHO’s 75th anniversary, it faces a historic global health crisis, with governments presenting challenges to its institutional legitimacy and authority amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. WHO governance in the coming years will define the future of the Organisation and, crucially, the health and well-being of billions of people across the globe. At this pivotal moment, WHO must learn critical lessons from its past and make fundamental reforms to become the Organisation it was meant to be. We propose reforms in WHO financing, governance, norms, human rights and equity that will lay a foundation for the next generation of global governance for health

The World Health Organization was born as a normative agency: Seventy-five years of global health law under WHO governance

The World Health Organization (WHO) was born as a normative agency and has looked to global health law to structure collective action to realize global health with justice. Framed by its constitutional authority to act as the directing and coordinating authority on international health, WHO has long been seen as the central actor in the development and implementation of global health law. However, WHO has faced challenges in advancing law to prevent disease and promote health over the past 75 years, with global health law constrained by new health actors, shifting normative frameworks, and soft law diplomacy. These challenges were exacerbated amid the COVID-19 pandemic, as states neglected international legal commitments in national health responses. Yet, global health law reforms are now underway to strengthen WHO governance, signaling a return to lawmaking for global health. Looking back on WHO’s 75th anniversary, this article examines the central importance of global health law under WHO governance, reviewing the past successes, missed opportunities, and future hopes for WHO. For WHO to meet its constitutional authority to become the normative agency it was born to be, we offer five proposals to reestablish a WHO fit for purpose: normative instruments, equity and human rights mainstreaming, sustainable financing, One Health, and good governance. Drawing from past struggles, these reforms will require further efforts to revitalize hard law authorities in global health, strengthen WHO leadership across the global governance landscape, uphold equity and rights at the center of global health law, and expand negotiations in global health diplomacy