Human Rights Education for All: A Proposal for the Post-2015 Development Agenda

The Millennium Development Goals (“MDGs”) have been highly successful in bringing commitment, expertise and funding to key human development targets in education, health, gender equality and other poverty reduction measures. Yet, the MDGs failed to integrate, or even align with, the international human rights laws to which states have committed themselves. Many commentators argue that linking the post-2015 Sustainable Development Goals with human rights would bring greater participation by people living in poverty in creating the agenda intended for their benefit, higher levels of accountability from governments and international organizations, greater attention to marginalized groups and economic inequality, and a universal framework that addresses poverty in high- and middle-income states, as well as low-income states. Universal human rights education–mandated during the free and compulsory school years–is one goal that could effectively integrate human rights into the post-2015 development agenda. This goal promotes universality, equality and nondiscrimination, participation and accountability, key human rights principles missing from the current MDG framework. It also furthers one of the main purposes of the United Nations–to promote respect for, and observance of, human rights for all–and derives from the international legal obligation to provide free and compulsory primary education that aims to promote the realization of human rights. Finally, it will build the capacity of rightsholders to demand their rights and duty-bearer to meet their obligations. In sum, universal human rights education is a human rights-based approach to development and merits serious consideration as a goal for the post-2015 agenda

Inequalities, Human Rights, and Sustainable Development Goal 10

Most of the 17 new Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and targets echo the goals and targets in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) framework. SDG 10 — reduce inequality within and among countries — is, however, completely new. The idea that the global community should work together toward equality had no part in the MDG framework, which focused on reducing poverty rather than making a more equal world. From a human rights perspective, the inclusion of the new SDG on reducing inequality is a great step forward. Notably, Oxfam reported in January 2017 that the eight wealthiest men in the world own the same wealth as the 3.6 billion people who make up the poorest half of the global population. Such a distribution of wealth and other economic and social outcomes cannot be consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclamation that “[a]ll human beings are born free and equal in rights and dignity.” Nonetheless, the targets under SDG 10 are disappointing, as they do not aim at reducing economic or social inequality specifically but rather at raising the income and other human development indicators for those worst off. None of the SDG 10 targets references reducing the glaring inequalities between the wealthy and the poor. This paper examines SDG 10 on reducing inequality from a holistic human rights perspective. It begins by examining the meanings of equality and nondiscrimination in international human rights law. Through this lens, the paper seeks to decipher the meanings of inequality in SDG 10 and its targets by delving into the debates during the consultations on the post-2015 development agenda and the subsequent discussion on indicators. It concludes that the new SDG on inequality, although seemingly promising, makes little change to the MDG framework that focused on poverty reduction

Does the Right to Equality Extend to Economic and Social Rights?

We are familiar with ‘equality before the law\u27 and ‘one-person-one-vote’ as standards of the right to equality in international and domestic law. These standards address equality of civil and political rights. This paper considers whether the right to equality in international human rights law extends to economic and social rights as well. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and human rights.” On its face, this article appears to require equality of all rights – including economic and social rights. Yet, many human rights scholars maintain that human rights do not address economic and social inequalities, at least directly. Rather, they maintain that reducing economic and social inequalities is merely instrumental to realizing human rights. Based on rules of interpretation of human rights treaties, this paper goes against the grain, arguing that the right to equality extends to economic and social rights. Economic and social equality is not simply instrumental to human rights. It is core to the holistic human rights framework that encompasses civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. The paper then considers the level of economic and social equality that is required under international human rights law. Turning to existing policies that reduce economic and social inequalities, as well as social science literature on the impacts of economic and social inequalities on a range of human rights, the paper argues that the evidence shows that much greater economic and social equality will be necessary to fully realize human rights for all

A Human Rights Lens on Full Employment and Decent Work in the Post-2015 Development Agenda (abstract)

Since the turn of the Millennium the elimination of global poverty has been a top priority of the international community. In the United Nations Millennium Declaration, the leaders from 189 nations committed to work together for poverty eradication, human rights and global peace. Toward these ends, the Declaration was transformed into Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and targets that aimed to unify governments, international organizations, foundations and nongovernmental organizations to focus their expertise, efforts and funds on achieving specific targets in the areas of poverty reduction, education, gender equality, health and other areas of human development. Yet, the MDGs failed to take into account a key element of poverty reduction and human development, namely decent work. The International Labour Organization, the UN specialized agency that focuses on work and poverty, has recognized for almost 100 years that “the best way to avoid a life of poverty is to find decent work” (ILO 2001). Moreover, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that everyone has the right to decent work. Nonetheless, the Millennium Declaration and the MDGs failed to acknowledge that decent work for all is an essential element of eradicating poverty, realizing human rights, and achieving global peace. In contrast to the MDG framework, the proposed Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) for the post-2015 international agenda look promising. Goal 8 of the proposal presented by the UN Open Working Group on the SDGs in July 2014 calls for full and productive employment and decent work for all by 2030, a proposal the UN General Assembly will consider in September 2015. This paper reflects over the shortcomings of the MDGs and considers the decent work SDG and its potential in the post-2015 framework to bring sustained efforts toward ensuring decent work as a means to eradicate poverty and realize human rights for all

Engaging Human Rights Norms to Realize Universal and Equitable Health Care in Massachusetts

Massachusetts health care law served as the model in 2010 for the federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA). In 2006, Massachusetts adopted sweeping health care reforms. The law sought to increase health care insurance coverage for residents of Massachusetts by: (1) Mandating that all adults in the state have health care insurance unless an affordable option was not available; (2) Expanding Medicaid; (3) Creating a new program of subsidized private insurance for low- and moderate-income residents; and (4) Establishing a transparent health care insurance market exchange. Previous studies on the Massachusetts health care reforms of 2006 have analyzed progress in comparison to the pre-2006 situation. Findings include the achievement of greater health insurance coverage and health service utilization; they also reveal that about 250,000 Massachusetts residents are still without health insurance; many people with health insurance cannot afford health care due to high deductibles and co-payments; and high medical debt and bankruptcies persist. Ten years after its adoption, this study assesses the success of the 2006 Massachusetts reforms by comparing the health care system today not to the pre-2006 situation, but to international legal and ethical norms on the human right to health care. Additionally, researchers interviewed twenty-five experts on the Massachusetts 2006 health care reform to explore their opinions on whether human rights frameworks generally, or the international human right to health care in particular, could be useful in securing universal and equitable health care in the state. The study concludes with recommendations on the ways in which human rights norms might be most usefully engaged toward realizing the right to health care for all in Massachusetts. As many of the Massachusetts reforms have now been adopted, pursuant to the PPACA, in other states, the insights from this study might prove useful beyond Massachusetts as well

A right-to-health lens on perinatal mental health care in South Africa

South African women experience some of the highest rates of depression and anxiety globally. Despite South Africa's laudable human rights commitments to mental health in law, perinatal women are at high risk of common mental disorders due to socioeconomic factors, and they may lack access to mental health services. We used a right to mental health framework, paired with qualitative methods, to investigate barriers to accessing perinatal mental health care. Based on in-depth interviews with 14 key informants in South Africa, we found that (1) physical health was prioritized over mental health at the clinic level; (2) there were insufficient numbers of antenatal and mental health providers to ensure minimum essential levels of perinatal mental health services; (3) the implementation of human rights-based mental health policy has been inadequate; (4) the social determinants were absent from the clinic-level approach to mental health; and (5) a lack of context-specific provider training and support has undermined the quality of mental health promotion and care. We offer recommendations to address these barriers and improve approaches to perinatal mental health screening and care, guided by the following elements of the right to mental health: progressive realization; availability and accessibility; and acceptability and quality.Published versio

A Human Rights Perspective on Inequalities and the Climate Crisis

The climate crisis threaten lives every day with exceedingly high temperatures, violent storms, and persistent droughts. While we have known about these dangers for decades, little action has been taken to stop it. This inertia is largely due to inequalities within and between countries. High-income countries have contributed most to climate change as their economies are based on fossil fuels, which has resulted in high rates of CO2 emissions. However, those in power in high-income countries benefit from the current economic arrangements and so use their power to maintain the status quo – even while it threatens our existence. Middle- and low-income countries have contributed far less to CO2 emissions, yet suffer more from climate change and have the least resources to mitigate or adapt. Meanwhile the crisis deepens day by day and the global response remains minimal. Human rights provides a legitimate, cohesive and effective legal and ethical framework for action on the climate crisis. The global responses to the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 crisis have demonstrated the extremely negative impacts of ignoring human rights in formulating and implementing policy responses to global crises. In both instances, the crisis and the responses to the crisis have deepened already extreme economic and social inequalities, setting us up for further crises. What can we learn from the response to the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 crisis that we can use in responding to the climate crisis? How can we ensure that the trillions of dollars spent post-COVID-19 to reactivate economies around the globe will bring about greater equality while also reducing the risks of climate change? What human rights norms and standards do we apply in formulating responses to the impending climate crisis