Knaack, Frank

English

Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law

Human Rights BriefVolume 20 | Issue 2 Article 122013Intergovernmental OrganizationsFrank KnaackAmerican University Washington College of LawFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbriefPart of the Human Rights Law CommonsThis Column is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ AmericanUniversity Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact fbrown@wcl.american.edu.Recommended CitationKnaack, Frank. "Intergovernmental Organizations." Human Rights Brief 20, no. 2 (2013): 70-71.70INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONSun organS focuS on ParalyzIng debt cauSed by “Vulture fundS”The United Nations (UN) International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea ordered the release of the ARA Libertad, an Argentine naval ship, on December 15, 2012. A Ghanaian court impounded the ARA Libertad in October 2012 at the behest of the “vulture fund” NML Capital, a subsidiary of the U.S.-based investment firm Elliot Capital Management. NML Capital sought to hold the ship as leverage to secure partial payment of a debt that NML argues Argentina owes it following NML’s purchase of Argentinian debt, at a fraction of its face value, one year before Argentina’s $100 billion (USD) default. Though a majority of Argentina’s creditors accepted repayment at a lower rate, NML Capital refused to accept the debt repay-ment deal offered by Argentina. Instead, NML Capital sued Argentina for the full face value of the debt. The actions of vul-ture funds, like NML Capital, have come under increased scrutiny by development and human rights advocates, leading, in the situation of the United Kingdom and the Channel Island of Jersey, to legislation preventing the vulture funds from seeking excessive claims against heavily indebted countries. These companies undermine debt relief efforts that, in turn, lead to the deprivation of human rights.“Vulture funds” are companies that go after both private and sovereign debt during periods of crisis, when the debt is available at a fraction of its face value. Regarding sovereign debt, the African Development Bank found that, on average, vulture funds collect three to twenty times their invest-ment. The companies purchase debt with the explicit goal of seeking repayment at face value and rebuff any attempt by the indebted state to renegotiate. Vulture funds often force repayment of sovereign debt by utilizing foreign courts to secure verdicts against the debtor state. For example, the U.S.-based FG Hemisphere paid $3.3 mil-lion (USD) for a thirty-year-old debt owed by the former state of Zaire to the former state of Yugoslavia. FG Hemisphere then sued the Democratic Republic of Congo, Zaire’s successor state, in the courts of the Channel Island of Jersey for $100 million (USD). FG Hemisphere initially secured a judgment ordering Congo to pay the $100 million (USD), but a higher court later overturned the judgment. According to the World Bank, the top 26 vulture funds have already collected $1 billion (USD) from the world’s poorest states and the International Monetary Fund states that vulture funds are currently seeking another $1.47 billion (USD).Cephas Lumina, the United Nations Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, recently expressed concern about the negative impact of vulture funds on the realization of human rights. Lumina cautioned governments about allowing vulture funds to “paralyze debt relief for heavily indebted countries.” Pointing out the connection between debt and human rights, Lumina said that “reduced debt bur-dens and increased fiscal capacity contrib-ute to the creation of the conditions neces-sary for the realization of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights.” Vulture funds have also come to the attention of the full Human Rights Council. In June 2012, the UN Human Rights Council (the Council) endorsed the UN Guiding Principles on Foreign Debt and Human Rights (the Principles). Vulture funds’ failure to negotiate debt with the debtor state contravenes two of these principles. First, the Principles state: “[L]oan agreements should impose clear restrictions on the sale or assignment of debts to third parties by creditors with-out the prior informed consent of the Borrower State concerned. Every effort must be directed towards achieving a nego-tiated settlement between the creditor and the debtor.” Second, the Principles state: “[C]reditors should not sell sovereign debt on the secondary market to creditors that have previously refused to participate in agreed debt restructuring.” In its resolution adopting the Principles, the Council stated that the obligation to protect individuals’ human rights from vulture funds extends beyond the duty of private actors to refrain from actions that undermine human rights. As the Council affirmed, “the activities of vulture funds highlight some of the problems in the global financial system and are indicative of the unjust nature of the current system,” and it called on States to address the issue.As the Human Rights Council made clear, states have an obligation to rein in a business model that is fundamentally at odds with efforts to reduce debt burdens and better ensure human rights. And, with vulture funds currently circling around another $1.47 billion (USD), the realiza-tion of the UN Guiding Principles on Foreign Debt and Human Rights could provide a welcome reprieve to states in need of debt relief.un workIng grouP urgeS a bIndIng accountabIlIty mechanISm for PrIVate mIlItary and SecurIty comPanIeSRecent comments by a UN Working Group focused on private military and security companies (PMSCs) highlight the continuing need for an international convention to ensure that PMSCs respect international human rights and humanitar-ian law. PMSCs are a force and a control tool used by both state and non-state actors. Though PMSCs appear to be the modern mercenary, they do not necessarily fall under the narrow definition of merce-nary articulated in Article 47 of Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions and Article 1 of the International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries (which also criminalizes them). PMSCs operate in a variety of capacities formally viewed as the exclu-sive role of government, including com-bat, domestic policing, drug eradication, and post-conflict reconstruction. Private actors, such as multinational corporations, also utilize the services of PMSCs.Though existing prior to the September 11, 2001, attack in the United States, PMSCs have greatly benefited from the United States’s “global war on ter-ror,” with the industry now taking in an estimated $100 billion (USD) annually. Human rights concerns over this growing phenomenon led the UN Commission on Human Rights, in July 2005, to create the 1Knaack: Intergovernmental OrganizationsPublished by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 201371Working Group on the use of mercenar-ies as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination (Working Group). In July 2010, the Working Group submitted a draft international conven-tion on PMSCs for consideration by the Human Rights Council. The convention would reaffirm that States Parties are responsible and should have a monopoly of the legitimate use of force, would identify certain government functions that can-not be outsourced to PMSCs, and would require States Parties to take measures to ensure that PMSCs are held accountable for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law. In addition to States Parties, this convention would also apply to intergovernmental organizations. The Working Group’s latest country visit to Somalia in December 2012 highlights the need for this binding convention.Faiza Patel, the Chairperson of the Working Group, called on the Somali government to “ensure that private secu-rity forces are properly regulated and do not become a substitute for competent and accountable police.” Specifically, the Working Group noted concerns over the use of armed security on board vessels off the coast of Somalia. Though put in place to combat “piracy,” Patel found that “[t]he lack of regulations for armed security on ships and the absence of robust reporting for incidents at sea create[s] risks for human rights” violations. Concerns over the use of private security forces in Somalia followed on the heels of an alarm-ing statement issued by the Working Group one year earlier. In a press release, the Working Group noted that PMSCs “under-take an ever-larger range of activities in an increasing number of countries around the world.” In addition to the increased prevalence of PMSCs, the Working Group noted how the lack of a clear delinea-tion between mercenaries and PMSCs can negatively impact the realization of human rights. Specifically, the Working Group referenced the report from its 2011 mis-sion to Equatorial Guinea that found the Equatorial Guinea “coup attempt of March 2004 . . . clearly involve[d] mercenaries, some of whom were employees or former employees of private military and security companies from several other countries. . . . [T]he attempt illustrates the possible close and disturbing links between mer-cenaries and some private military and security companies, making the monitor-ing of such links all the more necessary.” Furthermore, the Working Group raised concerns over the use of PMSCs to provide security for oil infrastructures, as it may negatively impact the state’s control over its natural resources and hence further weaken its ability to control its borders and ensure its security. In addition to the coup attempt in Equatorial Guinea, the past decade was rife with examples of human rights abuses carried out by PMSCs, including the infamous Nisour Square massacre where employees of the private PMSC Blackwater (now known as Academi) fatally shot seventeen Iraqi civil-ians. As such, PMSCs, according to the Working Group, must no longer operate unless measures are put in place to ensure accountability.As the Working Group found, PMSC employees have repeatedly committed “grave” human rights violations. By par-tially or fully ceding their monopoly on the use of force to PMSCs, states undermine their ability and obligation to respect, pro-tect, and fulfill human rights. But, instead of calling for an outright ban on PMSCs, the Working Group seeks the creation of binding minimal international standards that regulate the actions of PMSCs and ensure states comply with their obliga-tions under international human rights and humanitarian law.Frank Knaack, a J.D. candidate at the American University Washington College of Law, is a staff writer for the Human Rights Brief.2Human Rights Brief, Vol. 20, Iss. 2 [2013], Art. 12http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol20/iss2/12

Intergovernmental Organizations

bepress Legal Repository

80Intergovernmental organIzatIonsestablIshIng a ComplaInt proCedure for eConomIC, soCIal, and Cultural rIghtsCritics often assert that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) is an aspirational document, as it calls for the progressive realization of its provisions to the maxi-mum of States Parties’ available resources. But, while this limiting language persists, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and a coalition of leading human rights NGOs have hailed the news that soon the rights enshrined in the ICESCR will become justiciable at the interna-tional level. On May 5, 2013, the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Optional Protocol) entered into force. Under the Optional Protocol, the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (Committee) will have the power to receive and consider complaints against States Parties from other States Parties as well as individuals or groups within their jurisdiction.The UN General Assembly adopted the Optional Protocol on December 10, 2008, the sixtieth anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The UDHR linked civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights as one universal and interdepen-dent set of rights. But, the Cold War and its East/West divide stymied efforts to translate the UDHR into a single binding treaty. As a result, there arose two core treaties, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the ICESCR, with the United States and its allies seeking the superiority of civil and political rights over economic, social, and cultural rights and the Soviet Union and its allies seeking the reverse. As the North/South divide eclipsed the East/West divide at the conclusion of the Cold War, this artificial hierarchy continued. However, as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay noted, by choosing to adopt the Optional Protocol on the UDHR’s anni-versary the General Assembly reaffirmed the equal and interdependent nature of civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.The Optional Protocol entered into force earlier this year when Uruguay entered the necessary tenth ratification, joining Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Mongolia, Portugal, Slovakia, and Spain. In addition, 32 other States Parties have signed but not yet ratified the Optional Protocol.The entry into force of the Optional Protocol means the Committee and impacted individuals and groups will soon enjoy an individual complaints procedure similar to the systems in place for the UN treaty bodies overseeing the ICCPR, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women, the Convention Against Torture, the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the International Convention for the Protection from Enforced Disappearance. As Pillay stated, because of this new procedure “a jurisprudence will now be developed that will help define the scope of application of economic, social and cultural rights and outline adequate remedies for victims.”Under the Optional Protocol, the Committee can receive two types of communications. First, it can receive communications from individuals or groups claiming a violation of a right under the ICESCR. However, the Optional Protocol contains procedures to respect the State Party’s legal system and may only consider communications after the exhaustion of domestic remedies, unless they have been “unreasonably prolonged.” Second, the Committee can consider inter-state communications when a State Party believes that another State Party failed to fulfill its obligations under the ICESCR. Like the individual complaint procedure, the second option requires the exhaustion of domestic remedies before the Committee can take up the issue.By establishing procedures that defer, in the first instance, to States Parties’ legal systems, the creation of the complaint procedure under the Optional Protocol creates an additional incentive for States Parties to strengthen their legal systems to better ensure the realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. In addition, the Optional Protocol provides a forum for developing jurisprudence concerning standards for economic, social, and cultural rights. Finally, the Optional Protocol, as it increases its ratification count, will serve as a mechanism to further erode the artificial divide and hierarchy between civil and political, and economic, social, and cultural rights. In doing so, it can help move the international human rights system back to the universality and interdependence of the UDHR.envIronmental rIghts are human rIghts, and vICe versaWhen the “worst drought in 60 years” struck eastern Africa in 2011, over ten million people were in need of emergency food aid. When Typhoon Bopha struck the Philippines last December, more than 1,000 people lost their lives. To address these and other environmental concerns at the local, national, and international level, communities around the world are utilizing the international human rights framework. Thus, human rights and the environment are interrelated and interde-pendent. John H. Knox, the United Nations Independent Expert on human rights and the environment, reinforced this conclu-sion in his recent report to the Human Rights Council. In addition, he stated that there now exists an “explicit new right” to a healthy environment.Because science did not recognize the negative impact of human activity on the environment, environmental rights were omitted from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) when it was adopted in 1948. But, as scientific under-standing of the environment increased over the following decades, so too did the con-nection between a healthy environment and the realization of human rights. As Knox stated, if the UDHR were drafted today, it is “easy to imagine” that it would include an explicit right to a healthy environment. INTERGOvERNMENTAL ORGANIzATIONS118568_AU_HRB.indd   80 7/17/13   9:05 AM81In fact, at the national and regional level this overt recognition has already occurred. More than ninety states have added explicit environmental rights into their constitu-tions. A number of regional human rights instruments have also recognized this right, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (Article 24), the 1988 Additional Protocol to the American Convention on Human Rights (Protocol of San Salvador) (Article 11), the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Articles 18-19), and the Arab Charter on Human Rights (Article 38). Furthermore, while international human rights treaties have not explicitly codified the “right to a healthy environment,” some explicitly refer to threats posed by the environment to the realization of human rights. The Convention on the Rights of the Child, for example, mandates that States Parties “take appropriate measures . . . [t]o combat disease and malnutrition . . . through the provision of adequate nutritious foods and clean drinking-water, taking into consideration the dangers and risks of environmental pollution.”Knox discussed the need for states to protect environmental rights defend-ers from physical attacks, threats, and intimidation at the hands of both state and non-state actors. Indeed, Knox found that such actions hurt not only the environ-mental rights defenders, but also the environment they are trying to protect and “all those whose full enjoyment of human rights depends on that envi-ronment.” Knox’s report also highlighted the importance of ensuring human rights that are vital to the furtherance of envi-ronmental rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and association, the rights to information and to participate in government, and the right to seek rem-edies through the judicial process. Indeed, in discussing the decisions of the Inter-American, African, and European regional human rights tribunals, Knox noted that ensuring these rights will “produce[] a healthier environment” which will “con-tribute[] to a higher degree of compliance with [] rights such as rights to life, health, property[,] and privacy.”But, Knox also stated that two areas vital to ensuring a healthy environment are in need of further exploration. First, how does international human rights law apply to transboundary and global environmental concerns? In a 2011 report on human rights and the environment, the Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights found that “[o]ne country’s pollution can become another country’s environmental and human rights problem.” But, because human rights treaties use varying language to define their reach, there is need for increased clarification on this question in spite of the “heightened attention to the extraterritoriality of human rights obligations.”Second, how do these human rights obligations apply to non-state actors, such as corporations? A report by the UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises found that out of 300 alleged corporate-related human rights abuses reviewed, “nearly a third of cases alleged environmental harms that had corresponding impacts on human rights.” Knox stated that while states’ obligation to protect human rights extends to the actions of non-state actors, and that this obligation extends to “infringement from environ-mental harm,” the “specific application of this obligation in the environmental context needs closer examination.”While global leaders argue over how to balance development, profit, and envi-ronmental stewardship, within interna-tional human rights law a consensus has formed—there now exists a right to a healthy environment. Though the reach of the obligation on states vis-à-vis the right to a healthy environment needs further exploration, the takeaway of this report is clear—the realization of environmental rights is necessary for the realization of human rights, and vice versa.Frank Knaack, a J.D. candidate at the American University Washington College of Law, is a staff writer for the Human Rights Brief.118568_AU_HRB.indd   81 7/17/13   9:05 AM

Human Rights BriefVolume 20 | Issue 1 Article 102012Intergovernmental OrganizationsFrank KnaackAmerican University Washington College of LawFollow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbriefPart of the Human Rights Law CommonsThis Column is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington College of Law Journals & Law Reviews at Digital Commons @ AmericanUniversity Washington College of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Human Rights Brief by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@ American University Washington College of Law. For more information, please contact fbrown@wcl.american.edu.Recommended CitationKnaack, Frank. "Intergovernmental Organizations." Human Rights Brief 20, no. 1 (2012): 60-61.60clImate change, extra-terrItorIal oblIgatIons, and ensurIng the rIght to safe drInkIng water  and sanItatIonAccording to the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), 780 million people lack access to potable drinking water and two and a half bil-lion people lack sanitation where human excreta is separated from human contact. In a strategy overview on water, sanitation, and hygiene, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation stated that this leads to the deaths of one and a half million children under five each year. While there has been progress, ensuring access to safe drinking water and sanitation is stymied by climate change. This connection is currently under investigation by Catarina de Albuquerque, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, and de Albuquerque is using human rights obligations as a partial remedy.Access to safe drinking water and sanitation is a codified human right. This right is enshrined in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention No. 161, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Furthermore, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (CESCR) General Comment 15 states that the right to water is implicit in Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). And, both the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council affirmed the right to safe drinking water and sanita-tion. These developments, in 2011, helped extend the mandate and raise its title from Independent Expert to Special Rapporteur.De Albuquerque’s recent country visits to Tuvalu and Kiribati were undertaken, in part, to examine the impact of climate change on the realization of this right. In her July 25, 2012, public statement on her mission to Kiribati, de Albuquerque found that “access to water and sanitation are being exacerbated by increasing water scarcity, saltwater intrusions, sea level rise and frequency of extreme weather events.” She also found that climate change is not just a threat to future generations; from displacing communities to reducing the amount of fresh water available, climate change has become “a reality for people’s everyday life.”De Albuquerque’s response to the impact of climate change on the right to safe drinking water and sanitation is two-fold. First, she reaffirmed states’ obli-gations to take steps to ensure progressive realization of this right, which stems from the ICESCR’s recognition that its rights will be realized over time. Second, she reminded industrialized countries that they should look to prevent future violations. De Albuquerque also called on countries most responsible for climate change “to prevent or remedy any denials of human rights caused by effects of their acts or omissions in other countries.” But, while reaffirming the obli-gation of industrialized countries to provide assistance, de Albuquerque also noted the difficulty of addressing the structural prob-lems of climate change. The successive failures to establish a binding post-Kyoto Protocol agreement to mandate a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions illustrates de Albuquerque’s point. The Kyoto Protocol set binding emissions reduction standards on thirty-seven industrialized countries, but is set to expire in 2012.While a follow-up to the Kyoto Protocol may be a long way off, extra-territorial obligations are clearly recognized under international law. Specifically vis-à-vis ensuring the right to safe drinking water and sanitation, ICESCR Article 2(1) calls on States Parties to “to take steps, individu-ally and through international assistance and co-operation . . . to the maximum of . . . available resources, with a view to achiev-ing progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means[.]” The CESCR’s General Comment 15 calls on States Parties to “refrain from actions that interfere, directly or indirectly, with the enjoyment of the right to water in other countries.” This includes, if resources permit, ensuring that their own citizens and companies do not violate the rights of individuals in other countries; assisting other countries to real-ize this right; and ensuring that international agreements and international organizations recognize the right. More recently, the CRPD recognized  the importance of States Parties providing international development cooperation, capacity-building, and techni-cal and economic assistance.De Albuquerque’s call for industrial-ized nations to help countries impacted by climate change ensure the right to safe drinking water and sanitation is firmly supported under international law. In fact, utilizing the extra-territorial obligations under the international human rights frame-work may be a way to mitigate the negative impact of climate change on rights beyond the right to safe drinking water and sanita-tion until a binding and sufficient climate change treaty can be implemented.addIng human rIghts to the euroPean fInancIal reform debateWhile the negative impact of the global financial crisis on the realization of human rights has disproportionately hit those in the developing and least-developed coun-tries, the crisis has also reached the devel-oped world. On October 5, 2012, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights along with the UN Independent Experts on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order and on foreign debt and human rights called on the European Union (EU) to implement economic reforms that respect, protect, and fulfill the human rights obli-gations of its Member States. This action followed the release of the EU commis-sioned Liikanen report on October 2, 2012, which recommended that European banks separate their risky trading activities from their savings and lending activities. Using Member States’ obligations to ensure the realization of economic, social, and cul-tural rights, the UN experts recommended that the EU create a regulatory framework that respects human rights.The EU attempted to mitigate the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS1Knaack: Intergovernmental OrganizationsPublished by Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law, 201261through the use of bank bailouts and the implementation of austerity measures. Proponents of these actions argued that they were necessary to relieve the debt cri-sis and stabilize the financial markets. But, as the UN experts stated, these measures negatively impact the realization of eco-nomic, social, and cultural rights within the European Union.In their joint statement, the UN experts highlighted the human rights repercussions of EU countries’ 4.5 trillion euro bailout of their financial institutions. As Magdalena Sepúlveda, the UN Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights, stated, “[S]uch levels of extra and unfore-seen spending have pushed governments into debt sustainability crises and, in many cases, created unbearable hardship for citizens, especially people living in pov-erty, through austerity plans which have often contradicted States’ legal obligations to realize economic, social and cultural rights.” Alfred de Zayas, the Independent Expert on the promotion of a democratic and equitable international order added that the implementation of austerity mea-sures “compromise[s] not only the welfare of the population today, but also that of future generations.”Cephas Lumina, UN Independent Expert on foreign debt and human rights, documented the real world harm of austerity measures during his visit to Latvia in May 2012. To receive a loan from the EU and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Latvia agreed to “implement stringent austerity measures that entailed deep cuts in public spending.” Lumina found this led to a rapid increase in unem-ployment, emigration, and poverty as well as a decrease in household income. As a result, Latvia maintained its status as having one of the highest poverty rates in Europe. In addition, the budget cuts under-mined Latvia’s progress vis-à-vis ensuring access to health care.Latvia is just one of many examples in Europe, including Spain, Portugal, and Greece, where the implementation of aus-terity measures led to the deprivation of rights clearly enshrined in international human rights law. All twenty-seven EU countries have ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which ensures the right to work (Article 6), including just and favorable conditions of work (Article 7); the right to an adequate standard of living for oneself and one’s family, includ-ing adequate food, clothing, and housing (Article 11); and highest attainable standards of physical and mental health (Article 12).According to the UN experts, a solu-tion to the crisis that both respects human rights and remedies the structural defects that helped fuel the crisis will require a multipronged approach. De Zayas cau-tioned the EU to avoid “undemocratic bailouts,” and added that viable solutions to the financial crisis already exist, such as implementing “significant” reductions to “all military expenditures.” According to Lumina, a long-term solution will require the implementation of effective regulatory measures that curb bank bailouts and address the “central role” played by credit-rating agencies, financial speculators, and hedge funds in “fueling this crisis.” In addition to being smart economic policy, Sepúlveda stated that the need to ensure that States Parties implement a regulatory framework and avoid future bailouts stems from their obligation to ensure the progressive real-ization of economic, social, and cultural rights. By protecting their budgets, EU Member States will be better positioned to carry out this obligation to the maximum of their available resources.As these UN experts make clear, EU Member States are obligated to ensure the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. To achieve this, the EU must reform its financial sector.Frank Knaack, a J.D. candidate at the American University Washington College of Law, is a staff writer for the Human Rights Brief.2Human Rights Brief, Vol. 20, Iss. 1 [2012], Art. 10http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/vol20/iss1/10

https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1846&context=hrbrief

Intergovernmental Organizations

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law

bepress Legal Repository

Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law

bepress Legal Repository

Digital Commons @ American University Washington College of Law

bepress Legal Repository