UN Rights: Wrong without Civil Society
Reform the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
In 1948, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Since then, additional International Covenants on Human Rights have been signed and ratified by almost all governments, elaborating and strengthening the rights that all people should enjoy.
All human beings are 'stakeholders' in the process of defending, promoting, and enhancing these rights in their communities and countries. Individuals, as members of civil society, 'own' these rights, and it is civil society that has been the driving force in raising both awareness and alarms in countries around the world. Governments have a responsibility to progressively achieve the full realization of these rights by all appropriate means — to provide this service to their populations.
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is an international treaty establishing complaint and inquiry mechanisms for the Covenant that was adopted by the UN General Assembly on 10 December 2008. This is a key tool for defending and realizing rights, and is the last resort for those who desperately seek justice. According to its UN mandate, "the Committee on Social Economic and Cultural Rights is composed of 18 independent experts who are persons of high moral character and recognized competence in the field of human rights".
However, it is the composition of the Committee that is a major weakness. The current members, who should be 'independent', are mostly employed through their governments, many of which have questionable records on human rights, and few if any have experience 'on the ground' in human rights work. Only three of the 18 are women, although women suffer more rights violations than men, and none of are from NGOs working to promote and enhance human rights. Many members have been on the Committee for over a decade (some for two!), and all were selected by their governments without public consultation. The present system is neither transparent, nor accountable.
Towards the Greater Involvement of Affected Communities / Civil Society
Over the last decade, other members of the UN 'Family' including UNAIDS and the WHO, as well as the Global Fund and UNITAID, have constituted their decision-making bodies to include, as equals, representatives from civil society organizations and the affected communities. Each of these 'seats' are supported by various forms of delegations, which supports the representatives and reinforces their accountability. This model of greater involvement of non-governmental organizations and of people most affected has proven to be highly successful and a great step towards openness and transparency.
The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should not be up in the 'Ivory Towers'. The Committee requires a 'live' connection to the realities in the global community. The defense, enhancement and realization of human rights around the world depends on this Committee to well mediate and expertly assess complaints in the interest of all, and should have representation from all sectors of society, including those who have the 'expertise' that comes with the frontline struggle for rights.
Specifically, the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights should move to adopt the 'best practices' of other UN bodies, and to begin the process to reform the mandate of this Committee (Resolution 1985/17 of the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) of 28 May 1985) to allow three additional seats, with two for elected representatives of NGOs , one each from the 'Global South' and 'Global North', and one from the 'community' of those most affected by human rights violations. Each of these three new Committee seats should be filled following an open and transparent election process, supported and held accountable by a elected delegation. Civil society should be directly 'at the table' of the Committee, and contribute as equal partners to the effort to protect economic, social and cultural rights for all.
Initiated by people from diverse countries who have had their rights denied, a broad-based campaign for three additional seats on the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is gathering force, and gaining support. A coalition of advocates and activists, under the banner of the Community Delegation, is coming together to bring the best practices of other UN organizations to the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR).
"Nothing about us, without us" rings a bell, loud and clear.
Join this campaign for meaningful involvement of civil society at the UN's Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
International Covenant on Economic, Social & Cultural Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/cescr.htm
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/index.htm
Members of the Committee: http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/members.htm
International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: http://www.escr-net.org
Comments
Connecting unprotected sex and UN Rights Committee
First I saw the post above from erika on women and HIV with the fact that in some countries 70percent are forced to have unprotected sex.
http://www.worldcarecouncil.org/content/un-warns-hivaids-leading-cause-d...
Then here I see that only three out of 18 members of this ESCR committee are women. Maybe if women were better represented on the committee this issue and others important to women could be raised better in the human rights context.
Where's the sign-on letter?
I'm ready and willing to sign on to the letter to start the process of demanding additional seats. But, where is the document? Submitted by Sarafina on Fri, 05/03/2010 - 09:37
The mandate calls for Independent and Competent members
After a dig-around for more information, here's a point that shows the need for getting involved: The current Chair of the Committee, Jaime Marchan Romero, is a diplomat for the government Ecuador and has served as an Ambassador to various countries over the last 20 years. Can a high level government employee be considered independent? He is also an expert on outer 'Space Law', in which he did his post graduate studies in Washington. Aside from being on the Committee on ESCR, his CV has no indication of any experience in protecting, promoting or improving human rights. Mr. Romero has been on the Committee since January 1987. In many ways, he is typical of the 17 other Committee members. The mandate of the Committee states the main requirement for member is to be Independent and Competent, yet a review of the 18 CV's raises many questions. Although it has been like this for decades, it is time to seek answers and press for change.
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/members.htm
Maybe he is brilliant
Mr. Romero may be really good on this Committee. He might be. And maybe he is really bad. I don't know. Besides the other 17 members, does anyone know? That's part of the problem. The proposed additional seats will permit us to know, and to have a better understanding about what concerns us all. Its electoral process and performance monitoring could be a model for the other seats to learn from. A good influence of best practices. I support the effort to Open-Up UN ESCR Committee.
Change
I don't think we can have success in changing the present committee. They are part of an old top to down perspective and the UN system is like that. But we can bring change by pushing loudly everywhere for these new seats, which should also put the committee on notice that they are being watched. If we can get the additonal seats, then this watching by civil society will be clearer - the view from inside is always clearer than from outside through little window covered with dirt. sasamolnar34 at gmail.com
ESCR Committee: some background and some thoughts
An Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESC) was adopted by the United Nations in 2008. A longstanding demand of civil society, it completes the international human rights protection that began with the proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Symbolically, the adoption of this new instrument was celebrated by the United Nations on 10 December 2008, the sixtieth anniversary to the day of the Universal Declaration.
Although the two international human rights covenants were adopted the same day, 16 December 1966, two very different monitoring systems were then created. A protocol providing for a complaints mechanism was immediately put in place for civil and political rights, but there was no such procedure set up for economic, social and cultural rights. Until now, there has been no possibility of lodging a complaint at the international level in case of a violation of economic, social and cultural rights. In spite of renewed interest in these rights recently, they have never really been considered as being on an equal footing with civil and political rights.
http://www.cetim.ch/en/dossier_desc.php
Now, with the Optional Protocol adopted, the Committee is the key mechanism to find justice when it is denied by governments. It must be accountable to all civil society, not to just a few governments. Open, transparent electoral systems for the three civil society seats would be a major move towards this accountability.
From Peer Support Groups to a Jury of Peers
I am not an expert in legal mechanisms, but I can value a system of justice that offers a fair trial by a jury of peers. Peers are likely to share backgrounds, values and understandings. A trial by peers offers a trust or at least hope of fairness. Down on my level, we have learned that people who get involved in peer support groups trust in the group and find strength in this confidence. When they have problems or complaints, it is easier to present these troubles to peers, as opposed to people higher up on the status scale.
I am not an expert on UN mechanisms, but if the Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights is mandated to be a 'Jury for Complaints and Violations' (and last resort for justice for many people), then I think it fair that some of our peers should be on this committee too. Having three seats out of 21 for civil society and the affected peoples is a small step towards building trust in human rights justice between UN institutions and the the people of all nations. It would be a big step towards accountability. /Anya
Accountability is the goal
The comparison to a 'jury for complaints' is interesting but may be confusing. The Committee on ESCR should be a very INDEPENDENT review panel, while a jury is dependent on the judge and the court, regardless of whether its members are peers or non-peers. There are other differences as well. The problem with the Committee is not by peer or non-peer, but in its highly questionable 'independence' and lack of accountability as the 'election' process is closed, secretive, and gov't controlled. Either all the Committee should be constituted through an open and transparent electoral process, or then civil society should have 3 seats filled through model systems of free, fair and open elections. Accountable to all who have ESC rights (that's everyone!).
The barrier of big NGOs
Charles raises a good point, and the recent statement below from Amnesty International on why "Human Rights are for all" is timely. The question is will Amnesty support the addition of the seats on the Committee?
"Human rights are for all"
Amnesty International is being accused in a media article today of putting the human rights of some people above those of others. This is not, and has never been, true. Implicit in the accusation, is the view that we should choose those whose rights we promote. We reject this view utterly. Amnesty International campaigns for all internationally recognised human rights for all people – it is not about their views, their political opinions, their actions – it’s about upholding the universality of human rights: these are the inalienable rights of all human beings. As part and parcel of promoting human rights, we also have a long history of demanding that those who perpetrate human rights abuses be brought to justice – whoever they may be. We make this call because victims deserve to see justice done, to know that the harm done to them has been exposed and to seek reparations. (see full article at http://livewire.amnesty.org/2010/02/07/human-rights-are-for-all/
by Widney Brown, Senior Director for International Law and Policy, Amnesty International Secretariat )
Yes to a representative who knows firsthand
Yes to a representative who knows firsthand the experience of having human rights violated. Yes to the 'affected' being part of any complaint procedure for others. Yes to there being one seat on this Committee for the millions who have been abused by their governments, and desperately need justice. linda.nsembu@yahoo.co.uk
Connecting the Ivory Towers to Mainstreet
"We have to learn to move from being-a-potential-power to being-a-real-power in world affairs; we have to liberate ourselves from simplistic general global objectives (i.e., a general globalism) that lacks a clear sense of direction and purpose lest we get tangled up everywhere. There are concrete things to do to get us to such a position of real power… and it is the actions of those most affected –and not just of the intelligentsia– that will ultimately count." — This article seems very relevant and useful for our thinking about the UN Committee on ESC Rights, and the idea of mobilising for greater involvement on this mechanism. Worth a read...
Human Rights Reader 233 by C. L. Schur - posted by Claudio (http://www.phm.org)
http://www.socialmedicine.org/2010/02/13/human-rights/learning-from-expe...
Interesting, but we have another hurdle as well
This article is quite interesting, and raises points useful for the proposal of adding three seats to the UN ESCR Committee. Yet we should recognise that although pressing for additional seats for civil society and the affected community will probably receive lip service support from many, yet both the Member States of the UN, and particularly the NGOs already very involved for decades with the Human Rights Commission/Council will not be supportive in action. As in the health domain, the big northern NGOs have their own agendas and get funding because they are already privileged to be 'in-place' at the UN, and that will mean that they will not want to assist other civil society organizations to enter the Ivory Towers. These mega-NGOs, disconnected from the mainstreets, are the real guardians of the doors of the Ivory Towers, and I fear they will not open until our knocks shake the hinges.
Financial implications and Independence
As the idea is to add three other members to the Committee, we should consider the monetary implications that this would have. For the 18 members that are already on the Committee, the UN covers the costs of their time, travel, and two week meetings twice a year. Knowing the UN pays top-dollar on airfares, hotels, and perdiems, the sum is probably quite high. It is possibly of interest to find a more independent source of funds, from outside the UN family and its member states. Perhaps we should make this proposal one that underlines independence, and have the costs involved in the additional seats be borne by a few civil society charitable foundations, and not from the UN directly. Fund-raising might not be that difficult given the importance of this initiative and its potential positive impact. We should try to estimate a budget, and maybe draw on the costings experienced at the PCB of UNAIDS and at the Global Fund.
3 More Seats, and Drive for Signatures and Ratification
We should think of ways that our efforts to create three additional seats on the Committee also drives forward the existing campaign for more countries to sign and ratify the Optional Protocol on ESCR. The more countries that sign and ratify, the more value and impact will the three seats have. Any suggestions on how we can best advance the two campaigns at the same time would be welcomed. See this for background information: http://www.escr-net.org/actions/actions_show.htm?doc_id=1067615
Current List for Optional Protocol Signatories
These countries are the first to have signed the new Optional Protocol on ESC Rights. They have taken the lead, and so it's important to now see where they stand on adding three seats to the Committee. Activists in these countries could begin to see where their governments stand on democratic reform of the UN.
Argentina Armenia Azerbaijan Belgium Chile Congo Ecuador El Salvador Finland Gabon Ghana Guatemala Guinea-Bissau Italy Luxembourg Madagascar Mali Mongolia Montenegro Netherlands Paraguay Portugal Senegal Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Spain Timor-Leste Togo Ukraine Uruguay
It would be good to see if a few of these countries would 'champion' our cause.
Next Step
Many comments below want to know and participate in 'next steps'. Our thanks go to all for this response. A few people suggested a letter should be written to the chairman of the Committee to begin a dialog about this proposed addition of three seats for civil society. This is a good idea, so any one who would be inclined to join a drafting team please send me a mail and I will write back directly to all. When the draft is done we will put it here for your comments. Thank you for your support and action.
Strong point: Best practices by example
This suggestion for three additional seats on the Committee has a powerful argument in its modeling of what exists in other UN bodies, such as UNAIDS. Furthermore, by adding three seats that will be filled through transparent elections, and the seat-holder held accountable by a delegation, it will provide an example of how 'open' things can be done, yet not threaten the status-quo that exists for the other 18 seat-holders, who all have their own national 'closed' processes. The three CS seats, taken as best practice from another UN institution, becomes a working model that can be studied. Here is link to UNAIDS, and some good practices.
http://www.unaids.org/en/Partnerships/Civil+society/csPCB.asp
FYI: Related Posts
http://www.worldcarecouncil.org/content/good-un-rights-wrong-without-civ...
Demand Dignity and Open-Up UN Rights
I found this Demand Dignity campaign on Amnesty site and agree that "those who have been so far denied a say" should have a seat on this UN ESC rights commitee.
"Demand Dignity
Over the next six years – at least – Amnesty International will work to shift the balance of power together with those who have been so far denied a say as they tell their own stories and strive to engage in the processes that determine their own future.
Amnesty International’s Demand Dignity campaign will initially focus on a few key areas and patterns of human rights abuse which show particularly sharply the interplay of deprivation, insecurity, exclusion and voices ignored. The overall goal is to end the human rights violations that keep people poor."
http://www.amnesty.org/en/demand-dignity
Applause for the Comrades
It is refreshing to see this campaign begin based on the ideas that people are sending. It's envigorating.
Now, how do we move this ahead? Now that Celina has commendably incorporated the comments and outlined the issue, what are the next steps?
Posts of initial support
Health activists must be involved in UN Rights Committee
Submitted by Tala on Sat, 09/01/2010 - 22:30
The UN committee on economic social cultural rights appears to have no experience, much less any expertise, on issues relating to the right to health, according to my study of all 18 members CVs which are online. Over the last few decades, health activists have made a major impact on turning the right to health into treatment and care for millions in need, and improved the way governments have responded to both pandemics and neglected diseases. Health activists must be involved in UN Rights Committee, and have the possibility of representation through NGO seats on this mechanism. We must advocate strongly for our place at the table.
--------------
Agreeing with you all
Reading through the articles and posts on this site, I have been persuaded by the logic of the argument about having civil society and the affected community on this committee. It must be done. Shall we see if others will agree and then plan some steps?
Submitted by Dr. LKJ on Sat, 30/01/2010 - 21:44.
Tala Bintu is spot on. Again.
OK Tala - I'm on board. It appears there is some good energys gathering. Forward motion time. Open letter to Ban ki Moon might help get the word out?
Submitted by Sarafina on Tue, 12/01/2010 - 20:51.
OK for MZ helper
Is Mozambique included? I never hear before of UN committee that listen to violação on right of the peoples. why is no promoção communicate on this? claramente— when ONG is representing on committee then much peopless will hear. Much ears, eye, mouths — make direitos humanos stronger. OK for MZ helper. Sasa.
sasamolnar34@gmail.com
Submitted by Sasa on Mon, 11/01/2010 - 13:10.
Draft document
I too agree and would like to be involved in this effort. If the nominations close in two weeks, and the elections are to be held in april, we have just a two month mobilisation period. contact: anjana.gupta55@gmail.com
Submitted by Anjana.Gupta on Sun, 10/01/2010 - 21:43.
Agree with you
Tala, You r right. How bout some people xchange some notes and we write a one-page advocacy brief? You've mentioned a couple of good points to build on. The other posts have some good points too. Maybe some one can try to sew them together? In solidarity, Kristin
Submitted by Kristi on Sun, 10/01/2010 - 19:43.
Inputs to help the Campaign take shape
Put your Rights in the hands of the government of Belarus?
Submitted by erika.blair on Fri, 08/01/2010 - 14:03
The United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is important, and the newly adopted Optional Protocol is the key to making the lofty words into realities. It creates a complaints procedure that aims to be fair, independent and trustworthy. To make Rights really 'work', people need to be able to complain when they don't 'work', and to have confidence that the complaint (which may be high-risk action itself) will be handled with with competence. The 18 members of this UN Committee have the power to decide if complaints about abuses are valid, and move forward remedies, or not. Today, the Committee that is in charge of this is NOT one that I have any faith in. Most are paid employees of their Governments. There are no members from civil society. Only three women, when women face the greatest challenges to have rights respected. Too many Committee members are appointed in secret by governments that have abysmal records on rights including Cameroon, China, India, Russia, Belarus leap off the page. Would you put your Rights (and maybe life) in the hands of the government of Belarus?
Journalist David Stern wrote recently in the the Global Post "Belarus is one of the world’s most repressive societies, called “Europe’s last dictatorship” by United States and European Union officials. Political dissent is persecuted and marginalized, and the government plays a cat-and-mouse game of occasionally registering, and then cracking down on opposition parties, NGOs and independent newspapers. Public demonstrations are rarely allowed — more often are broken up by the police and participants hauled off for temporary jail sentences. Recently, opposition figures claim to have been kidnapped; in the past they simply disappeared."
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has just 18 'experts' on Rights, and Ambassador Sergei Martynov of Belarus has been on this committee for almost ten years. A sham and a shame.
Why do the other governments on the Committee like the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Portugal and France — all members of the EU — allow this system of rotten representation at a UN body continue? These European Governments should take the lead on fixing this serious wrong in this UN mechanism, making their signed support for the International Covenant on ESCR be meaningful not hypocritical. It is time to make rights real and reform this Commission's mandate and structure.
------------------------
No. Not Belarus
Thank you for this information. No, I don't want to put my Rights in the hands of Belarus. Not Cameroon. Not India. Not at all China or Russia. Representatives chosen by these governments are not defenders of my rights.
Submitted by Tala on Sat, 09/01/2010 - 22:44.
FYI: See this post
http://www.worldcarecouncil.org/content/upcoming-elections-committee-esc...
Submitted by Moderator on Fri, 08/01/2010 - 14:30.
Posts that formulated the Campaign
Rights and Representation
Submitted by kazoo on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 05:46
The forthcoming elections for the UN's Committee on Economic Social Cultural Rights are a spotlight on both the lack of fair representation in this part of the UN family, and on the inability of the UN to adopt best practices from other 'family members'. Most of this committee's members are too connected with their governments to be fair and just in their review of human rights issues. The Committee should welcome the participation of civil society organisations by allocating two representative places for NGO delegates, elected through an open and transparent process. One place could be from 'northern' NGOs and the other from the 'Global South'.
This would be similar to what other UN 'family' members, such as UNAIDS and a number of committees at WHO have done successfully during the last decade. Oversight on Rights needs at least some independent representation. Allocating two seats for civil society would be an ethical and practical step forward for the UN and a great stride for human rights for all. Representation and Rights walk hand in hand.
-----------
Yes yes yes on three more seats new
I agree on three more seats on committee. Northern NGO, Southern NGO, and representative of affected communitys. Someone, elected open process, who KNOWS what having rights violations FEELS like.
Submitted by leiwng on Wed, 13/01/2010 - 17:34.
Good idea
I agree with this proposed framework for representation. It functions well at some UN institutions and should be established throughout. Good idea, and one that could get many more stake holders from grassroot organization into the issues about human rights.
Submitted by Karim Hasan on Tue, 12/01/2010 - 20:08.
Health activists must be involved in UN Rights Committee
The UN committee on economic social cultural rights appears to have no experience, much less any expertise, on issues relating to the right to health, according to my study of all 18 members CVs which are online. Over the last few decades, health activists have made a major impact on turning the right to health into treatment and care for millions in need, and improved the way governments have responded to both pandemics and neglected diseases. Health activists must be involved in UN Rights Committee, and have the possibility of representation through NGO seats on this mechanism. We must advocate strongly for our place at the table.
Submitted by Tala on Sat, 09/01/2010 - 22:36.
Yes to representation of those most 'Affected'
If UNAIDS, WHO, Global Fund and others have all allowed the representation of people from the 'affected community' to participate, then the UNESCR Committee should also have representation from those who have had their human rights denied or violated. Why is there representation for the community in health and not for human rights - what is the difference? The present committee of diplomats, judges and academics presently sees human rights through their professional filters, while those who have experienced the subject know it in heart and soul. Both have needed expertise. So, I agree with the idea of three extra seats, but how does this happen? How can civil society push the UN to reform this particular committee?
Submitted by anya.menon on Sat, 09/01/2010 - 22:06.
More Posts on ESC
Call for Openness of UN ESC Rights Election
Submitted by Eva P. on Mon, 04/01/2010 - 14:00
Any election for representatives on rights issues at the UN must be done openly and independently. Governments should not have total say on who sits on this UN body. The UN needs action on rights, not 'experts' put there by rights-abusing corrupt dictators. Example: Is the member from Cameroon an expert on advancing economic, social, cultural rights? Or....?
Cameroon?
Your question on Cameroon representative appears to hold true of most — independent, he is NOT. A govt appointed Supreme court judge and former Cameroon Election Committee President - in a country that has had the same President Biya since 1982 — http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/cescr/elections2010.htm
Submitted by Jessica on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 04:04.
Initial Posts that Sparked
Upcoming Elections of the Committee on ESCR - Get involved!
Submitted by Jessica on Sun, 03/01/2010 - 17:50
Campaign for the Ratification and Implementation of the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR
Justice NOW! Ratify to Protect all Human Rights! The International NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol* (NGO Coalition) has issued a call addressed to civil society to draw its attention to the upcoming elections of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR Committee). The NGO Coalition urges civil society to get involved to ensure the election of independent members with solid ESCR expertise.
The terms of 9 of the 18 members of the ESCR Committee will expire on 31 December 2010. In October 2009, States parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) were asked to nominate new candidates for the ESCR Committee. The deadline for nominations is January 26, 2010. Elections will take place in April 2010. The elected individual members will have an impact on the overall quality and effectiveness of this body. With the Optional Protocol to the ICESCR (OP-ICESCR) now in place, the strength and capacity of the ESCR Committee becomes even more critical. The NGO Coalition believes that it is key to target efforts at both the national and international levels to overcome the shortcomings of an election process which in many instances are opaque, and candidates who too often hold executive positions in their governments with little or no relevant experience.
For more information on the process, the timeframe, and how to get involved, please visit:
http://www.escr-net.org/actions/actions_show.htm?doc_id=1067615
The list of candidates nominated will be available at:
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/cescr/elections2010.htm
Get involved!
Please let us know if you have been able to take action and if so, what the response of your government has been; any interest in becoming involved in election activities in your country; information on activities currently taking place, targeting parliamentarians, or media; and information about your government's nominee.
Please send your feedback to Suad Elías at: OP-Coalition@escr-net.org or +1 (212) 681 1236 Ext 26.
Comments
No to this election process!
I am not satisfied that civil society is not directly represented. Human rights defenders are usually defending people against governments, and usually are part of non governmental organizations. This UN body oversees Rights protection, yet is only government-allied selected representatives. NGOs must have an equal say and a representative place in the Committee.
Submitted by erika.blair on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 04:27.
Concerning the Cameroon candidate
You may be interested to know about the candidate. Clement Atangana, Supreme Court judge in Cameroon, was 'elected' in 1999. He was in charge of the National elections in Cameroon in 1997, won (as always) by President Paul Biya (in power since 6 November 1982).
Submitted by Anjana.Gupta on Tue, 05/01/2010 - 02:06.
Eighteen members to hold accountable
Read the website and see that there are only 18 members on this commission. Eighteen experts. Eighteen to advance the rights of some 5 billion people whose economic, social and cultural rights are being denied daily. How do we hold them accountable? Perhaps it easier in short span to quick try to get a few new members from civil society elected that can 'open-up' this committee to the five billion who need real representation.
Submitted by ram.kumar on Mon, 04/01/2010 - 13:22.
Transparency is required for Rights
Any election for representatives on rights issues at the UN must be done openly and independently. Governments should not have total say on who sits on this UN body. The UN needs action on rights, not 'experts' put there by rights-abusing corrupt dictators. Example: Is the member from Cameroon an expert on advancing economic, social, cultural rights? Or....?
Submitted by Eva P. on Mon, 04/01/2010 - 13:12.
Eye-opening post
This is most interesting and an eye-opener. I was not aware of this committee that has a great influence on how human rights are respected through the UN. Looking at the internet site, many of the long term members are obviously appointed by their governments which have poor records on human rights. No transparency in the process and no input from those whose human rights are violated by these governments. We must sound the alarm and influence this election process immediately! This 'secret' election is to be held end of January.
Submitted by Dr. B.K.Vihar on Mon, 04/01/2010 - 09:36.
Elections in April
The elections will be held in April, whereas the nomination deadline is indeed end of January.
http://www2.ohchr.org/french/bodies/cescr/elections2010.htm
Submitted by Jessica on Thu, 07/01/2010 - 04:09.