The Current Israeli War 2023–2025 on the Gaza Strip, Occupied Palestine, Based on Social, Economic, Public Health, Environmental, Geopolitical, and Human Rights’ Perspectives

Human rights queryfalse are typically presented in terms of entitlements, correlative duties, claims, “trumps,” and remedies. 1 These framings, which draw principally on law and philosophy, emphasi...

Advancing Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:The Way Forward Mary Robinson (bio) A timely and significant debate has begun on how nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and other civil society actors can most effectively influence states and third party actors to progressively implement their economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights obligations. The debate is timely because too little attention has been paid in the past to this important area of human rights work. It is significant because it can help energize a human rights community worldwide that has felt battered and bruised by the erosion of international standards protecting civil and political rights in our post-September 11 world. It is even more noteworthy because the debate has begun in the United States, where skepticism about the full international human rights agenda has been strongest. During my five-year term as UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, I emphasized that we had entered a new era for human rights following the fall of the Berlin Wall and the end of the Cold War. We had an opportunity to move on from the sterile years when Western countries focused almost exclusively on the importance of civil and political rights and used these in their critique of Soviet bloc countries and many developing countries, while those countries in turn emphasized economic and social rights while rejecting criticism of their political structures and lack of civil rights protection. The time had finally come to take the two sets of rights equally seriously, as the drafters of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights intended, and to find the most effective ways to promote and protect them. A number of steps were taken at the international level during this period, which helped strengthen efforts to better define and implement [End Page 866] economic, social, and cultural rights. New mandates were created by the UN Commission on Human Rights which appointed special rapporteurs in areas such as education, food, and the highest attainable standard of health as well as an independent expert on the right to development, all of whom have made substantive contributions to advancing the agenda on these issues. At the request of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) worked to develop human rights guidelines for Poverty Reduction Strategies. Important strides were also made by UN agencies and programs following Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call for human rights to be mainstreamed throughout the UN system. Key UN bodies, from the UN Development Program to the World Health Organization and the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF), emphasized the human rights framework in implementing their mandates. They and other UN actors adopted a common understanding of what they would mean by "a rights-based approach." As part of this effort, OHCHR has increased its cooperation with UN country teams working on economic and social development issues. Regional meetings have reviewed national case law and shared experiences of how different national courts and regional systems were addressing international commitments concerning economic, social, and cultural rights. Meanwhile, my travels as High Commissioner brought me in contact with human rights activists and NGOs in every region that were finding innovative ways to hold their governments accountable for the commitments they had made under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ratified by 149 states), the Convention for the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (ratified by 177 states), and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (ratified by 192 states), all of which also include specific provisions concerning ESC rights. I recall, for example, the way in which a wide cross section of Brazilian NGOs prepared an alternative report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in order to bring home the government of Brazil's failure to produce a required report to the Committee within the time allowed under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This effort proved to be a turning point, resulting in more constructive debate on rights throughout Brazil, and caused the government to step up efforts to fulfill its international human rights commitments. Major international NGOs were also expanding their work to include research, policy...

Reviewed by: Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States Dean J. Kotlowski, Professor of History (bio) Bringing Human Rights Home: A History of Human Rights in the United States (Cynthia Soohoo, Catherine Albrisa, & Martha F.Davis eds., Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009), 411 pages, ISBN 9780812220797. The United States government has waltzed its way through and around the issue of human rights in a "three-part dance of ambivalence, rejection, and embrace."1 That is the thesis of this collection of essays, and it is remarkably consistent, coherent, and convincing. During World War II, the government in Washington championed a holistic vision that promised protection for social and economic rights as well as political and civil rights. But such advocacy, enunciated in the Atlantic Charter (1941), President Franklin D. Roosevelt's "Four Freedoms" address (1941), and FDR's espousal of an "Economic Bill of Rights" (1944), became a casualty of the early postwar era, when the Soviet Union was keen to castigate the injustices—principally racial—that afflicted American life. Moreover, many Americans, influenced in part by the Cold War, narrowly defined human rights as involving an individual's right to expression, association, and political participation. They were reluctant to tackle issues relating to class for fear of being labeled un-patriotic. In this setting, the US government for decades delayed ratifying international conventions to safeguard social and economic (as well as political) rights. Following the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, a new day seemed to dawn as the United States Senate approved the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. Interestingly, the events of 11 September 2001 and subsequent practices of the administration of George W. Bush with respect to alien deportations, rendition, rough interrogation, and torture served to galvanize human rights activists. One result has been a wider, richer, and more varied movement to protect the dignity of all people. But as the contributors to this volume also suggest, much work remains to be done. As a historian, I was most interested in the first part of Bringing Human Rights Home, in which Paul Gordon Lauren, Elizabeth Borgwardt, Carol Anderson, and Hope Lewis trace the history of America's encounter with human rights. They illustrate that the US government's engagement with this issue has been a recent phenomenon, centered in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The story they tell is neither one of linear progress nor of sin and redemption but of advocacy followed by avoidance. After World War II, the idealism of the Four Freedoms crashed against hard, political realities. In a nod to Jim Crow, US diplomat John Foster Dulles amended the charter of the United Nations (UN) so as to deny that organization's authority over "matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the State concerned."2 Southern Democrats on Capitol Hill were pleased that the UN would have no say—or sway—over their system of racial segregation. In 1953, Dulles, then Secretary of State, went further when he abandoned efforts to seek ratification of the Convention on Civil [End Page 1218] and Political Rights and the Convention on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in exchange for Senate votes to kill the so-called Bricker Amendment, a measure to restrict the president's ability to secure ratification of treaties. Perhaps the most paradoxical of these policymakers was Eleanor Roosevelt. As a US delegate to the UN under President Harry S. Truman, she helped draft the Universal Declaration on Human Rights. And, yet, when the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) asked the UN Commission on Human Rights to investigate the conditions of African Americans, the former First Lady opposed their appeal and briefly resigned from the NAACP's board of directors. Eleanor Roosevelt, like many Americans, also proved uneasy with the redistributive implications of protecting social and political rights; at one point, she denied that countries were obligated "to assure the enjoyment of these rights by direct government action."3 Such a bifurcated perspective, from a purported friend of...

Armed Conflict and Human Rights in Colombia

The extension of academic censorship on Palestine to the medical world is, despite its pervasiveness, relatively unknown. In the latest iteration, a letter highlighting the Gaza Strip's vulnerability to the Covid-19 pandemic was removed from The Lancet's website after a swift pressure campaign. While the immediate effects were minimal — despite its short shelf-life, the piece is among the top 5% most discussed research publications11 "Overview of attention for article published in The Lancet, March 2020: Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip," Altmetric, https://www.altmetric.com/details/78453242. — the chilling effect of such campaigns on writers and editors is profound and enduring. This commentary outlines the struggle to make space for discussion and academic inquiry into the health impacts of the ongoing suffering inflicted on the Palestinian people. As Palestinians marked Land Day on March 30,22 Yara Hawari, "Commemorating Land Day amid lockdown in Palestine," Al Jazeera, March 30, 2020, https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/celebrating-land-day-lockdown-palestine-200329162501923.html. The Lancet, one of the world's oldest and most prestigious medical journals, silently removed from its website a commentary that was published three days prior.33 The original piece is still available from ScienceDirect at the following link: David Mills, et al., "Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip," The Lancet, March 27, 2020, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673620307303#!. At just over 400 words, "Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip," draws on the deep historical and political forces that have rendered the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip particularly susceptible to an impending Covid-19 outbreak. Mirroring numerous warnings that continue to be published elsewhere, including a statement by 20 Palestinian, Israeli, and international health and human rights organizations,44 Adalah – The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, et al., "Palestine: a possible COVID-19 epidemic in the Gaza Strip," Medecins Du Monde, April 8, 2020, https://www.medecinsdumonde.org/en/news/moyen-orient/2020/04/08/palestine-possible-covid-19-epidemic-gaza-strip. our commentary highlights the impact of pandemics on "populations burdened by poverty, military occupation, discrimination, and institutionalised oppression." Its critical tone is consistent with other Lancet commentaries targeting various national and global responses to Covid-19.55 Richard Horton, "Offline: COVID-19 and the NHS—"a national scandal"," The Lancet 395, no. 10229 (2020): 1022 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30727-3/fulltext; Sarah L. Dalglish, "COVID-19 gives the lie to global health expertise," The Lancet 395, no. 10231 (2020): 1189; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30739-X/fulltext. While hoping the swift removal was just a technical error, our experience working on Palestine made us suspect otherwise. A hint came via the elated tweet of a Canadian endocrinologist who had been involved in prior efforts to censor scholarship connecting Israel's occupation and human rights abuses to Palestinian health outcomes. The next day we understood the impetus behind the commentary's sudden disappearance: a message had been circulated to the scientific community in the United States (and beyond) calling — ironically, given the hostility to similar boycott calls directed at Israel — for a boycott of The Lancet for publishing the piece. To understand The Lancet editorial staff's swift decision to remove the commentary, we need to go back to 2014. At the height of Israel's large-scale military assault on the Gaza Strip, The Lancet published "An open letter for the people in Gaza,"66 Paola Manduca, "An open letter for the people in Gaza," The Lancet 384, no. 9941 (2014): 397–398; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(14)61044-8/fulltext. setting off an aggressive years-long campaign with demands that both the open letter and the editor-in-chief be removed. Neither occurred after a thorough review by The Lancet ombudsman. The controversy culminated, however, with five 2017 Lancet Series papers designed to "outline Israel's achievements in health and health care."77 "Health in Israel," The Lancet, May 8, 2017, https://www.thelancet.com/series/health-in-israel. While the papers commemorated one of the world's most efficient healthcare systems,88 Lee J. Miller and Wei Lu, "These are the economies with the most (and least) efficient health care," Bloomberg, September 19, 2018, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-09-19/u-s-near-bottom-of-health-index-hong-kong-and-singapore-at-top. missing was any discussion of Israel's institutionalized oppression over the Palestinian people that leaves millions without the ability to develop or even access similarly exemplary healthcare. Indeed, the authors of the introductory piece of the series decided to "not comprehensively address historical or political issues, except when directly pertaining to health,"99 A. Mark Clarfield, "Health and health care in Israel: an introduction," The Lancet 389, no. 10088 (2017): 2503–2513; https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)30636-0/fulltext. as if there were any other comparably important factors determining the stark health (and other) inequities between Israeli-Jewish and Palestinian inhabitants of the region.1010 Ido Efrati, "Huge disparities between Israeli, Palestinian health-care [sic] systems, says rights group," Haaretz, January 10, 2015, https://www.haaretz.com/.premium-huge-disparities-between-israeli-palestinian-health-care-1.5358335; "Concluding observations on the combined seventeeth to nineteenth report of Israel," Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, December 12, 2019, https://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CERD/Shared%20Documents/ISR/INT_CERD_COC_ISR_40809_E.pdf. The aftermath of the publication of the 2014 letter explains how The Lancet, a high-profile outlet courageously and almost uniquely willing to cover the political and historical forces impacting Palestinian health, came to publish an entire edition—perhaps the most prominent example of "healthwashing"—that sweeps these defining issues under the rug. "An open letter for the people in Gaza" denounced Israel's 2014 military assault on the besieged Gaza Strip, highlighting the widespread killing and severe injury of Palestinian civilians, including children. Noted was the extraordinary loss of infrastructure, leaving more than 100,000 people homeless,1111 "4.5 years after Israel destroyed thousands of homes in Operation Protective Edge: 13,000 Gazans still homeless," B'Tselem, March 3, 2019, https://www.btselem.org/gaza_strip/20190303_13000_gazans_homelsess_since_2014_war. and the dramatic impacts of Israel's ever-tightening blockade on access to essential medicines, food, and potable water. The authors criticized the complicity of third states, as well as that of Israeli health professionals who failed to speak out against this massacre.1212 Ido Efrati, "Israeli docs mobilize against anti-Israel letter in The Lancet," Haaretz, July 28, 2014, https://www.haaretz.com/docs-target-anti-israel-letter-in-the-lancet-1.5257147. Precisely the same complicity was noted in a Lancet editorial following Israel's 2008–2009 military assault on the Gaza Strip.1313 "The medical conditions in Gaza," The Lancet 373, no. 9659 (2009): 186; https://www.thelancet.com/jour-nals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(09)60049-0/fulltext. The journal's editors deplored the "silence of national medical associations and professional bodies worldwide in response to this destruction and dislocation of health services," singling out medical association leaders, who "through their inaction, are complicit in a preventable tragedy that may have long-lasting public-health consequences not only for Gaza, but also for the entire region." Within a context of pervasive Israeli impunity,1414 "Resolution adopted by the Human Rights Council on 22 March 2019," UN Human Rights Council, April 3, 2019, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/096/44/PDF/G1909644.pdf?OpenElement. the 2009 and 2014 Lancet statements were — and remain — bold calls for action. Each historical juncture was accompanied by an expectation that now, finally, the world should stand up and address the root causes prolonging the injustice and suffering of the Palestinian people. While this ultimately did not occur, The Lancet offered readers the option of adding their signatures to the 2014 letter;1515 "Smear campaign against The Lancet's "Open Letter" on crimes against humanity in Gaza," Global Research News, April 19, 2015, https://www.globalresearch.ca/smear-campaign-against-the-lancets-open-letter-on-crimes-against-humanity-in-gaza/5443762. tens of thousands did so, signaling that a chord of outrage had been resonantly struck. But the extremeness of Israel's military actions in the summer of 2014 did not dilute the potency of the reactionary outcry from its defenders the world over. The response to The Lancet letter took two main forms. First, there was a slew of letters and email invective launched at The Lancet, generally, and at the journal's editor-in-chief, Richard Horton, in particular. And not just Horton, who was vilified as an anti-Semite with a photo of a uniformed Nazi conjoined to his.1616 Ido Efrati, "After accusing Israel of war crimes, Lancet medical journal devotes entire issue to Israeli health care," Haaretz, May 10, 2017, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/lancet-devotes-whole-issue-to-israeli-health-care-1.5470008. The verbal abuse extended to his wife and school-age daughter, reminiscent of the vicious personal attacks on Judge Richard Goldstone following the 2009 release of his United Nations Fact Finding Mission report on the Gaza conflict, which included an attempt to ban him from attending his own grandson's bar mitzvah at a synagogue in Johannesburg.1717 Akiva Eldar, "What exactly did Goldstone 'retract' from his report on Gaza?" Haaretz, April 11, 2011, https://www.haaretz.com/1.5150611. The harassment of medical editors who publish material critical of Israel's policies and actions long predates the modern siege on the Gaza strip. In 1981, the editor of World Medicine, Michael O'Donnell, was targeted in a similarly aggressive campaign, ultimately leading to his dismissal and even the dissolution of the journal. What O'Donnell makes clear in his 2009 chronicling of the 1981 attacks, is that these are not spontaneous outcries of protest, but carefully orchestrated lobbying campaigns designed to obscure the truth about Israel's systematic denial of Palestinian rights. The goal is not only to silence editors but to inhibit would-be writers, many of whom reasonably fear professional and personal consequences. "The technique has endured for decades because it is effective," O'Donnell writes,1818 Michael O'Donnell, "Commentary: standing up for free speech," British Medical Journal 338 (2009): a2094; https://www.bmj.com/content/338/bmj.a2094?ijkey=a750758b30f7cd89d23d514cec8fb8d995e8475d&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha. and if this reemergence in 2020 has any lasting significance, it will be to test and challenge whether this remains so. The second type of response to the 2014 letter came in the form of tacit mobilization of powerful interests to limit free speech on the health impacts of Israeli policies and practices. These tactics are by now well-known outside the medical world,1919 Ben White, "Delegitimizing Solidarity: Israel Smears Palestine Advocacy as Anti-Semitic," Journal of Palestine Studies 49, no. 2 (2020): 65. https://online.ucpress.edu/jps/article/49/2/65/107373/Delegitimizing-Solidarity-Israel-Smears-Palestine?searchresult=1; "UN rights experts denounce Israel's growing constraints on human rights defenders," OHCHR, March 3, 2017, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G19/150/38/PDF/G1915038.pdf?OpenElement. falling within the broader context of concerted efforts led by the Israeli government to outlaw Palestine solidarity and delegitimize human rights defenders, organizations, and activists who challenge Israel's abuses and seek justice and accountability.2020 "Israel / Occupied Palestinian Territory: ongoing smear campaign against Al-Haq staff members Mr. Shawan Jabarin and Ms. Nada Kiswanson," International Federation for Human Rights, November 10, 2017, https://www.fidh.org/en/issues/human-rights-defenders/israel-occupied-palestinian-territory-ongoing-smear-campaign-against. In January of 2015, explicitly identifying the 2014 letter to The Lancet as the motivator,2121 "ADA/AACE/EASD/TES Statement in Response to a Recently Published Letter to the Editor in The Lancet and an Editorial Addressing the Israeli-Palestinian Fighting in Gaza," PR Newswire, November 3, 2014, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adaaaceeasdtes-statement-in-response-to-a-recently-published-letter-to-the-editor-in-the-lancet-and-an-editorial-addressing-the-israeli-palestinian-fighting-in-gaza-281311631.html. the Presidents of the American Diabetes Association, the European Association for the Study of Diabetes, the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists, and the Endocrine Society, as well as the editors-in-chief of eight diabetes and endocrinology journals, issued a statement of principle that proclaimed "our respective journal will refrain from publishing articles addressing political issues that are outside of either research funding or health care delivery."2222 "Statement of principle," American Diabetes Association, Diabetes 64, no. 1, (2015): 311; https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/1/311.full-text.pdf. Leaving aside the oddness of diabetes professionals' unwillingness to publicly tackle the political factors that drive the disease in which they specialize — a position even more untenable as the Covid-19 pandemic exposes the political underpinnings of health with drastically inequitable infection and mortality rates2323 Zeeshan Aleem, "New CDC data shows Covid-19 is affecting African Americans at exceptionally high rates," Vox, April 18, 2020, https://www.vox.com/coronavirus-covid19/2020/4/18/21226225/coronavirus-black-cdc-infection. — an ethical question lingers here. Should physicians and scientists be permitted to publicly narrate the historical, structural, commercial, social, and political forces that lead to avoidable death, illness, and suffering? Given the clear link between these forces and ill health, and the consensus that ignoring them leads to worse outcomes,2424 Seth M Holmes, et al., "Misdiagnosis, Mistreatment, and Harm - When Medical Care Ignores Social Forces," The New England Journal of Medicine 382, no. 12 (2020): 1083–1086; https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1916269. might it not be their duty, in fact, to do so? Such questions recall Edward Said's influential 1984 paper, "Permission to narrate,"2525 Edward Said, "Permission to Narrate," London Review of Books, February 16, 1984, https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v06/n03/edward-said/permission-to-narrate. in which he juxtaposes the historically uncontested facts of Israeli aggression during the 1982 Lebanon War with the perception in Western media that Palestinians were the primary wrongdoers and agents of violence. "Sequence, the logic of cause and effect as between oppressors and victims, opposing pressures—all these vanish inside an enveloping cloud called 'terrorism,'" Said notes. The narrative is distorted beyond recognition, and "there is every chance that ignorance about Israel's attitude towards Palestinians will keep pace with sustained encomia on Israel's pioneering spirit, democracy and humanism." Particularly when silencing comes within the context of prolonged violations of international law and institutionalized impunity,2626 Jonathan Cook, "Israel is silencing the last voices trying to stop abuses against Palestinians," Mondoweiss, November 12, 2019, https://mondoweiss.net/2019/11/israel-is-silencing-the-last-voices-trying-to-stop-abuses-against-palestinians/; "Israel: Supreme Court Greenlights Deporting Human Rights Watch Official," Human Rights Watch, Press Release, November 5, 2019, https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/11/05/israel-supreme-court-greenlights-deporting-human-rights-watch-official. medical journals have a heightened responsibility to narrate facts within what Said describes as a "socially acceptable narrative to absorb, sustain and circulate them."2727 Edward Said, "Permission to Narrate," London Review of Books, February 16, 1984, https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v06/n03/edward-said/permission-to-narrate. In order to avoid the primacy of ideology over scientific inquiry, publishers must allow for pertinent critique of powerful entities, including states, a willingness Richard Horton has demonstrated frequently during his tenure at The Lancet.2828 Richard Horton, "Offline: COVID-19 and the NHS—"a national scandal,"" The Lancet 395, no. 10229 (2020): 1022. https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2820%2930727-3; Yair Amikam, "The Palestinian Medical Crisis: An Exchange," The New York Review of Books, June 14, 2007, https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2007/06/14/the-palestinian-medical-crisis-an-exchange/. With the systematic silencing of voices critical of Israel's violations and refusal to acknowledge a Palestinian counter-narrative, a perspective that highlights the primacy and consequences of Israeli aggression will seem outrageous to many, in 2020 as much as in 1982 or in the aftermath of Palestinian expulsion during the Nakba ("catastrophe") of 1948. In prominent medical journals, Palestinian health narratives feature infrequently. When surveying the literature, the most prominent medical journals in the United States have only one mention of Palestine for every 20 mentions of Israel, compared with a still lopsided one-to-four ratio for leading medical journals in the United Kingdom.2929 Mads Gilbert, "Publication Patterns on Occupied Palestine in Four Key Medical Journals 1990–2016: A Descriptive Study," The Lancet 391 (2018): S24. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)30390-8/fulltext. While one could argue that this reflects a lack of research production from Palestine, which would require its own thoughtful explication, our experience—both recent and historic— suggests this represents a refusal of academic space for those who challenge dominant, ideologically-motivated health narratives. In its willingness to elide uncomfortable historical and political realities,3030 Gideon A. Paul, et al., "A Call for Academic Medicine to Remain Politically Neutral," The Lancet 393, no. 10183 (2019): 1806. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)30027-3/fulltext. the medical association-sponsored silence on Palestine confirms this suspicion, implying a penchant for ideology rather than pursuit of truth in approaches to understanding health. What else could motivate a statement promoting censorship of the root causes of disease? Tellingly, the physicians and scientists who pounced on The Lancet following the publication of our latest piece didn't bother to submit a reasoned reply for the journal's consideration, perhaps because some had already declared "victory" in the journal's pages last year. In a triumphant letter,3131 Julio Rosenstock, et al., "Bringing Closure: Towards Achieving a Better Understanding of Israel," The Lancet 394, no. 10198 (2019): 559. https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(19)31760-X.pdf. ironically political given it was led by a board member of the American Diabetes Association (who is also an associate editor of a journal involved in the aforementioned statement of principle),3232 "Statement of principle," American Diabetes Association, Diabetes 64, no. 1, (2015): 311. https://diabetes.diabetesjournals.org/content/64/1/311.full-text.pdf. the authors celebrated the success of their self-described "sanctions" against The Lancet. Remarkably, when asked whether their boycott of The Lancet weakened the case against boycott of Israel, one of them said, "We had no other option."3333 Peter Kohn, "Pro-Israel doctors end dispute with The Lancet," Australian Jewish News, August 15, 2019, https://ajn.timesofisrael.com/pro-israel-doctors-end-dispute-with-the-lancet/. In addition to the proven historical efficacy of the systematic bullying and censorship touted and euphemized in their letter, there is another plausible reason for avoiding academic debate on our commentary's claims. It is almost certain that none of those lashing out at the journal, neither in 2014 nor today, have meaningful experience living with Palestinians or working on health and human rights in Palestine. On which other topic are the inexperienced and unequipped allowed such sway in the worlds of science and health? And if, despite the experiential gap between us, they wish to press on, shouldn't they have to do so with the same platform available to us—that of reasoned discourse? This isn't just an ivory tower discussion on academic freedom. If the scientific and medical communities refuse to take a strong stand on censorship, bullying, and aggressive lobbying campaigns aimed at silencing academic journals, the well-deserved fear of even the most sympathetic editors—who deserve our staunch solidarity—will allow for the continued erasure of Palestinian health facts, voices, narratives, and experiences. In "Structural violence in the era of a new pandemic: the case of the Gaza Strip," we that violence in historical, and health and that the and response to disease At a when Palestinians are exceptionally susceptible to the Covid-19 the of this ongoing silencing campaign could not be are in the and medical and scientific communities of should that of censorship must be not

1. Introduction: Transnational human rights obligations, Mark Gibney and Wouter Vandenhole Part 1: International Economic Governance Structures 2. U.S. Trade Santions (World Trade Organization, Panel, Claire Buggenhoudt 3. Biofuel and the Right to Food (World Trade Organization, Panel), Alexia Herwig 4. Land Grabbing and Gender Issues (International Finance Corporation and Compliance Advisor Ombudsman), Joss Saunders Part 2: Global (Human Rights) Monitoring Bodies 5. Putting an End to Victims without Borders: Child pornography (Committee on the Rights of the Child), Gamze Erdem Turkelli 6. Extraterritorial Shared Responsibility for the Right to Health (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), Rachel Hammonds and Gorik Ooms 7. Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of Nuba Peoples (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), Jernej Letnar Cernic 8. Only the Little People Pay Taxes: Tax evasion and Switzerland's extraterritorial obligations to economic, social and cultural rights (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), Nicholas Lusiani 9.Labour Rights in a Transnational Perspective (Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), Arne Vandenbogaerde 10. Climate Change (Human Rights Committee, Ad hoc Conciliation Commission), Margreet Wewerinke 11. Land Grabbing in Uganda by a Multinational Coporation (World Court of Justice), Christopher Mbazira 13. Structural Adjustment and Farmers' Suicide in India (International Court of Justice), Anita Punj 14. (Economic) Crimes against Humanity (International Criminal Court), Michael Wabwile Part 3: Regional Human Rights Monitoring Bodies 15. Public Duties for Private Wrongs: Regulation of multinationals (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights), Takele Soboka Bulto 16. Forced Evictions in Zimbabwe (African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights), Khulekani Moyo 17. Land Grabbing in South America (Inter-American Human Rights Commission), Ana Maria Suarez-Franco 18/ Enforcing Extraterritorial Social Rights in the Eurozone Crisis (European Committee of Social Rights), Matthias Sant'Ana 19. Military Interventions in Non-European States (European Court of Human Rights), Nico Moons Part 4: Domestic Courts 20. Extraordinary Rendition (U.S. Supreme Court), Mark Gibney

The work is an attempt of the author to, in a relatively systematic way, presents the norms of Economic and Social Rights in the Constitution of Serbia from 2006. Before that, in the introduction the author refers to the commonplace with regard to human rights and their institutionalization, constitutionalization and internationalization. The process of institutionalization of human rights was started in England by adoption of the Great Charter of Freedoms (Magna Carta Libertatum) in 1215. Constitutionalization of human rights begins with the adoption of the first ten amendments to the US Constitution in 1791. French writers of the Constitution unlike the American in Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen proclaimed certain new rights such as freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, the right to free expression of thought, right to petition or freedom of culture. At first human rights were an asset to limit state power, but with new theories by which the state can not be seen only as a political organization, but as a community that has a socio-economic content, the state must guarantee to the citizens a certain corpus of economic and social rights by Constitution. Economic, social and cultural rights are classified as second generation of rights. Economic and social rights are directed to the fact that individuals are brought to the position that they can enjoy their civil and political rights. These rights, known as social welfare, are rights based on the principles of equality and solidarity, and their purpose is, inter alia, to help to the socially vulnerable members of the community. Constitutional act, which is important for the world the constitutional recognition of these rights is the Weimar Constitution from 1919. which predicted legislative measures to implement these rights. For the internationalization of these rights very important is Universal Declaration of Human Rights from 1948 and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from 1966. The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia from 2006 regulates economic rights as human rights that contribute to the economic stability of man in society. Serbian Constitution provides: The right of ownership; right to inheritance; right to work; the right to strike and freedom of entrepreneurship as economic rights. The Constitution of Serbia predicts the following social rights (such as rights whose purpose is to provide social security in society and economic life worthy of man): the right to health care; the right to social protection; the right to a healthy environment; special protection of family, mother as a single parent and child. It also provides an overview of a Constitutional Court decision which is the subject of protection of the right to health insurance. Finally the author concludes that there is no possibility of achieving the full realization of civil and political rights, if the majority of members of a society do not have the basic existential conditions for the development of their physical and mental potential. An individual who leads the battle for bare physical survival, cares little for the rights such as the right to freedom of thought or electoral law. The state can not ,of course , sacrifice political rights to economic and social, but physical existence and personal development are precondition for the enjoyment of political rights.

Claiming the right to health

The article addresses the problems of realization of social and economic human rights in the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as their connection with civil and political rights. It is drawn to the fact that there are certain contradictions between the principles enshrined in the declaration. The author raises the issue of dignity, cultural differences, and justice in the distribution of public goods. The question of the state’s responsibilities in the provision of social and economic rights is considered. States have a primary responsibility for the social and economic well-being of their citizens. Fair economic growth must play a decisive role in this area, and it is important to consolidate the link between the economic policy and the human rights. The support of the international community should, to a certain extent, be conditional on the governments of individual countries fulfilling their own responsibilities. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights leaves open the question of the placement of social and economic rights in the constitutions of the countries and the issue of their judicial protection. The most effective instrument for realizing these rights will be the development of social legislation, rather than the general provisions of social rights in the constitutions of countries. However, the problems faced by many states can not be fully solved by the efforts of the state alone. The question of morality is the interpretation of the provisions of the Declaration on Social and Economic Rights as an obligation of the international community to act to prevent poverty in the world. The possibility of involving not only states but also international enterprises in the process of combatting poverty is considered. On the basis of the Declaration, the companies and other interested parties begin to formulate sectoral standards of human rights. Possible ways to implement social and economic rights at the local and global levels are also discussed.Article received 10.04.2018

Israel, Palestine, and the Language of Genocide

Foreword Introduction: 1. Economic rights: the terrain Shareen Hertel and Lanse Minkler Part I. Concepts: 2. The West and economic rights Jack Donnelly 3. A needs-based approach to social and economic rights Wiktor Osiatynski 4. Economic rights in the knowledge economy: an instrumental justification Albino Barrera 5. 'None so poor that he is compelled to sell himself': democracy, subsistence, and basic income Michael Goodhart 6. Benchmarking the right to work Philip Harvey Part II. Measurement: 7. The status of efforts to monitor economic, social, and cultural rights Audrey R. Chapman 8. Measuring the progressive realization of economic and social rights Clair Apodaca 9. Economic rights, human development effort, and institutions Mwangi Samson Kimenyi 10. Measuring government effort to respect economic and social human rights: a peer benchmark David L. Cingranelli and David L. Richards 11. Government respect for women's economic rights: a cross-national analysis, 1981-2003 Shawna E. Sweeney Part III. Policy Issues: 12. Economic rights and extraterritorial obligations Sigrun I. Skogly and Mark Gibney 13. Millenium development goal 8: can it be an accountability framework for international human rights obligations? Sakiko Fukuda-Parr 14. The United States and international economic rights: law, social reality, and political choice David Forsythe 15. Public policy and economic rights in Ghana and Uganda Susan Dicklitch and Rhoda E. Howard-Hassmann 16. Human rights as instruments of emancipation and economic development Kaushik Basu 17. Worker rights and economic development: the cases of occupational safety and health and child labor Peter Dorman.

This article argues that the decision of the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights in the Ogoni case represents a giant stride towards the protection and promotion of economic, social and cultural rights of Africans. This is predicated on the African Commission's finding that the Nigerian Government's failure to protect the Ogoni people from the activities of oil companies operating in the Niger Delta is contrary to international human rights law and is in fact a step backwards since Nigeria had earlier adopted legislation to fulfill its obligation towards the progressive realization of these rights. The findings of the African Commission demonstrate that economic, social and cultural rights are not vague or incapable of judicial enforcement. They also illustrate how the Charter can be interpreted generously to ensure the effective enjoyment of rights. Novel and commendable as the decision is, it is not without its shortcomings. These shortcomings lie in the failure of the Commission to pronounce on the right to development, its silence on the desirability of holding transnational corporations accountable for human rights violations, and the institutional weakness of the Commission in enforcing its decisions.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

The paper raises the question whether international human rights could serve as legal guidance for the design and implementation of austerity programmes. Do international human rights obligations impose limitations on such programmes by requiring or prohibiting certain measures or by obliging states to implement austerity programmes in a certain manner? The analysis is developed in five steps: The paper commences with conceptual clarifications by discussing the notion of “austerity programmes” and by showing that economic, social and cultural rights will be at the centre of attention in this context. It then discusses whether and to which extent not only states, but also international organisations, such as the IMF or the EU, or hybrid transnational networks of states and international organisations are obliged to respect human rights. The next section asks whether human rights obligations extend beyond the territory of the state which is bound by them (extraterritorial obligations of human rights). The substantive part of the paper will establish the three dimensions of human rights obligations and their relevance for austerity programmes. A crucial aspect of economic and social rights is the progressiveness of their realisation. This raises the question whether the progressive realisation prohibits retrogressive measures which reduce the level of enjoyment of economic and social rights. In addition, the paper analyses how limitations of economic and social rights can be justified on the basis of general public policy considerations. It will be argued that the application of these considerations triggers a debate about the economic and social effects of austerity programmes. This leads to the implications of human rights for public discourse. It will be argued that human rights can shape the process of economic policy-making by opening space for the debates of political alternatives.

In defence of human rights