Committee On Economic, Social And Cultural Rights Research Articles

Proportionality as procedure: Strengthening the legitimate authority of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

AbstractThe Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has a new mechanism to receive individual complaints and issue views, which makes the question of how the Committee should interpret the broad articles of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights more pressing than ever. Most commentators on the legitimacy of the CESCR’s interpretation have argued that interpreters should make better use of Articles 31–33 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) in order to improve the legitimacy of their findings. In this article, we argue conversely that the individual communication mechanism should be evaluated and reformed in terms of legitimate authority. In the context of the Committee’s process of interpretation, we contend that proportionality is better suited than the various interpretive options of the VCLT to offer a consistent procedure that is able to generate legitimacy by attenuating the tension between personal and collective autonomy.

Economic, social and cultural rights and their dependence on the economic growth paradigm: Evidence from the ICESCR system

In light of the expanding critical academic literature on the social and ecological limits to a growth-based paradigm, this article investigates the ties between economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) and economic growth in the case law of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). It shows that the CESCR assumes economic growth to generally improve the realisation of ESC rights because it increases States’ financial capacity and leads to employment creation. However, while the Committee deems that growth models should be inclusive, the CESCR never adopts a critical perspective on the possibility or desirability to pursue economic growth indefinitely. Despite recent evidence on the contested possibility to decouple economic activity from resource use, the Committee’s recent ecological turn remains embedded in the growth paradigm. This article argues that the Committee should advocate towards decreasing the dependence of ESC rights on growth, especially when a State has reached a certain level of affluence.

Modernizing the UN Human Rights System. By Bertrand G. Ramcharan. Leiden: Brill Nijhoff, 2019. Pp. xvi, 241. Index.

In an earlier speech to the Human Rights Council (HRC) in February 2020, the UNSG noted that human rights were under assault the world over 3 He spoke on that occasion of political leaders who “divide people to multiply votes” and “the rise of racism, white supremacy and other forms of extremism ” Ramcharan makes the following recommendations to reinforce the UNHRS: (1) the UN Security Council (UNSC) should have on its agenda “a standing item on ‘Human Rights and International Peace and Security’” (p 160);(2) a world court should be established to “provide advisory opinions on whether particular policies or practices of a government are in conformity with international human rights law” (p 233);(3) the International Court of Justice should be enabled by the UN General Assembly to provide “authoritative determinations” of international human rights law (IHRL);(4) the International Law Commission (ILC) should be required to undertake thematic codification of IHRL;(5) the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) should act “as the human rights component of a global watch over human security” (p 99);(6) the HRC should convene each year three sessions with a thematic focus;(7) the Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) should stress on the human rights of the poorest;(8) an annual fact-finding report should be published containing concise summaries of the reports submitted by the various mandate holders to the HRC;(9) “the periodicity for the submission of reports under the [universal periodic review (UPR)] system” should be increased (p 232);(10) UN human rights treaty bodies should “have one or more representatives present at various stages of the consideration of the Government's reports under the UPR process” (id );(11) “periodic Youth Assemblies for Reaffirmation of the Universality of Human Rights” should be organized (p 233);(12) a “World Report on National Protection systems” should be published every five years;and (13) “a high level annual lecture on ‘Human Rights and the World of the Future’” should be instituted (pp 230–34) The importance of the OHCHR's role was driven home to this reviewer when it filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court of India regarding the constitutional validity of a troubling Citizenship Amendment Act that negatively impacts certain groups of refugees 5 It thereby brought to the notice of the international community the discriminatory nature of legislation in violation of India's international human rights obligations The positive record of regional courts, such as Inter-American Court of Human Rights, the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and the European Court of Human Rights, lends weight to the idea of creating such a court, even if it was confined to giving only advisory opinions

Time to Invest in the Human Right to Science

At this juncture, the relevance of the human right to science is undeniable. The right, for a long time, has been a subject matter of deliberation under Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR). Most of these deliberations emphasised the need for a concise meaning and scope of the right to science. In the year 2020, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) under the ICESCR made two interventions with the objective of defining, advancing, and mainstreaming the right to science. The two interventions include General Comment No. 25 on Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the Statement on the Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) Pandemic and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This paper concerns the above mentioned statements of the CESCR, in particular, the interpretations and standards being advanced by the Committee.

Interface Between Human Rights and Intellectual Property Rights with Special Reference to Patent Regime and Right to Health in India

Human Rights are the pioneer of all rights and it has been neglected until the establishment of the United Nations (UN) in 1945. The United Nations have recognized the Right to Health in various international conventions, including the right to access essential medicines as a human right, but still many people living in developing countries are denied access to essential medicines due to the heavy cost of patented medicines. In the year 2000, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) adopted General Comment No.14 to define Article 12 of the International Convention on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), it provides that four essential components are very important for access to medicine i.e. availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality. On the other hand, the developed nations are using the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) provisions as per their advantage which in turn affects human rights in developing countries like, India. There is a debate between the Right to Health and the patent regime in India. In the light of the above statements, the author tries to examine the existing issues and challenges with respect to the interface between human rights and intellectual property rights with special reference to protections of Right to Health and pharmaceutical patents.

General Comment No. 24 (2017) on State Obligations Under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Context of Business Activities (CESCR)

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) took an unusual step in issuing its “General Comment No. 24 on State Obligations under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the context of business activities.” Unlike most of CESCR's other General Comments, General Comment No. 24 does not tackle a specific right. Instead, it consolidates and elaborates the Committee's jurisprudence on states' obligations in the area of business and human rights, providing clarity on its approach to some of the most contentious issues within the field of business and human rights. This General Comment has the potential to have profound implications for the ongoing development of legal standards in the area of business and human rights, including implementation of the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (UNGP).

BRIDGING THE INTERNATIONAL GAP: THE ROLE OF NATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS INSTITUTIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATIES IN AFRICA

While most of the United Nations (UN) treaties have committees to monitor the implementation of their provisions among their States parties, one of the major challenges they encounter is their inability to independently verify the information provided by the States parties, on the level of fulfilling their obligations to the treaties. However, the establishment of National Human Rights Institutions (NHRIs) by the majority of UN member states was meant to not only promote and protect human rights within the territories of States parties, but also to monitor the implementation of the provisions of treaties at the domestic level. This resulted in treaty bodies to encourage NHRIs, in monitoring and providing it with information on the level of implementation of the provisions of these treaties within the territories of respective States parties. This article examines whether these institutions in Africa have been able to discharge their mandates concerning the implementation of two treaties, namely, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) which is monitored by the Human Rights Committee (HRC) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) which is overseen by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). The NHRIs of South Africa, Morocco and Nigeria have been selected to test the effectiveness of these institutions. The study ultimately shows that the majority of these institutions are still far off from achieving their potential.

Monitoring Women's Socio-Economic Equality under the ICESCR

Little attention has been paid to the monitoring tools of women's socio-economic rights (SER). Can the established monitoring tools used by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) be reformed to detect all of the ways women's SER are undermined or is it more conceptually sound to establish a new gender equality monitoring standard? This article argues for both approaches. Incorporating a gender equality framework into traditional monitoring tools enriches accountability. To detect the complex ways women experience violations of their SER, it is necessary to develop an independent evaluative tool. This article proposes that Sandra Fredman's four-dimensional model of equality be used for monitoring women's rights under the ICESCR.

Accountability for the human right to health through treaty monitoring: Human rights treaty bodies and the influence of concluding observations

ABSTRACTEmploying novel coding methods to evaluate human rights monitoring, this article examines the influence of United Nations (UN) treaty bodies on national implementation of the human right to health. The advancement of the right to health in the UN human rights system has shifted over the past 20 years from the development of norms under international law to the implementation of those norms through national policy. Facilitating accountability for this rights-based policy implementation under the right to health, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) monitors state implementation by reviewing periodic reports from state parties, engaging in formal sessions of ‘constructive dialogue’ with state representatives, and issuing concluding observations for state response. These concluding observations recognise the positive steps taken by states and highlight the principal areas of CESCR concern, providing recommendations for implementing human rights and detailing issues to be addressed in the next state report. Through analytic coding of the normative indicators of the right to health in both state reports and concluding observations, this article provides an empirical basis to understand the policy effects of the CESCR monitoring process on state implementation of the right to health.

The Influence of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa

Half a century ago, the United Nations General Assembly unanimously adopted two great covenants, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which brought force of law to the rights declared in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both covenants have been widely ratified by the vast majority of African States. However, a largely neglected area of study has been assessing the influence of the ICESCR in various parts of the world including Africa. This article assesses the influence of the ICESCR in Africa. It seeks to show how the ICESCR, as interpreted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) has, through the 50 years since its adoption, had influence on the regional and domestic protection of economic, social and cultural rights (ESC rights) in Africa. The article begins by considering the influence of the Covenant on the regional protection of human rights in Africa. This is followed by an analysis of the influence of the Covenant on the protection of ESC rights in domestic legal systems in Africa focusing primarily on the constitutional protection of ESC rights. It then considers the limited influence of the Covenant on national courts’ jurisprudence in African States applying dualist and monist approaches to international treaties. It ends by making recommendations to maximize the influence of the ICESCR in the future.

Protecting the Right to Housing in England: A Context of Crisis

This parallel report on the enjoyment of the right to housing in England was submitted to the UN as part of NGO JustFair's submission to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), as part of the UK's periodic review under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in May 2016.The report details that England is experiencing a housing crisis. Exceptionally high numbers of people are homeless, or vulnerable to homelessness. The current housing environment is characterised by deep cuts to social welfare benefits, profound issues of lack of supply, high and further increasing housing costs, lack of security of tenure, and homes of such poor quality that they are unfit for habitation. These issues plague all of England’s main housing tenure types: the owner occupied, the private rental sector (PRS), and the social housing sector. Housing insecurity affects not only people on low incomes, but broad swathes of the English population, who currently live in situations of insecurity and uncertainty.In this context of crisis, the government is failing to meet its obligations to ensure the right to housing of its population, so that everyone can enjoy a standard of living in homes that are adequate, safe, and secure.The UK accepted international obligations to respect, protect and fulfill the right to housing under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) when it ratified the ICESCR in 1976. It undertook to take progressive steps towards the realisation of the right to housing, using all the means at its disposal, both financial and otherwise.In a climate of austerity, it is vital to point out that the government is obliged not to take regressive (that is, backward), steps or strip away enjoyment of the right to housing unless this is absolutely necessary. Any backward movement must be justified under the strictest possible criteria.Yet a growing number of individuals and families in England are not able to secure the adequate, safe and affordable housing that the ICESCR requires. Homelessness is rising. Housing is increasingly unaffordable, and legislative changes have weakened key safety nets for English households.This report focuses on two areas of particular concern in England, which show that the UK government is manifestly failing to discharge its obligations for the right to adequate housing under the ICESCR.These are first, homelessness, and second, multiple concerns with the quality, affordability, and regulation of the Private Rental Sector (PRS).Both areas illustrate serious concerns with retrogression in the enjoyment of the right to adequate housing; and how current law and policy over housing fails to protect some of England’s most vulnerable and marginalised individuals and families.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC RIGHTS DURING ECONOMIC CRISES: A CHANGED APPROACH TO NON-RETROGRESSION

AbstractWhen the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) released a letter in early 2012 addressing the financial and economic crises, it was long overdue. Finally, and around four and a half years after the crises began, the body responsible for monitoring those rights that had been most severely impacted had spoken. But what had been said? This article examines the alterations to the doctrine of non-retrogression that the 2012 Letter instigated. It does so by reference to the ‘Business as Usual’ and ‘accommodation’ theories of emergency response. The Letter to States is argued to have taken the Committee away from an approach to non-retrogression that treated times of normality and emergency in a similar way, and towards an approach that allows derogation-style deviations from the Covenant. This, it is argued, could have detrimental effects for the protection of economic and social rights. The difficulties in applying such an approach are considered.

The Principle of Non-Discrimination: An Empty Promise for the Preventive Health Care of Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants?

The principle of non-discrimination in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) holds that its rights are equally applicable to ‘everyone’. Nevertheless, evidence from the national context suggests that access to health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants depends on their legal status and in particular, preventive health care is often inaccessible to them. This has led to several hitherto under-investigated questions concerning the right to health in this context: Does a right to preventive health care exist at the international level? If so, what individual rights and State obligations are involved in this right? How does the principle of non-discrimination relate to this right? Does this principle offer (additional) protection to asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in terms of a possible right to preventive health care? Method: The main issue is what the principle of nondiscrimination has to offer for the preventive health care of persons without a regular residence status. Based on an analysis of the non-binding, but authoritative, General Comments of the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the paper takes an exploratory style that goes beyond traditional legal analysis and investigates how the law should be interpreted in order to enhance its effectiveness and relevance.Results and Discussion: Strictly speaking, there is no explicit, binding right to preventive health care for asylum seekers or undocumented migrants in the ICESCR itself.2 Nevertheless, implications can be found in the CESCR General Comments Number 14 and 20.3. Particularly, if one takes into account how the law should be interpreted according to CESCR General Comment 14 (CESCR GC 14), there should be a right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. The exact content of such a right, however, is less clearly defined. Further, the principle of non-discrimination is not conclusive as to whether the right to health would apply equally to asylum seekers and/or undocumented migrants as it would to nationals. Conclusion: For non-discrimination to be truly unambiguous with regard to the preventive health care of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, it would be necessary to strike out the ‘general welfare’ provision of CESCR General Comment 20 (CESCR GC 20) and to clearly state that the ‘other status’ criterion also entails ‘residence status’. In that sense, the principle of non-discrimination is, indeed, an empty promise and the right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants seems to be much better protected under the CESCR GC 14’s non-discriminatory interpretation of the right to health itself.

The Principle of Non-discrimination: An Empty Promise for the Preventive Health Care of Asylum Seekers and Undocumented Migrants?

The principle of non-discrimination in Article 2 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) holds that its rights are equally applicable to ‘everyone’. Nevertheless, evidence from the national context suggests that access to health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants depends on their legal status and in particular, preventive health care is often inaccessible to them.1 This has led to several hitherto under-investigated questions concerning the right to health in this context: Does a right to preventive health care exist at the international level? If so, what individual rights and State obligations are involved in this right? How does the principle of non-discrimination relate to this right? Does this principle offer (additional) protection to asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in terms of a possible right to preventive health care? Method: The main issue is what the principle of nondiscrimination has to offer for the preventive health care of persons without a regular residence status. Based on an analysis of the non-binding, but authoritative, General Comments of the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), the paper takes an exploratory style that goes beyond traditional legal analysis and investigates how the law should be interpreted in order to enhance its effectiveness and relevance. Results and Discussion: Strictly speaking, there is no explicit, binding right to preventive health care for asylum seekers or undocumented migrants in the ICESCR itself.2 Nevertheless, implications can be found in the CESCR General Comments Number 14 and 20.3 Particularly, if one takes into account how the law should be interpreted according to CESCR General Comment 14 (CESCR GC 14), there should be a right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants. The exact content of such a right, however, is less clearly defined. Further, the principle of non-discrimination is not conclusive as to whether the right to health would apply equally to asylum seekers and/or undocumented migrants as it would to nationals. Conclusion: For non-discrimination to be truly unambiguous with regard to the preventive health care of asylum seekers and undocumented migrants, it would be necessary to strike out the ‘general welfare’ provision of CESCR General Comment 20 (CESCR GC 20) and to clearly state that the ‘other status’ criterion also entails ‘residence status’. In that sense, the principle of non-discrimination is, indeed, an empty promise and the right to preventive health care for asylum seekers and undocumented migrants seems to be much better protected under the CESCR GC 14’s non-discriminatory interpretation of the right to health itself.

An argument for South Africa's accession to the optional protocol to the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights in the light of its importance and implications

The universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all rights have been universally acclaimed since the drafting in 1948 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. However, despite the doctrine of indivisibility, civil and political rights (CPRs) have for a long time been treated as being enforceable judicially at the national, regional and international levels, while socio-economic rights (SERs) have not. With the elaboration and adoption of an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR), which mandates the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) to consider individual communications detailing the violations of SERs, the justiciability of SERs was also fully recognised at the international level.This paper undertakes an analysis of the importance and implications of the individual communications procedure under the OP-ICESCR and details some of the reasons why it would be beneficial for South Africa to accede thereto. The argument for accession by South Africa to the OP-ICESCR departs from the premise that South Africa's ratification of the ICESCR is imminent. Having signed the ICESCR on 3 October 1994, the South African Cabinet on 10 October 2012 decided that South Africa should ratify the Covenant. The authors argue that acceding to the OP-ICESCR will complement domestic protection and will confirm South Africa's global leadership in the field of justiciable SERs. Logic dictates that South Africa should confirm at the international level its position as a world leader on the national justiciability and legal enforcement of SERs, as indeed it has done during the drafting process of the OP-ICESCR. Accession to OP-ICESCR, the argument continues, will not detract from the country's sovereignty, especially in the light of the requirement of the exhaustion of domestic remedies, including the condition that applicants must show that they have suffered a "clear disadvantage". In any event, South Africa already has undertaken obligations as to SERs under regional human rights treaties that are equal to and in some respect more arduous than the obligations emanating from the ICESCR.
 

The human right to water and sanitation: is the obligation deliverable?

The concept of the human right to water can be traced to the Mar del Plata water conference that took place in Argentina in 1977. A quarter of a century later, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) gave a major boost to the concept by recognizing it in a separate comment. This was further strengthened by two resolutions by the United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Council – both adding the right to sanitation. This article discusses the evolution of the right and the challenges facing its implementation, and addresses the question of whether this obligation is indeed deliverable.

Yordanova and Others v Bulgaria: The Influence of the Social Right to Adequate Housing on the Interpretation of the Civil Right to Respect for One's Home

On 24 April 2012, the European Court of Human Rights handed down a unanimous judgment in the case of Yordanova and Others v Bulgaria, in which it ruled against Bulgaria for its attempt to remove Bulgarian nationals of Roma origin from their homes which had been unlawfully built on municipal land in the neighbourhood of Sofia. In short, the Court found that the enforcement of the removal order would amount to a violation of the applicants’ right to respect for their home guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Even though the eviction order was in accordance with domestic law and pursued legitimate aims, it was not ‘necessary in a democratic society’ as the decision-making procedure not only ‘did not offer safeguards against disproportionate interference [with the right to respect for one’s home] but also involved a failure to consider the question of “necessity in a democratic society.”The judgment represents the most advanced European jurisprudence to date on the issue of forced evictions. In particular, the Court’s interpretation of the civil right to respect for one’s home was infused by an understanding of the social right to adequate housing, which has been developed by, among others, the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and the European Committee of Social Rights (ECSR). The ECtHR’s approach highlights how the distinction between the civil and political rights and the socio-economic ones is, at least to a certain extent, artificial.

Human Rights Protections for Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Groups: The Contributions of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Recognition of the need to protect the rights and interests of the vulnerable and disadvantaged has been a recurrent theme in the work of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR). This article reviews the work of the CESCR to ascertain whether the Committee has had a clear-cut framework or criteria to determine which individuals or groups should be considered vulnerable and disadvantaged and what measures are required to protect their human rights. The first section reviews the Committee's reporting guidelines. The second analyzes the treatment of vulnerability in the Committee's general comments and statements. The third evaluates how the CESCR has approached the subject of vulnerability in its concluding comments for state party reports reviewed between 1997 and 2009. The fourth concludes that despite the importance the CESCR accords to the subject of vulnerability, it does not offer a clear-cut conception or definition of vulnerability or related terminology. Nor does it provide criteria for identifying which individuals or groups qualify as vulnerable or disadvantaged in general or in specific contexts. Moreover, the CESCR is often vague about what protecting and improving the status of the vulnerable and disadvantaged entails. Therefore the paper recommends that the CESCR address vulnerability in a more conceptually robust and integrated fashion through issuing a general comment or a statement on the topic.

At Law: The Human Right to Health: A Right to the "Highest Attainable Standard of Health"

In recent years, human rights have profoundly influenced the fields of public health and health care.[1] During the AIDS epidemic, civil libertarians turned to the language of human rights to defend persons against stigma and discrimination.[2] During the Clinton administration's effort to achieve universal access to medical insurance, advocates claimed that health care was a human right. This rhetorical device elevated health care from a market commodity to a basic entitlement. The main sources of human rights law within the United Nations system are two treaty-based schemes: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The United States has ratified the ICCPR but not the ICESCR. The rights contained in the ICCPR are principally "negative" or defensive in character, affording individuals a sphere of protection from government restraint--rights to liberty and privacy and freedom of expression and association, for example. The ICESCR forms the foundation for "positive rights," that is, those requiring affirmative duties of the state to provide services--for example, the right to social security, education, work, and to "share in scientific advancement and its benefits." Scholars have developed a sophisticated understanding of civil and political rights but have failed systematically to examine the meaning and enforcement of social and economic rights.[3] Perhaps the most important social and economic entitlement is the right to health. Article 12 of the ICESCR requires governments to recognize "the right of everyone to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) also expressly recognizes a right to health: Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control. Considerable disagreement exists, however, as to whether "health" is a meaningful, identifiable, operational, and enforceable right, or whether it is merely aspirational or rhetorical. A right to health that is too broadly defined lacks clear content and is less likely to have a meaningful effect. For example, if health is, as suggested by WHO, "a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity," then it can never be achieved.[4] Even if this definition were construed as a reasonable, as opposed to an absolute, standard, it remains difficult to implement, and is unlikely to be justiciable. Thus it is important to develop a clear definition of the human right to health that helps clarify state obligations, identify violations, and establish criteria and procedures for enforcement.[5] To achieve this goal, the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which monitors the implementation of the ICESCR, recently issued General Comment No. 14: The Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health.[6] The General Comment represents the most authoritative statement on the meaning of the right to health. General Comment 14 proclaims that "health is a fundamental human right indispensable for the exercise of other human rights. Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health conducive to living a life in dignity." The right to health is not confined to health care, but embraces a wide range of socioeconomic conditions necessary for people to lead healthy lives, including the underlying determinants of health (nutrition, housing, uncontaminated drinking water, sanitation, safe workplaces, and a healthy environment). …