Source:
NGO Coalition for an OP to the ICESCR
Day One: Monday 6 February 2006
Programme for the day
The focus of the morning session was the Opening Statements from delegations. The focus of the afternoon session was a debate about the scope of the rights subject to a procedure of communication under an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (OP-ICESCR)
Themes from the Opening Statements
There has been an increased number of States expressing support for an OP-ICESCR reflecting the increasing interests of the governments on the subject and significant work by NGOs in a number of regions since the last Working Group.
A variety of views were expressed during the opening session, the major political positions being:
Stronger support to draft the OP
Ongoing interest in the work of the OEWG
In terms of substantive concerns two key themes emerged:
1. A rejection of the ‘á la carte approach’ (where not all the rights in the Covenant or all levels of obligations [respect, protect, fulfil] would be included in the OP). A great majority of State representatives have expressed their support for a comprehensive approach.
2. An increasing number of States emphasized the importance they place on international cooperation established under Article 2.1 ICESCR.
3. Except in the case of a very limited number of States, there have been no questioning that these rights are indeed justiciable.
In the Opening Session the representative of Brazil, on behalf of the GRULAC Group (Group of Latin American and the Caribbean Countries), expressed strong support for a comprehensive OP-ICESCR. This group expressed their wish to go to the next step of commencing with the drafting process. They stressed that the adoption of an OP-ICESCR would provide the same status to all human rights.
In addition, several countries of this Region spoke in support of an OP-ICESCR, such as Ecuador and Chile. Mexico made particularly supportive statements in favour of a comprehensive OP and the value of beginning to elaborate a Draft Optional Protocol.
The representative of Morocco, on behalf of the African Group also expressed support for an OP-ICESCR stressing the importance of the issue of a comprehensive approach, international assistance and cooperation, as well as a requirement for the exhaustion of regional remedies in order not to undermine the developing regional mechanisms.
The EU (represented by Austria) expressed ongoing support for the OEWG, though did not include a statement that the OEWG should begin drafting an OP. In addition, some EU countries like Spain, Belgium, Portugal and Finland expressed their support for drafting an OP. Croatia, as an EU accession country also expressed support for drafting an OP.
There are still some States that strongly opposed to an OP-ICESCR, such as the USA, Poland, Australia and Japan. A number of other countries continue to take a predominantly negative view, including Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany. Anything domestic NGOs can do to put pressure on these countries will be helpful.
Debate regarding the scope of rights subject to a procedure
The Chair presented two versions of a comprehensive approach to the rights covered under an OP.
(1) Part I, II and III of the Covenant; and
(2) Part III in conjunction with Part I and II.
The Chair also presented the various "à la carte" approaches including the possibility for states to choose provisions of the ICESCR which should be subject to the procedure under an OP.
There was a noticeable increase in support for the adoption of a comprehensive approach in regard to the rights to be subject to the complaints procedure. Many State delegates expressed their views in this regard, including the African Group, the Group of Latin American and Carribean States, and other countries such as Belgium, Azerbaijan, Finland, Portugal, Croatia, Spain, Italy, Norway, Greece, Russian Federation. Egypt was one of the states remarking that version (2) of the comprehensive approach (Part III in conjunction with Part I and II) cannot be considered a comprehensive approach.
Only few States such as Canada, Switzerland and the U.K. expressed their preference for some type of ‘a la carte approach’ also suggesting the idea of limiting the scope to issues of discrimination or minimum core requirements of the rights. For instance, Canada argued that the OP should apply only to Part III “read in conjunction with Part II” and advocated more serious consideration of the option of restricting the OP to only "core rights." The U.K argued that it might only apply to non-discrimination, as all countries have laws on this. This was supported by India. Japan was also outspoken in its opposition to an OP and thus to any comprehensive approach.
Several delegations took the floor for the first time in the afternoon, Chile and France made supportive statements, Poland continued its obstructive role from 2004 questioning the benefits and efficacy of an OP.
NGO activities
The NGO Coalition made an Opening Statement (see web page), calling on governments to move to drafting an OP and identifying the key elements (as per our written submission). Other NGOs made statements calling for drafting, including Amnesty International, FIAN, the International Commission of Jurists, the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, the American Association of Jurists, and CETIM.
|
|
|
| |
 |
 |
In-depth
reports |
| Detailed
reports on key issues. |
Economic, social and cultural rights - ESCR
ESC rights are valid, enforceable, justiciable and claimable under both local and international law. Civil society is campaigning for their full implementation.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
