I have never read this before. I didn't even know it existed, and that seems a rather shocking level of ignorance since it has been in place since 1976. So I thought I would link it here, in case anyone else is similarly uninformed.
www.ohchr.org/EN/ProfessionalInterest/Pages/CESCR.aspxIt seems strange to me that this document can co-exist with the neoliberal narrative so pervasive everywhere, because it enshrines rights which directly contradict the policy prescriptions of our global consensus. Of course it is written in very general terms and there is a lot of wriggle room. But how can one square its fundamentals with what we are currently doing?
According to the Covenant
1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.How does one reconcile that with the position of the Spanish government on Catalan ambitions for independence? Presumably by arguing that the Catalans are not a people. But it seems to me that if they consider themselves to be a people, that settles the matter. What other benchmark can one use? The boundaries of nation states are often the rather arbitrary outcome of ancient wars or colonial map drawing: that does not change the way people identify themselves, so far as I can see. Attempts to squash those perceptions can persist for centuries, and yet they seldom succeed. We all know that.
There is nothing wrong in people freely choosing to be part of a larger entity if it suits them. But the Covenant enshrines the conditional nature of any such arrangement. Yet we are told that the international community, and the EU in particular, will not countenance what it is pleased to call "secession", and that appears to presume that the decision about what constitutes a "people" in the wrong place entirely. Why should we accept that when the facts are so clearly in conflict with that view?
Spain ratified the covenant in 1977.
2. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right. How can any party which has ratified the Covenant pursue an economic policy based on neoclassical theory which includes the deliberate use of high unemployment as a necessary condition for the control of inflation, and make the latter the central policy aim?
During the period of the post war consensus full employment was the central responsibility of government in the economic sphere. We know that changed with the rise of the neoliberals after 1980, though you will note that that was very shortly after this Covenant came in to force. If this document was taken seriously there would be no defence in international law against a charge that that change was a breach of the obligations, for it goes on to say
The steps to be taken by a State Party to the present Covenant to achieve the full realization of this right shall include technical and vocational guidance and training programmes, policies and techniques to achieve steady economic, social and cultural development and full and productive employment under conditions safeguarding fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual.There is no wriggle room there wide enough to include NAIRU at all. Full employment is qualified only by the need to safeguard fundamental political and economic freedoms to the individual. Worse, the treatment of Greece, Spain, Portugal, etc by the Troika does not even pretend that full employment is a consideration for those countries. The Troika is a creature of the EU, and every country in the EU has ratified the convention (though it seems that Germany has done so "with reservations" which are not specified in the material I have read so far).
3.
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent.Apart from the fact that there is nothing there which allows the State to pass over its responsibility to banks or to international finance, as has happened, the obligations are clear and the breaches are hardly arguable, it seems to me. Foodbanks in this country are not state run, and the fact of their existence proves that the State has not met its Covenant obligations: that is true in every country in Europe to a greater or lesser extent. Improvement in living standards is nowhere to be seen, nor any attempt to achieve that, unless you accept the fairy tale that there is a necessity for short term austerity in order to achieve long term progress. Only it isn't short term. Although all states pay lip service to that obligation there is no evidence it is more than lip service.
4. Article 13 covers education. The interesting part for this post is this
Higher education shall be made equally accessible to all, on the basis of capacity, by every appropriate means, and in particular by the progressive introduction of free education;We are going backwards in this country with the introduction of tuition fees. I gather from earlier posts from other countries that is also true elsewhere, in both the Netherlands and in the USA. They have all ratified this treaty: UK in 1976: Netherlands in 1978: USA in 1977.
The covenant is a forward looking agreement which might as well not exist. I didn't know it did. Unless I am uniquely ignorant, it has not been much referred to when policy at odds with its provisions is introduced in to national law. I wonder why not.
