WUNRN
World
Social Forum
Call
for Day of Action / Mobilisation
January
26, 2008
English
Sign now!
Deutsch
Zeichen jetzt!
Français
Signe maintenant!
العربية
التوقيع الآ
日本語
今印
Italiano
Firma ora!
Korean
지금 참여하세요!
Português
Assinar já!
Español
Firma ahora!
Hindi (pdf)
Sign now!
[Signatures]
- [Why WSF2008]
- [How to get involved]
World Social Forum website - WSF Common space & process
Contact mail: globalaction@wsf2008.net
_________________________________________________
The
World Social Forum (WSF) 2008 will take the form of a week of action
culminating in a Global Day of Mobilisation and Action on 26 January 2008
(http://www.wsf2008.net/). For the
first time, the WSF will be fully decentralized, meaning that every
organization and movement will carry out their own activities where they wish.
As
in previous years, for the WSF 2008, organizations are joining together as a
Human Dignity and Human Rights Caucus (HDHRC) to ensure that human rights issues and values receive due attention.
Contact: coordinationhdhrc@yahoo.com
__________________________________________________________________________
Note: 4. Accountability & the Struggle
for Gender Equity
Human Dignity and Human Rights Caucus
in the World Social
Forum
Human
Rights “Accountability” and in the
WSF Global
Day of Action and Mobilisation and UDHR Commemorations
- Focusing
on Accountability
- Accountability
& Struggles of Habitat, Land and Environment
- Accountability
& Conflict, Militarization and the Culture of impunity
- Accountability & the Struggle for Gender Equity
- Accountability
& Social and Economic Justice Struggles
1. Focusing on Accountability
Accountability
always has been a key theme in the human rights discourse. Focusing on
accountability is perhaps especially important at this moment in history, when the
process of establishing a legal framework for human rights has been basically
concluded, but political commitment to the promotion and protection of human
rights seems, in some ways, to be on the wane.
Starting with the
adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948, the basic
framework of modern international human rights law has been articulated through
the drafting of a series of major international and regional human rights
treaties. These treaties have been voluntarily ratified by States and, thereby,
become legally binding upon those States. However, in many places and in many
respects, the level of implementation of the human rights articulated in these
instruments remains woefully inadequate. This is an issue of political accountability
to the commitments voluntarily made by States to the promotion and protection
of human rights.
At the same time,
the mechanisms for enforcement of human rights remain relatively underdeveloped
(especially with regard to economic, social and cultural rights). Even though
binding as international law (through the ratification of human rights
treaties, or through the application of customary international law), human
rights are rarely legally enforceable, except to the extent that they are also
recognized in domestic laws and enforced by domestic authorities and courts. At
the international level, the powers of most human rights monitoring mechanisms
are limited to recommendatory actions. The human rights movement continues to
advocate for stronger international mechanisms to promote and protect human
rights, and to ensure that all relevant actors (not only states, but also
private-sector entities and international organizations) are effectively bound
by these obligations. These are issues of legal accountability under human
rights law.
The
implementation gap in the field of human rights is fundamentally an issue of
the lack of political and legal accountability to human rights. Focusing on
accountability is a response to the implementation challenge.
What Does Human Rights Accountability Mean ?
Every State has obligations to respect, protect and fulfill all human
rights codified in law. The international human rights Covenants establish the
means by which a State party is to ensure that it meets these obligations by
applying “over-riding principles” of implementation. As established in the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, any right and
the corresponding State obligations can be realized only to the extent that the
State ensures:
- self-determination
(Article 1.1),
- nondiscrimination
(Article 2.2),
- gender
equality (Article 2),
- rule of
law (Article 2.1),
- international
cooperation (Article 2.1),
- progressive
realization (Article 2.1) and
- applying
the maximum of available resources (Article 2.1).
As rights holders, we encourage the State and all public
authorities to perform their common human rights obligations, which they have
assumed through the State’s ratification of the human rights treaties and under
customary law. We recognize also that States are treaty bound and “accountable”
to harmonize public policies and national laws with those same principles and
obligations. Those principles and obligations actually help governments conduct
successful statecraft by formulating and implementing policies that preserve
and strengthen the State in the peoples’ service, while building greater
internal and external legitimacy and more effective protection from external
(and internal) threats and preventing problems, disputes and wider conflicts.
In this artful
task of fulfilling its human rights obligations, the State and its constituent
authorities ultimately are accountable to the peoples under their jurisdiction
and effective authority. It is these duties and authority, assured through
concomitant accountability, that distinguish government from civil society and
make both complementary partners.
The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights affirms that “every individual and every organ of
society” bears the responsibility “to promote respect for these rights and
freedoms...by progressive measures, national and international…” Particularly the dimension of the State’s obligation to “protect” requires
it to ensure that others (third parties) respect everyone’s human rights.
In 2008, the 60th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we reaffirm that we
are all somehow accountable to conduct ourselves consistent with human rights.
State laws, policies and plenary powers regulate our behavior with respect the
rights of others. The State also functions to regulate the behavior of other
individuals and entities accordingly. However, despite the efforts of human
rights through the UN treaty-monitoring bodies, enforcement of State
accountability largely remains a local task.
The UN Charter
makes clear also that States Members of the UN are obliged to conduct
themselves through international cooperation consistent with the UN’s purposes:
to attain and maintain peace and security, uphold human rights and ensure
progressive social development together. The extraterritorial obligations of
States under human rights treaties are synonymous with the over-riding
principle of international cooperation set forth in the Covenant. For States,
the over-riding obligation of “international cooperation” is the least
well-defined of the legal norms. Nonetheless, in our globalized world,
monitoring this dimension of States’ treaty obligations is increasingly
important.
While the State
and its constituent authorities remain the primary duty holder, accountability
is to be shared by all parties concerned. International financial institutions,
corporations, multilateral agencies and influential foreign governments
theoretically all fall under the same set of human rights accountability norms.
The State is accountable for regulating their conduct consistent with its human
rights treaty obligations. Part of our local challenge—which we carry with us
to the WSF and other alliances—is to bring that theory closer to reality. That
can be done, in part, by joining together to improve mechanisms and fortify
actions that call to account those many other parties that operate in the
current gray area between human rights law and the corresponding obligations.
For another world
to be possible, States first must be accountable and have sufficient capacity,
authority and social orientation to ensure the human rights accountability of
other powerful internal and external actors. Otherwise, human rights violations
with impunity will be the prevailing norm for governments, multilateral
institutions, multinational corporations, the private sector and others not
explicitly mentioned in the treaties.
2. Accountability & Struggles of Habitat, Land and Environment ?[1][1]
It is a human
right to have access to adequate housing and equitable land use, to access adequate
food (i.e., to feed oneself), and to live in a safe and sound environment.
Respect for, protection and fulfillment of these rights are among the essential
criteria of human civilization, social development, statecraft and
international law. Consequently, these also form criteria for ensuring the
accountability of States, their institutions and representatives in meeting
their binding obligations corresponding to these human rights.
Under
international law, the State is primarily and always accountable for the
policies and practices that affect our common rights to housing, land, habitat
and environment. The State is also the focus of struggles over land, habitat
and environment related to large-scale development, urban “beautification,”
land-use legislation, privatization of social housing and services, military
occupation and armed conflict, among others. All these phenomena have become
vehicles of deprivation, forced eviction and other forms of violence for
impoverished and vulnerable inhabitants of our cities and countryside. They
have caused desperate flight or erasure of people and communities unable to
survive on the land, and have led to squalid living conditions in apartheid
cities that resemble scenes from science fiction.
However, the State is not the only accountable party. The causal forces of
poverty, squalor, land deprivation and hunger are driven by accountable parties
that can be found at all levels of public authority, in foreign governments,
multilateral institutions, and private interests, both local and multinational.
In any given struggle over rights to housing, land and environment, the
list of duty holders may be long, and/or may vary from case to case and region
to region. Nonetheless, violators of these rights are increasingly linked by
ideology, material interest or subsidiary connections across borders. They may
include:
§ Governments and government blocs;
§ International financial institutions;
§ Parastatal institutions;
§ UN agencies;
§ Development agencies and arrangements;
§ Private and publicly traded corporations;
§ Real estate speculators;
§ Local private interests; e.g., slum lords and land grabbers;
§ Occupying powers and their military forces;
§ Ourselves.
All are accountable
under common human rights criteria, while the State remains duty bound by law
to respect, protect and fulfill rights to adequate housing and equitable land
use, to access adequate food (i.e., to feed oneself), and to live in a safe and
sound environment. Another world is possible, but only if we practice the
culture of accountability by using all of the human rights principles, tools
and mechanisms available.
We reaffirm our
commitment to do so by calling all responsible parties to account on the Global
Day of Action, and throughout 2008, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights’
sixtieth anniversary year.
3. Accountability & Conflict, Militarization and the
Culture of impunity
The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights adopted sixty years ago sets out the most
fundamental rights of all human beings. While the State is the first duty
holder of international human rights law, the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights states that all organs of society shall strive to promote respect for
human rights. States have an obligation to protect human rights, meaning to
ensure that all other actors respect human rights, and are made accountable for
human rights violations.
The UDHR states
that everyone has the right to an effective remedy for acts violating his
fundamental rights. This right is also acknowledged by the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
The entering into
force of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in July 2002 is
an important step in the prosecution of authors of the most serious crimes of
international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
International ad hoc Tribunals established by the United Nations have also
contributed to fighting impunity for human rights violations.
However, in
reality, impunity of authors of human rights violations including the most
serious human rights violations remain widespread throughout the world.
Accountability of all actors, be they states or non-state
actors, such as individuals, corporations, international organisations is
fundamental to the respect of human rights and the prevention of further human
rights abuses.
In order to put an end to impunity, we call upon all
states to:
§ Ratify and implement the nine core international human rights instruments;
§ Ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court;
1.
Establish effective judicial recourses for victims of
human rights abuses;
2.
Conform to their obligation to protect human rights from
violations by third parties.
Table 1:
Non-state parties to the Rome Statute.
|
SIGNATORIES |
NON-SIGNATORIES |
NON-SIGNATORIES (CON’T) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DPRK |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Saint Lucia |
Pakistan |
|
|
Sao Tome and Principe |
Palau |
|
|
Seychelles |
Papua New Guinea |
|
|
Solomon Islands |
Qatar |
|
|
Sudan |
Rwanda |
|
|
Syria |
Saudi Arabia |
|
|
Thailand |
Singapore |
|
|
Ukraine |
Somalia |
|
|
UAE |
Sri Lanka |
|
|
USA |
Suriname |
|
|
Uzbekistan |
Swaziland |
|
|
Yemen |
Togo |
|
|
Zimbabwe |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 2: Non-state
parties to the Convention Against Torture
|
SIGNATORIES |
NON-SIGNATORIES |
|
Comoros |
Angola |
|
Dominican Republic |
Bahamas |
|
|
Barbados |
|
Guinea-Bissau |
Bhutan |
|
India |
Brunei |
|
Nauru |
CAF |
|
Sao Tome and Principe |
Cook Islands |
|
Sudan |
Dominica |
|
|
Eritrea |
|
|
Fiji |
|
|
Grenada |
|
|
Haiti |
|
|
Iran |
|
|
Iraq |
|
|
Jamaica |
|
|
Kiribati |
|
|
DPRK |
|
|
Laos |
|
|
Macedonia |
|
|
Malaysia |
|
|
Marshall Islands |
|
|
Micronesia |
|
|
Myanmar |
|
|
Oman |
|
|
Pakistan |
|
|
Palau |
|
|
PNG |
|
|
St Lucia |
|
|
Samoa |
|
|
Saint Kitts and Nevis |
|
|
Rwanda |
|
|
Singapore |
|
|
Solomon Islands |
|
|
Suriname |
|
|
Tanzania |
|
|
Thailand |
|
|
Tonga |
|
|
Trinidad and Tobago |
|
|
Tuvalu |
|
|
UAE |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 3: Non State
Parties to the ICCPR
|
SIGNATORIES |
NON SIGNATORIES |
|
|
|
|
China |
Antigua-Barbados |
|
Nauru |
Saudi Arabia |
|
Sao Tome and Principe |
Bahamas |
|
|
Bhutan |
|
|
Brunei |
|
|
Comoros |
|
|
Cook Islands |
|
|
Cuba |
|
|
UAE |
|
|
Fiji |
|
|
Guinea-Bissau |
|
|
Kiribati |
|
|
Laos |
|
|
Malaysia |
|
|
Marshall Islands |
|
|
Micronesia |
|
|
Myanmar |
|
|
Oman |
|
|
Pakistan |
|
|
Palau |
|
|
PNG |
|
|
Qatar |
|
|
Saint Kitts and
Nevis |
|
|
Saint Lucia |
|
|
Solomon Islands |
|
|
Samoa |
|
|
Singapore |
|
|
Tonga |
|
|
Tuvalu |
|
|
Vanuatu |
4. Accountability
& the Struggle for Gender Equity
As stated in the
United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination
against Women (CEDAW), “the full and complete development of a country, the
welfare of the world and the cause of peace require the maximum participation
of women on equal terms with men in all fields.” Currently the vast majority of
the world’s countries are party to CEDAW, meaning that their governments are
legally obligated to implement its provisions, reform national legislation
accordingly and ensure its application. Despite this broad official support for
women’s full participation in society and the end of gender-based
discrimination however, ensuring accountability for achieving gender equitable
societies remains an uphill battle.
CEDAW itself
provides a clear example of how official commitments contrast with clear
failures in accountability in achieving gender equity. Many countries that have
signed CEDAW have done so with reservations that significantly undermine its
object and purpose; moreover ratification does not ensure national laws are
reformed in a timely manner. The contradiction between normative rights
standards and daily accountability failure is also evident in citizenship
challenges, in particular the serious human rights violations women migrants
face, as both countries of origin and destination deny responsibility for these
workers and their families. Another illustrative example is the central “catch
The focus of
accountability for human rights is often the creation and application of new
national legislation. However, this is just one (often the easiest) step of a
long process of societal change – even when those new laws may be the
cumulative result of decades of advocacy work. What follows legislative reform
is the process of changing individual and community attitudes and promoting new
ways for citizens to relate to one another and to their government. Moreover,
human rights accountability does not only apply to states; international
governmental organisations such as the UN agencies, regional treaty bodies, or
IFIs are prime examples of other players whose impact on women’s human rights
is indisputable. International and local NGOs, companies including
multinationals, and individuals also participate and contribute to the complex
power relationships that maintain inequitable societies where women’s rights
are not fully respected.
On this 60th
anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in which the global
community have “reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the
human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to
promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,” the members of the Human Dignity and Human Rights Caucus (HDHRC) call on
all duty holders to uphold their commitments – legal, moral and otherwise – to
protect and promote the human rights of women and to work towards the
realisation of gender equity in our societies.
5. Accountability
& Social and Economic Justice Struggles
More than two
decades ago, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly established the right to
development as an inalienable human right. However, the continued growing
polarity between rich and poor, Global North and Global South – in terms of
both resources and consumption – illustrates how desperately greater
accountability is needed on social and economic human rights.
While
accountability for human rights is often perceived as state responsibility to
respect and protect those rights codified in law, we know that many other
actors also directly impact their fulfilment, including UN agencies,
International Financial Institutions (IFIs), civil society organisations and
even individuals. Weighed against the voices of billions of people living in
poverty globally are the influence of multinational corporations on domestic
public policies, continued dominance of the free market model of economic
growth, privatisation of public services and natural resources such as water,
and impunity for environmental crimes. Faced with such challenges, we must
expand our understanding of accountability in order to achieve social and
economic justice.
We must press
forward in support for social, trade, indigenous and other movements rallying
against people’s exclusion from their lands, their enslavement through unjust
trade rules and their denied access to fundamental resources. We must be
disciplined in using human rights norms to win court cases against
multinationals, national governments and others on the right to water, the
right to adequate housing or the right to a safe environment. We must ensure
the impoverished and excluded have a central role in decision-making that
affects their lives. Essentially, we must change the rules of the game. At the
WSF
Clearly a
traditional view of accountability – focused on state responsibility for
implementing legal reforms – is not enough. If we continue to do the same human
rights and development work, improving only performance and reach, we will make
little progress towards the different world the WSF calls for. We must go
deeper, challenging our core assumptions about what models, strategies and
tools will bring about the more just and equitable world we envision. We must
also then develop and implement strategies equipped to contend with and
transform the economic and social rights struggles standing between us and such
a world, reaching out to all “major” actors responsible, like UN agencies and
IFIs. We must hold ourselves
accountable for bringing about this change even while we continue to pressure
our governments to fulfil their human rights responsibilities.
WSF 2008 is the time to
stand in protest, to stand ready for engagement, to prepare ourselves for this
challenge. The Human Dignity and Human rights Caucus demands that all relevant
actors take responsibility for their actions that continue to deprive men and
women around the world of their fundamental human rights to an adequate
standard of living, to food, water, health, employment and land. We demand that
they work with those affected to remedy these violations and provide viable
solutions.
================================================================
To leave the list, send your request by email to:
wunrn_listserve-request@lists.wunrn.com. Thank you.