<h1 class="entry-title">New avenue for Litigating the Right to Health – Optional Protocol to the ICESCR comes into force</h1>
<div class="entry-meta entry-header">
<a href="http://www.oneillinstituteblog.org/new-avenue-for-litigating-the-right-to-health-optional-protocol-to-the-icescr-comes-into-force/"><span class="published">Feb09<br><strong>2013</strong></span></a> <span class="author vcard">
Written by <strong><a class="url fn" href="http://www.oneillinstituteblog.org/author/oneillinstitute/" title="View all posts by O’Neill Institute">O’Neill Institute</a></strong></span>
</div>
<p><em>This post was written by <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/faculty/Oscar-Cabrera.html">Oscar A. Cabrera</a>, <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/faculty/Eric-Friedman.html">Eric Friedman</a>, and <a href="http://www.law.georgetown.edu/oneillinstitute/faculty/Brian-Honermann.html">Brian Honermann</a>, all from the O’Neill Institute.</em></p>
<p>On 5 February, 2013, Uruguay – following quickly on the heels of
Portugal – became the 10th country to ratify the Optional Protocol to
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
(ICESCR). In accordance with article 18(1) of the Optional Protocol,
this means the Optional Protocol will come into force on 5 May, 2013.</p>
<p>The Optional Protocol empowers the Committee on Economic, Social, and
Cultural Rights (CESCR) to receive communications (complaints) from
individuals or groups of individuals claiming to be victims of
violations of their rights as protected by the ICESCR against countries
who have ratified the Optional Protocol. As it stands, these are:
Argentina, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ecuador, El Salvador,
Mongolia, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, and Uruguay. In addition, under
Articles 10 and 11, ratifying countries may permit the CESCR to receive
inter-state complaints against the country and to conduct inquiries into
allegations of grave or systemic violations of economic, social, or
cultural rights by a state party. Thus far, only El Salvador and
Portugal have acceded to these procedures.</p>
<p align="LEFT"><span id="more-1149"></span></p>
<p>Until now, the CESCR has been limited to issuing concluding
observations and recommendations to member countries as part of
semi-regular country reporting requirements in the ICESCR and to issuing
broad general comments on rights under the Convention – which have
helped enumerate the content of the rights under the ICESCR. With the
Optional Protocol, the opportunity will now exist at the global level to
litigate and begin to develop more concrete standards around the rights
in the ICESCR – including the right to of everyone to the enjoyment of
the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (Article
12 of the ICESCR). There has been much written and presented on the
utility and feasibility of litigation around the right to health and
socio-economic rights more broadly. Many have argued that socio-economic
rights are inherently policy and financing decisions outside of the
capacity, competency, and practical limitations of courts such that
litigation in this area does little to vindicate rights on the ground.
Others have argued that litigation around socio-economic rights – when
well constructed – is capable of advancing both the understanding of the
content of socio-economic rights and have substantive effects on
government planning, resource allocation, and service delivery to
individuals.</p>
<p>Importantly, there is an opportunity within the framework of the
ICESCR and the Optional Protocol, to also begin serious investigations
into the social determinants of health – determinants such as access to
sufficient food, water, sanitation, and education – and beyond the
typical and narrower construction of the right to health based in access
to health care services, even as Article 12 itself expressly
encompasses many of these determinants.</p>