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 |