RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

writing for godot

GIVEN THE STRONG RESISTANCE BY STATES TO ANY TRUE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS IN AGENDA 2030, WILL THE SDGs LEAD TO STATES AIMING TO ACHIEVE ‘HUMAN-RIGHTS-DEVOID-OF-MEANING’ INDICATORS?

Print
Written by schuftan@gmai.com   
Wednesday, 01 November 2017 21:41

Human rights: Food for a thought devoid of meaning

 

Human Rights Reader 426

GIVEN THE STRONG RESISTANCE BY STATES TO ANY TRUE ACCOUNTABILITY MECHANISMS IN AGENDA 2030, WILL THE SDGs LEAD TO STATES AIMING TO ACHIEVE ‘HUMAN-RIGHTS-DEVOID-OF-MEANING’ INDICATORS?

We cannot create the impression that the SDGs are a normative rather than a political framework. The SDGs are a political compromise, one that many-of-those-who-should do not fully support. (Simone Lovera)

 

What happens when indicators are linked to goals that are not centered on human rights?

 

1. A goal is a desired aim or ambition. Goals can be achieved as part of a human rights-based approach, but not vice-versa. Human rights (HR) are inalienable rights that we have by virtue of being equal and innately having dignity. Take the example of the right to food and adequate nutrition: A rights-based approach represents a longer-term and structural approach to addressing food insecurity and malnutrition that expects states to pass legislation and adopt national policies. These are to ensure recourse mechanisms are made available to hold the state accountable to progressively realize this right (meaning that it ensures a continual and growing commitment to addressing the realization of this right).

 

2. One possible implication of the SDGs having chosen to shift from rights to goals, is that a different set of actors are emboldened and empowered under each approach. The SDGs call on a variety of actors, including the private sector, to participate in reaching set targets. This is not necessarily a bad thing --but, in our example, increased corporate consolidation in the food supply chain and increased corporate capture of food governance fora are indeed worrisome trends. They are worrying because corporate interests are not necessarily aligned with the public good: Indeed, corporations (unlike states) are not accountable to claim holders; they are accountable to their shareholders. In contrast, the human rights-based approach makes states the primary duty bearers.

 

3. This begs a few questions

 

  • Will states pass responsibility off onto non-state actors as the Agenda 2030 becomes the main frame of action?
  • Will states be willing to compromise on social protection schemes or environmental protection when they frame their commitments to food security only through the lens of the SDGs and not the right to food and adequate nutrition lens?
  • Will states use the SDGs to deflect from their obligations under international HR law to approach hunger from a broad systemic, social determinants-based approach?

 

4. All of this is very possible. The human rights framework places the focus on systemic change, one that can indeed result in qualitative changes to achieve desired outcomes, rather than focusing just on quantitative outcomes as measured by most of the SDG-proposed indicators. (Nadia Lambek, Jessica Duncan)

 

…and a few more questions about accountability*

 

5. What does accountability really entail?

  • Name and shame?
  • Fire or replace somebody for inefficiency or corruption?
  • Tax the for ever under-taxed?
  • Kick out exploitative TNCs?
  • Preempt free trade agreements that have a negative impact on HR?
  • Regulate and legislate along the lines of HR imperatives and needs?
  • Bring-in users (claim holders) to the decision-making process?
  • Demand the drawing of participatory budgets?
  • Give public interest civil society organizations the watchdog function on the violations of HR?
  • All of the above? (probably, depending on context…).

*: There are five types of accountability, namely:

  • Judicial accountability: e.g., judicial review by domestic and international courts; constitutional redress; public interest litigation.
  • Quasi-judicial accountability: e.g., hospital complaint boards; national HR institutions, national ombudsmen; regional and international treaty bodies.
  • Administrative accountability: e.g., HR impact assessments by a governmental or independent body.
  • Political accountability: e.g., parliamentary committee review of budgetary allocations; health councils and committees, and
  • Social accountability: e.g., by domestic and international NGOs; the media; public hearings; social audits.

 

How can we ask for accountability when the SDGs are not binding?

 

6. Some iron laws here:

  • Demanding accountability is not imposing conditionalities. (!)
  • It is a fallacy to talk about accountability fatigue when there has been so little of it.
  • There can be no accountability if responsibilities and duties of States are not binding.
  • Non-binding SDG goals bring promises and, historically, promises are broken.

 

Bottom line

 

7. Anything less than full and meaningful accountability risks rendering the SDGs a set of lofty, but empty promises, rather than the transformative agenda that public interest civil society, the Secretary-General and many of the progressive States envision. It is not only about indicators and targets, but also about financing and lining up the means of implementation along the lines of the HR framework. (CESR, Human Rights Caucus, Amnesty International)

 

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it

www.claudioschuftan.com

Postscript/Marginalia

Every day is a rough day for claim holders. They feel left out of any control. They are not sure what to do. Every day is anxious, and every day will be like this for the foreseeable future (if they do not get organized to claim). “What will happen today? Will my and others’ rights be infringed upon yet for another day?” (not if they get organized to claim) (Sunil Rajaraman)

 

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
0 # Depressionborn 2017-11-04 23:18
what's this guy talking about? I don't claim anything I haven't worked for. What's with him?
 
 
0 # PCPrincess 2017-11-06 13:51
My question to you Depressionborn is to examine why you believe that you are not entitled to anything that you have not 'worked' for? Who determines what 'work' is? Are we really content allowing a small minority to determine the value of one's 'work'? For example, under our current societal system, the work of a football player is valued at thousands times more than the work of a waitress, yet, society would be harmed by the loss of both workers.

Think about this: envision your city with every corner of every street lined with nothing but medical offices. No gas stations, no grocery stores, no other businesses, just medical offices. Of course a doctor is a fine profession, however, society wouldn't function too well without many different people in many different professions. I believe, we as a society need to give value to all people's 'work'.

Also: a parent is a 'worker', without this fine profession, the U.S. would not have its next generation of workers or (ahem) politicians.

Every person has value to provide our society, but our current system does not allow citizens to find or do what they are best at if finances are low.

Over time, we have allowed 'others' to determine what citizens should do with their time, usually measured as cost/benefit to the elite class.

I actually prefer to produce or contribute in some way, for me, it helps to keep me happy, however, I do NOT like the idea of working for someone else to profit from my value.
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN