|
|
|
|
  |
 |
 |
 |
| 
|
UNA-Canada Research Papers> Agendas for Change Papers
by Peggy Teagle, Executive Coordinator of the CCISD
and John Foster, Professor of Human Rights, University of Saskatchewan The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and not necessary of the United Nations Association in Canada. The United Nations, at its inception, embodied a vision of peace and development after the devastation of two world wars. In its Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent Covenants, the UN began to spell out a vision of security, equity and basic rights which had a dynamic impact. In short, it laid the foundation for human security understood in all its dimensions. The work of implementing the vision rested with its member states. It would take them another fifty years just to meaningfully begin to act on this joint vision which sought to ensure not only security from physical threat, but economic, social and cultural security as well. This chapter examines the UN’s record in advancing social and economic rights. In particular, we focus on the results of the UN World Summits of the 1980s and 1990s, examining the ways in which they extend the vision of earlier years. We also evaluate the extent to which progress has been made in implementing the vision through normative and legal strengthening of the framework of economic and social rights and its application. The United Nations and Social and Economic Rights A review of existing commitments prepared for the 1995 Copenhagen World Summit for Social Development (WSSD) (1) notes there are no fewer than 81 formal conventions (not including ILO conventions), declarations and other international instruments which address poverty eradication, employment generation and the social integration of marginalized individuals, groups, communities and populations. The pre-eminent UN rights instrument for holding governments accountable in the social and economic development arena is the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Covenant entered into force in 1976 and as of August 1997 had been ratified by 136 countries. (2) The Covenant enshrines the right to reasonable working conditions, social security, food, housing, health, education and culture. Yet, of the four primary instruments comprising the UN’s International Bill of Human Rights (The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, its Optional Protocol - which provides individual access-, and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights) it is the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights that receives the least attention or acclaim. Some have argued that the UN’s responsibility to uphold economic and social rights is a "soft" obligation, with its primary rights obligations focusing on civil and political rights. But, as Canadian lawyer David Matas points out "there is nothing inherent in economic, social and cultural rights that prevents them from being legal rights." (3) The Covenant is a treaty, it is international law. By ratifying the Covenant governments commit themselves to achieve the full realization of the rights embodied in the Covenant. The key to making the Covenant treaty concrete is implementation by ratifying states and the creation of mechanisms at the UN to encourage states to do so -- to monitor, evaluate and report on progress or lack thereof. With respect to the Covenant, development of the basic multilateral implementation machinery was slow and difficult. It was only in 1985 that the UN agreed to establish a Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which reports to the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC). The Committee, meets annually for a few weeks, to clarify norms, gather information and develop an effective system to monitor states compliance to the Covenant. The Committee reviews states compliance, seeking reports, asking detailed questions and attempting to develop constructive dialogue with governments. But, as the current Committee Chair, Philip Alston notes, its operations would be a "charade" if it didn’t draw conclusions, through which it can hope to catalyze action by the reporting government. (4) The development of the machinery and practice to adequately implement the Covenant is at an early stage. Alston and others have proposed, for example, the development of an Optional Protocol to the Covenant, administered either by the Committee or another body, which would provide an avenue for individual complaint. This avenue does not exist under the current Covenant. Virginia Leary points out that the idea is "gaining acceptance" but may take a long time to accomplish. (5) Leadership by member states is urgent and important. Though the Covenant is the pre-eminent document compelling governments to recognize and adhere to economic and social rights, it should be noted that the International Labour Organization (ILO) has been instrumental in safeguarding and developing legal and normative structures related to economic and social rights. In late 1980s and 1990s the UN attempted to renew and extend its global vision of development and security rights through a series of world conferences. The UN sought to focus energies on its mandate "to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom..." (6) While virtually all these events contributed to enlarging and deepening the UN’s vision of social development - with attention to the environment, women, children, habitation, population, etc. - the 1995 World Summit on Social Development (hereinafter ‘WSSD’ or the ‘Social Summit’) had the broadest potential for renewing commitment to economic, social and cultural rights. The WSSD Declaration and Programme of Action integrated the recommendations from the previous conferences (including the World Summit on Children, the World Conference on Human Rights, The World Conference on Environment and Development, the World Conference on Population and Development and the Fourth World Conference on Women) within a framework of social and economic rights. Whether from a negative or positive point of view - as either too ambitious or sufficiently ambitious - the Social Summit developed an assessment and commitment to correcting the causes and consequences of poverty, North as well as South. However, like the Covenant twenty years earlier, the mechanisms for insuring timely and comprehensive implementation were weak or non-existent. The first test of commitment to the WSSD principles was the celebration of an International Year for the Eradication of Poverty in 1996 which would commence a decade effort to the same end. The year was an opportunity for state governments to launch national action plans to implement the WSSD commitment to eliminate poverty. Only a handful of countries took on the task, while others, like Canada, essentially ignored the year and left their commitment in the "pending" basket. (7) While official mechanisms to evaluate progress remain weak, a global network of non-governmental organizations participating in the Social Summit, organized their own mechanism to evaluate progress from the ground up. The "Social Watch", with headquarters in Uruguay, has already completed three increasingly comprehensive reports, providing an opportunity for people’s organizations to hold governments to account. (8) An Integrated Look at Sustainable Development for All? There are a clear set of cross-cutting declaratory and action-oriented recommendations and statements from the set of UN development summits. The broad common themes of these conferences can be summarized as follows: A. The Enabling Environment: (1) a stable macroeconomic policy framework conducive to development; (2) external debt and finance for development; (3) international trade and commodities; (4) science and technology; (5) participation, democracy, human rights, accountability and partnership with major groups and non-governmental organizations; (6) promoting social integration; (7) gender equality, equity and empowerment of women; B. Basic Social Services for All: primary health care, nutrition, education, safe water and sanitation, population and shelter; C. Access to Sustainable Livelihoods, Full Employment and Family Incomes: (1) eradication of poverty and hunger; (2) access to productive opportunities and full employment; (3) the provision of adequate social safety nets; D. Environment and Natural Resources; E. Africa and Special Categories. The Programmes of Action and Declarations from these conferences are ambitious and national implementation is essential to their accomplishment. Nevertheless, the content of these summits primarily expands on or reinforces the content of the Covenant itself. Unfortunately, like the Covenant, the multilateral mechanisms ensuring national implementation as well as implementation by multilateral bodies, particularly for the WSSD, are woefully understated. In addition, while the conference agendas tend to be increasingly cross-sectoral, the UN system is largely organized along sectoral lines. Hence, a coordinated approach to the common themes of these conferences, in the UN context, implies not only the avoidance of duplication and overlap but requires transcending the idea that each conference agenda belongs to a given entity or intergovernmental body. It also implies a the willingness amongst UN bodies to form coherent, cross-sectoral alliances around common themes and goals for joint action at the national and international levels. Follow-up to such far-reaching programmes as envisioned by the conferences collectively involves a wide variety of agencies within the broad UN family, including the Bretton Woods Institutions and the World Trade Organization. At the intergovernmental level, the follow-up to these conferences is subject to a three-tiered review. All conferences are reviewed, in the last instance, by the UN General Assembly (UNGA), for policy formulation. Each conference called for a five-year review by the UNGA of implementation of their declarations and programmes of action. These reviews are usually preceded by consideration by the Economic and Social Council ECOSOC) for overall guidance and coordination. In the first instance, the follow-up is reviewed by a functional or other intergovernmental body, such as the Commission on Sustainable Development, the Commission on Human Rights or the Commission on Social Development. Each of these subsidiary bodies may set up other bodies under their authority to deal with aspects of follow-up to the conferences. (9) The intergovernmental follow-up runs parallel to the inter agency follow-up. In all instances this occurs through the Administrative Committee on Coordination (ACC) and its existing subsidiary machinery. However, in response to these conferences some new mechanisms for system-wide coordination have been established - among them the Inter Agency Committee on Sustainable Development and the Inter-Agency Task Force on the Implementation of the Programme of Action of the International Conference on Population and Development. Following the Social Summit, UNDP head, J.G. "Gus" Speth, was appointed by Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali as Special Coordinator for Economic and Social Development. He was instrumental in creating a series of Inter-Agency Task Forces to provide integrated follow-up to the global UN conferences, including: a Task Force on Basic Social Services for All, chaired by the UN Population Fund; one on the Enabling Environment for Economic and Social Development, chaired by the World Bank; and one on Employment and Sustainable Livelihoods, chaired by the ILO. There are also two Committees: Women and Gender Equality, chaired by the Secretary-General’s Special Advisor on Gender Issues; and Sustainable Development, chaired by the Department for Policy Coordination and Sustainable Development. With the appointment of Kofi Annan as Secretary-General, a new effort has been made to simplify UN structures. In a report issued in July, 1997 (10), the Secretary General outlined a plan for enhanced coordination in the economic and social aspects of the UN’s work both at the multilateral and country operations levels. In order to improve coherence in the area of human rights, it was recommended that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights report to the ECOSOC through the Commission on Human Rights. Improved technical and analytical backup is recommended for the ECOSOC in order to strengthen dialogue with the Bretton Woods institutions. The various Secretariat departments in the economic and social fields are to be consolidated into a new Department of Economic and Social Affairs, and it is to work with the UNCTAD and UNEP in an Executive Committee on Economic and Social Affairs. At the same time, some of the development work of the United Nations — involving UNICEF, UNFPA and UNDP — is to be coordinated by the United Nations Group (UNDG), with an Executive Committee led by the head of UNDP, J.G. Speth. To these overall structures must be added the dimension of coordination at the country level through the efforts of the UN Resident Coordinators managed and supported by UNDP. The Secretary General has recommended that all United Nations assistance programmes be formulated as part of a single United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) with common objectives and a common time frame. While each operational agency would have funds and programmes clearly identifiable, they would have a common budget. A single UN office in each country -- UN House -- would be created, with a single resident coordinator designated as a representative of the Secretary-General. Within this maze of bureaucratic channels, successful implementation of the conferences’ outcomes requires a motor, or a centre of initiative and evaluation. For the WSSD, the conferences that coalesced the various commitment from previous summits, the Commission on Social Development was selected as the body to oversee its follow-up. While it might be considered to be the logical locale for such an initiative its limited historical role did not encourage enthusiastic engagement of states or NGOs. Divided institutional structures and responsibilities in the economic and social area within the UN as a whole, together with the UNs apparent lack of effective pre-eminence with respect to the Bretton Woods institutions and the World Trade Organization makes the coordination of follow-up a particularly challenging issue. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, the commitments, goals and targets of the various conferences have to be achieved at the national and regional levels. Successful follow-up at these levels is the ultimate test of the capacity to bring the commitments of these conferences to bear on the daily lives of people. Each conference called for strengthening the role of civil society organizations in the planning and implementation of social and economic policy and programming, at the national, local, regional and global levels. It is precisely this movement comprising government and UN partnerships with civil society organizations to develop and implement global policy, that will ensure implementation of the summits’ commitments and accountability across sectors. WSSD Conference Follow-up: Intra-UN Administrative and Structural Issues: A. The General Assembly The General Assembly has been instructed to hold a special session in the year 2000 for a review and appraisal of the implementation of the outcome of the WSSD and to consider further action and initiatives.(11) A resolution was passed at the 1996 General Assembly which mandates a new group to oversee preparation of the special session.(12) B. The Commission on Social Development In the view of some insiders, the WSSD has suffered from a "ridiculous lack of follow-up" in the Secretariat.(13) The weakness of the Commission on Social Development and the tendency of its secretariat to back track on WSSD commitments are subjects of continued pre-occupation. The interpretive role of the Commission’s Secretariat, as was apparent in the preparatory committees for the Social Summit, is crucial to implementation and has a ripple effect through the various UN bodies. The recent appointment of Australian diplomat John Langmore, an active participant in the Social Summit, to the post of Director for Social Policy and Social Development, has raised expectations about the energy for leadership in Summit follow-up. ECOSOC The Economic and Social Council is charged with system-wide coordination in the implementation of the WSSD, and was to review the mandate, agenda and composition of the Commission on Social Development in 1995 and to draw upon work on a common framework for implementation of the various world conference.(14) Most importantly, as it relates to social and economic rights, ECOSOC monitors compliance by States Parties to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.(15) The Commission on Social development held a special session to consider its workplan and approach in May 1996 and its first post Summit regular session in February 1997. The 1997 session of the Commission picked up one of the three key themes of the WSSD, the issue of sustainable livelihoods, with a major role being played by the ILO. Concern was expressed that the Social Summit’s integrative approach to the issues was forgotten in the Commission’s return to traditional sectoral approaches. As noted by Julian Disney of the International Council on Social Welfare, "the UN bureaucracy has taken some steps to improve the vigour and effectiveness of its anti-poverty activities. This applies especially to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)...".(16) In June, 1995, the UNDP affirmed its ‘overriding objective’ and central focus of eradicating poverty. Regional Commissions are holding review meetings in 1998, but the question of how the ‘north’ might collectively review progress remains open. The threat to universal vision The Social Summit broke important ground by recognizing the inter-penetration north and south, of the basic challenges facing humanity, namely poverty, unemployment and social disintegration. As Juan Somovia said during an address to the 1995 Annual Meeting of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation, "there is not one single country of the 185 countries that are members of the UN that can say, I have no social or economic tensions or social and economic conflicts. These are global issues. What that means is the axis of the Social Summit was not North-South and hence not state-to-state, but people to people. Most importantly, this means that the people and governments in the developed and developing countries have experiences to share, but not lessons to give. It lays the groundwork for a much more level playing field."(17) As such, the WSSD also provided an opportunity for non-governmental and social organizations from the North and the South, affected by and concerned with these issues to join in developing common cause and common response. For a number of northern governments and their representatives this approach has never seemed a particularly comfortable fit. There have been repeated tendencies on the part of European and other representatives to ‘hive off’ the issue of WSSD follow-up as an issue of ‘development’ and therefore essentially for development assistance and we/they conversations. Non-governmental alliances have made some progress in defining common cause, but the links remain somewhat tenuous. The UN structures themselves, with the southern-facing UNDP as the most energetic, tend to contribute to this marginalization from the home turf in the north. The Core Summit Challenges The commitment to eradicate poverty is the first and overriding challenge for WSSD follow-up at all levels. As Ambassador Juan Somavia testified "I believe that the one commitment that is going to mark, in historical terms, the World Summit for Social Development, is the commitment to eradicate poverty, beginning with the eradication of absolute poverty on a date to be set by each country....I believe personally, and many others have arrived at the same conclusion, that proposing the eradication of poverty is the equivalent of having proposed the elimination of slavery at the beginning of the 19th century. What the UN did by putting this commitment forward was to say no - it is possible, it will take a long time, but we have set the standard." (18) Ways to achieve this goal, over the long haul, are articulated in the programmes of action of the WSSD and the other developmental conferences. This commitment to alleviate poverty was to be kick-started by focusing on the development of national plans to eradicate poverty, beginning with absolute poverty. These national plans would denote country-specific deadlines for the eradication of absolute poverty. Contrary to the global spirit of the WSSD's Programme of Action, this pivotal follow-up recommendation -- the development of national poverty eradication plans -- by directing implementation towards absolute poverty, let the North off the hook and further polarized the North-South divide in the development debate. Unlike the World Conference on Children, there are no systematic channels for the collection or implementation of national plans, hence few have been completed and most developed countries see no need to undertake such an endeavour. On a more positive note, the engagement of a broader cross-section of civil society organizations in these world conferences, including people from the North who themselves were living in poverty, helped open the UN to future engagement with national social and economic development organizations. These organizations now have the opportunity to attain consultative status with ECOSOC, meaning they can witness and to a limited scope engage in the discussion of substantive issues related to conference follow-up, within a global context. More importantly, this cross-fertilization and the introduction of new thinking into the UN, means the chance of UN reform having meaning and relevance on the ground, both in the North and the South, is enhanced. Other substantive achievements were made, which brought closer equity between the North and South. Most prominent was the introduction of the 20/20 compact, whereby 20% of official development assistance is earmarked for basic human needs (access to food, clean water, primary health care -- including family planning), and basic education) while developing countries agree to commit 20% of their national budgets to meet these basic human needs. This brings development assistance, at the bilateral level, one step closer to equity. Canada has played an important role in advancing the 20/20 compact – committing itself to reaching the goal of 25% of ODA directed towards basic human needs. Mitigating and perhaps undermining the opportunities to make progress on the implementation of the commitments from the family of world conferences is the question of the role of the international financial institutions and the World Trade Organization. The development of an "enabling economic environment" is the pivot for the implementation of most of the conferences’ Programmes of Action.. Four pillars: keeping macro-economics with
macro-economists, One of the key motivating elements in such WSSD sub-groups as the NGO Development Caucus was the vision that the policy and normative framework developed through UN aegis would become the transcendent framework for the institutions which make up the so-called "four pillars" of the contemporary scene: the Bretton Woods Institutions (World Bank and International Monetary Fund), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the United Nations and its various agencies. The desire to apply a full human rights framework (including a strong gender component) to the evaluation of the activities of the World Bank or the WTO and such issues as debt relief or structural adjustment was strongly expressed in NGO proposals, if somewhat weakly embodied in the WSSD Programme of Action calls for greater consultation, coordination and collaboration between various institutions. But the conflict between the current structures, ambitions and approaches of the Bretton Woods institutions and the WTO and the vision of the Charter of the UN remains a profound obstacle to the commitments expressed at the Social Summit and the other development summits. The WTO has expanded its purview and avoided full recognition of UN oversight. There has been what some governments term "a migration of tasks from the UN to the Bank" The IMF redesigns the economic and social framework of whole nations with relatively little if any attention to the over-arching framework of rights which have emerged through the UN system. Lack of Resolution, Leadership and Resources While discussion of reform has continued, commitment, energy and resources to drive a true renovation have not been much in evidence. Reform proposals put forward by the EU, Nordics and embodied in continuing discussions of the Open-ended Working Group on the Agenda for Development share some common themes: the need to strengthen and provide more adequate support for the ECOSOC, the need to consolidate and simplify the secretariat structures related to economic and social development and the need to strengthen and streamline the UN system at the country level. These exist against the challenging background put forward by Childers and Urquhart in their proposal for an overall world body to assist in formulating macro-economic policy, a sort of economic security council developed through and as part of a radically strengthened ECOSOC. (19) As Childers and Urquhart point out the history of reform is strewn with piecemeal attempts and failures, wrangling and dispute. There is now, as ever, the danger that there will be a failure of resolution and of leadership. There are at least, at the time of writing, the unique assets of a newly-appointed Secretary-General and the hope that the key to the continuing budget crisis - and end to the failure of US commitments will be found. According to documentation from the NGO caucuses at the WSSD, in order for economic and social rights to be given their rightful place in the family of rights, three reform initiatives are required: (1) as stated earlier, the integration of the international financial institutions and the WTO into the standard and normative setting processes of the UN; (2) greater civil society access and influence with ECOSOC; and (3) increased state commitment to the equality of economic, social and cultural rights within the family of rights, and as such, a strengthened UN system that supports that kind of commitment. A Reform Agenda The success of economic and social rights at the international level probably requires implementation of broad UN reforms which are suggested in such works as Our Global Neighborhood and the Childers and Urquhart volume on UN Renewal. In particular steps need to be taken to build more adequately instances of global sovereignty and to democratize them. As Childers and Urquhart suggest, a UN Parliamentary Assembly, initially elected by national parliaments, can then become a directly-elected global body, following a pattern established in the case of the European Parliament. Our Global Neighbourhood cautions that such a body should not be set up in such a way that it will undermine the General Assembly, and urges the renovation of the Assembly as well. The Commission on Global Governance proposes the creation of a Forum of Civil Society, representative of civil society organizations and NGOs, relating to and advising the General Assembly. (20) The United Nations Association in Canada has developed a proposal which would facilitate the discussion of such ideas among civil society organizations and governments over the coming years. As the Secretary-General notes in his Report on Reform, "NGOs and other civil society actors are now perceived not only as disseminators of information or providers of services but also as shapers of policy, be it in peace and security matters, in development or in humanitarian affairs." (21) Strengthening the Normative Framework The great contribution of the international conferences has been the elaboration and deepening of an enhanced vision of global welfare and sustainable human development. While the advance over the 1980s and 1990s is considerable, no one would claim that the work is, or ever will be, complete. Further, while civil society organizations have utilized these occasions to advance their collaboration and their thinking, it is not clear that the major challenges to established neo-liberal governmental policies have been either heard, considered or applied by the political leadership. WSSD chair, Ambassador Juan Somavia, suggested that one significant step would be the negotiation of an International Covenant for the Eradication of Poverty. This is both a logical and practical follow-up to the Social Summit and the other development summits. While this is one means of advancing inter-governmental commitment, Somavia emphasizes that civil society engagement is just as important and suggests a "General Assembly of Initiatives" to express the Five Year Review of the WSSD in the year 2000, where key actors "from all sectors of society participate fully." (22) Hypocrisy, neo-liberalism and the lack of national commitment Neither Summit implementation nor UN reform will have much significance if there is not a change in the priority provided these issues by national governments, or, in short, an implementation of the fine words and commitments made in Copenhagen and at the other development summits. Further, as noted in a recent survey of priorities at the World Bank and UNDP, the priority of governments and governance as essential ingredients of economic performance and sustainable development, has an increasingly positive appreciation in these bodies. (23) The WSSD Commitment 2 to eradicate poverty and establish national policies and strategies, together with specific targets depends on national governmental decision-making and follow-through. The International Year for the Eradication of Poverty, during which governments were to develop these policies ended not with a Niagara but with a trickle of accomplishments. There is little evidence as yet that the International Decade will elicit greater action. The case of Canada is salient, in this regard. Universally regarded as a model, thanks to the UNDP Human Development Report, Canada's post-Summit follow-through was highlighted by the termination of the primary national legislative instrument of poverty alleviation, the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) and a period of substantive and bureaucratic confusion about how Canada would continue to meet its international commitments with its declining aid budget, let alone undertake a new national plan for the eradication of poverty. Canada and Summit Implementation: If a Year was Insufficient will the International Decade be Enough The Copenhagen Summit coincided with the 1995 Budget Implementation Act which ended CAP and eventually replaced it with the Canadian Health and Social Transfer. The extremely diverse and active Canadian NGO caucus at the Social Summit was immediately and directly critical of the contradiction between government actions and the Summit objectives, and made their views known in no uncertain terms to delegation head Hon. Lloyd Axworthy. Disabled and indigenous representatives were particularly sensitive to the threat represented by the end of national standards in welfare. Their concern was shared with increasing conviction by a wide variety of women’s, labour, social service, youth and anti-poverty organizations. (24) The excitement over the WSSD itself for delegates, masked the full implications of the Federal withdrawal from the field led by Finance Minister Martin. To social policy advocates addressing the Federal Government in post-Summit months, it became increasingly clear that there was ‘no there, there’. Officials, concerned with figuring out the immediate implications for the most obviously affected groups – indigenous and disabled, for example – admitted that little thought had been devoted to the implications for Canada’s international commitments. They replied to questions regarding the end of national standards with rather vague hopes regarding the development of a consensus among provincial ministers of welfare.(25) The retreat from the use of the Federal spending power to enforce national standards has already resulted in a cascading of responsibility to provincial and municipal bodies with further decreases in support and an absence of guarantees and of recourse. In place of national standards, the citizenry can only look to minimum agreements among premiers or social services ministers meeting behind closed doors. The result, so far, as Shelagh Day comments, is "feeble, weak and frankly silly." (26) A renewed discussion on "Canada’s Social Union" has emerged among Ottawa-based policy groups as well as "national unity addicts" in recent months. There is remarkably little attention to Canada’s international social and economic commitments in published papers. (27). Senator Erminie Joy Cohen, in the recent "Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada" recognizes that Federal implementation of our Covenant commitments has come under severe question by the Covenant Committee, and that Canada as a wealthy nation should be doing much better. (28) The Martin/Chretien retreat has led Canada to break its international commitments in a way that neither "collaborative federalism" nor recent initiatives on child poverty offset. Social union commentators tend to agree that Canada is missing some essential pieces of government in attempting to get out of the difficulties created by the current state of federalism. Margaret Biggs examines the cases of Australia and Germany in search for instruments which might bring federal, provincial and territorial actors into coordination on a more consistent basis, while Kathy O’Hara also recognizes the need for increased transparency and the involvement of civil society, although her deference to polling as distinct from deeper involvement of civil society organizations and the voluntary sector is disturbing.(29) In accepting the retreat from universality and embracing the mantra of "targeting" the government and many social policy commentators are also retreating from the vision of the Universal Declaration and the Covenant. How is the general welfare to be enhanced in a way that all citizens can share without some form of general standard and guarantee? How can the efficacy of these guarantees be assured unless there is a legal facility and right for complaint and recourse? Are international treaty obligations to be set aside without explanation or alternative for domestic expediency and attendant threats to the welfare of the citizenry? Status of Declaratory Law The Social Summit, together with the other global conferences, created a significant body of declaratory international commitments, strengthening the role of the UN in norm creation. Declaratory law is often a source of law or evidence of emerging customary law. While much of the consensus expressed in the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action and most other World conference documents is declaratory, there are elements of Canada’s commitments to fight poverty which are embodied in our adherence to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which has greater force and which has an ongoing mechanism for reporting, monitoring and review of compliance. Canada, it is admitted, has an historic dilemma, embodied in our evolving federal structure, in which the core matter of the international social agenda is within or part of provincial jurisdiction: health, education, welfare, environment, employment. Yet the Federal Cabinet, as the Governor General in Council, is the entity with the capacity to ratify treaties. If the provinces are involved, as they inevitably are, their legislatures must act to bring their legislation into line with the treaties or agreements concerned. Prof. Christine Elwell of Queen’s University suggests that we are on a trend towards further balkanization of Canadian social and environmental policy, which, in a sense, threatens the rule of law by creating a "vacuum of state responsibility" with respect for human rights and their promotion, in particular social, economic and cultural rights. (30) Nevertheless states must be duly diligent in protecting human rights and encourage conditions for the promotion of them. As Prof. Elwell has pointed out, the implementation of the Social Summit requires a reinvention of Canadian cooperative federalism, or a serious vacuum of authority will result. The issues come to a point when Canada reports on its treaty obligations to the Covenant Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In the atmosphere following the end of CAP, the behaviour of the Canadian government was characterized by prevarication and delay. The situation provoked already hard-pressed anti-poverty and rights-seeking organizations to action. Four NGOs, the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Association of Food Banks have challenge the government. They recently wrote Philip Alston, Chair of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, questioning Canada’s compliance with its obligations to the Covenant. The groups pointed out that the CAP implemented in Canadian law four of the most fundamental entitlements related to compliance with article 11 of the Covenant: to provide assistance to every person in need; to take into account a person’s budgetary requirements and the income and resources available to meet them; to provide a mechanism to appeal decisions affecting entitlement to financial assistance; and to not require people to perform work against their will as a condition of receiving financial assistance. These provisions were found by the Supreme court of Canada to be enforceable in court. The Canada Health and Social Transfer, which replaced CAP, embodied no such commitments, and no legislative measures were taken to provide for alternative means of enforcement. In short, as the four organizations put it "on April 1, 1996, Canada transformed from a country in which the right to adequate financial assistance for persons in need was a legal requirement, enforceable in court by individuals affected, to one in which there is no federal legislation recognizing this right or providing the means of enforcing it."(31) Canada sought to delay Committee review of its actions. The Canadian government, faced with the charge from affected social groups that the end of the CAP was a breaking of treaty commitments, prevaricated for months in an attempt to avoid facing the issue at the Committee. Finally, Committee Chair, Philip Alston, instructed the government to get on with their report. In a sharply-worded letter, Alston indicated that good faith was in question and that Canada was undermining it reputation as a strong supporter of the Covenant. (32) Canada will appear before the Committee in the summer or fall of 1998. The most recent Canadian report to the Committee artfully ends in September, 1994, prior to the end of CAP. The non-governmental organizations have indicated that they will pursue the CAP-related retreat with the Committee in any case. (33) The Canadian government will probably refer to new initiatives to combat child poverty, to changes in unemployment insurance and the possibility that budget surpluses may be used to offset some of the cascade of cut-backs and off-loads of the 90s. These excuses do not really touch on the core matter, a retreat from national standards, guarantees and rights to complaint and recourse with embody international treaty commitments. As Christine Elwell notes, the protection of human rights is undoubtedly under strain. "Nevertheless, a state is responsible for the acts or omissions of its organizations acting in their official capacity, cannot plead a provision of its domestic law, even its constitution, as a defence for its failure to perform an international obligation, and may be responsible for acts related to private or non-state conduct if it fails in its own duties through an act or omission regarding that conduct."(34) Applying the Global Framework A Renewed and Enhanced United Nations While governments are essentially the enforcers of economic and social rights, the UN has an extensive record in the elaboration of human rights norms, which taken together with the ongoing work of the ILO and various other specialized UN organs provides a comprehensive and far reaching framework for human development. The preeminence of these norms is under severe challenge, less by national governments than by competing multilateral organizations, particularly those, which like the International Monetary Fund (IMF), establish and enforce the monetary and key macro-economic policy frameworks for governments and those like the WTO who organize guarantees for traders and investors. The citizens of Indonesia, Thailand and South Korea today, as did citizens of Mexico in 1995, have a personal and graphic experience of the impact of ill-considered macro-economic policies and of rapid shifts in short-term investment and runs on currency. If the work of elaborating a global rights framework is to have any effect on our day to day economic and social life, it must be recognized and respected by these multilateral economic organizations, and must be given transcendent legal force. Further, structures and resources must be established which permit review of policies and proposals with an eye to protection of rights, enhancement of the enforcement and prevention of harm. For example, a number of commentators, including sources in the World Bank, have questioned the social and the economic impact of IMF "reform" dictates to the crisis-struck Asian economies. What sorts of structures could bring to bear a systematic review of such policy prescriptions taking into account social and economic rights and ILO conventions? What structure -- an Economic Security Council, a reformed General Assembly -- could give such an evaluation effect? Environmentalists are raising similar questions with regard to the assessment of impact of trade and intellectual property policies developed through the WTO. This is a far cry from the UN Covenant Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, meeting relatively briefly each year, with very limited powers and resources. But, in the interim, instances like the Committee which have a mandate to monitor, review and assess implementation of international norms by governments themselves need to be strengthened and given greater ability to exact change. The development and implementation of an Optional Protocol would be a useful next step. A Covenant on the Eradication of Poverty and a UN monitoring and evaluative body meeting continuously to review national plans and their implementation might add useful catalytic energy to a vital but often marginalized theatre of human endeavour. Enhancing and integrating research To equip the UN for this sort of task it is paramount to build on the UNs established record for social and economic research is essential. The Secretary-General recognized the importance of research and the role of the UN in drawing together representatives of the Bretton Woods organizations together with UNCTAD and other UN related bodies, in building a more comprehensive consensus on global economic and sustainable development issues. The buck stops The relative atrophy of UN pre-eminence, the growth of competing and in many ways conflicting multilateral bodies, the lack of vision, initiative and leadership in social and economic rights have causes within the unreformed UN organization, but are principally the responsibility of state governments, Ministers of Finance and most importantly Prime Ministers. Parliamentarians have also found cynicism about the UN or a sort of generalized deference to "globalization" as easy excuses for avoiding the challenge of inventing adequate global institutions to protect an enhance the interests of the world citizen’s as distinct from its banks, corporations or investors. The sort of reform agenda outlined here will only begin to become reality if one or two national leaders make it their priority, and if energy and support are given diplomats and international representatives to move forward with constitution-building tasks. When, in the pre-Copenhagen preparations, elements of the Canadian government gave consideration to the proposals for a Tobin tax or some other form of global financing instrument, we had a tiny glimmer of the sort of imagination which is necessary. That brief candle was snuffed out, but more need to be lit.(35) Lastly, as we indicate above, the other challenge for the Canadian government is domestic. It is to infuse and illuminate the discussion of the meaning of the "social union" with the full meaning and range of our international commitments, and to remind provincial leaders, judges and commentators that despite or transcending federal-provincial tensions, Canada is bound by a number of international treaties which have profound implications for our social and economic welfare, and future development. In the end only citizens who recognize that they are part of a global as well as neighbourhood society can ensure that governments do so. - - - - - - - Endnotes *Dr. John W. Foster is Ariel F. Sallows Professor of Human Rights, College of Law, University of Saskatchewan. Formerly National Secretary of OXFAM-Canada, he served as Co-Chair of the Canadian NGO Preparatory Process for the World Summit on Social Development (1995) and was a member of the Canadian Delegation at the Summit. Peggy Teagle is the executive coordinator of the Canadian Consortium for International Social Development. She was formerly the coordinator of the Canadian NGO Organizing Committee for the World Summit for Social Development..| BACK | 1 UN, General Assembly, Preparatory Committee for the World Summit for Social Development, Second Session, New York, 22 August-2 September, 1994, Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development: Draft Declaration and Draft Programme of Action: Review of Existing International Commitments relevant to Poverty, Employment and Social Integration, A/Conf.166/PC/16, 9 August, 1994. | BACK | 2 UN Treaty Data Base; www.un.org/depts/treaty, August 27, 1997 | BACK | 3 David Matas, "Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Role of Lawyers: North American Perspectives", The Review, (December, 1995). 55 Geneva, International Commission of Jurists, 1995. See also David Beetham, "What Future for Economic and Social Rights", in David Beetham, ed., Politics and Human Rights. Political Studies Association, 1995. | BACK | 4 Philip Alston, "The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights", in Philip Alston, ed., The United Nations and Human Rights: A Critical Appraisal. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996.. | BACK | 5 Virginia A. Leary, "Justiciability and Beyond, Complaint Procedures and the Right to Health", The Review, (December, 1995). 55 Geneva, International Commission of Jurists, 1995, p. 113.. | BACK | 6 From the preamble, "The Charter of the United Nations", in Henry J. Steiner and Philip Alston, eds., International Human Rights in Context: Law, Politics, Morality. Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996, p. 148 | BACK | 7 The United Nations agencies charged with promoting the International Year were chronically short of resources and staff and quite belated in providing information. Attempts to gain press interest met a wall of journalist apathy. Canadian non-government organizations were dealing with the affects of cut-backs in social programmes and fighting for their lives.. | BACK | 8See for example, Social Watch: The Starting Point, Montivideo, Instituto del Tercer Mundo, 1996. The "Watch" can be accessed via "www.chasque.apc.org/socwatch/dear.htm". | BACK | 9 UN, Economic and Social Council, Substantive session of 1995, Geneva, 26 June-28 July, 1995, Coordination of the Policies and Activities of the Specialized Agencies and other Bodies of the UN System: Coordinated Follow-up by the UN System and Implementation of the Results of Major International Conferences Organized by the UN in the Economic, Social and Related Fields, E/1995/86, 9 June 1995.. | BACK | 10 . Secretary General Kofi A. Annan, Renewing the United Nations: A Programme for Reform, New York, United Nations, 1997. Part II: Measures and Proposals. Note that the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is the one other major operational fund of the UN system not covered by the UNDG. The "closest possible association" is suggested between it and the UNDG.| BACK | 11 UN DPI, World Summit for Social Development: The Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action, New York, United Nations, 1995, p. 122, clause 95c.. | BACK | 12 Resolution 51/202 of the General Assembly, dealing with the "Implementation of the outcome of the World Summit for Social Development", mandates the Commission on Social Development to undertake work in 1999-2000 for the preparations of the special session to review implementation. The 52nd session of the General Assembly was to hold an organizational session of the "preparatory committee of the whole" in 1998 and begin substantive work in 1999. UN GA A/RES/51/202 (26 February, 1997)| BACK | 13 . Julian Disney, "Creating and Enabling Environment", Social Development Review, (Sept., 1997) 1:5 Montreal, International Council on Social Welfare, 1997. | BACK | 14 . World Summit ..., p. 122, clause 95f. | BACK | 15 . Supra, p. 123, clause 95i.| BACK | 17 . Ambassador Juan Somavia, notes from a speech given at the Annual General Meeting of the Canadian Council for International Cooperation (unpublished), June 13, 1995.| BACK | 19 Eskine Childers and Brian Urquhart, "Renewing the UN System", Development Dialogue, (1994:I), Upsalla, Dag Hammarskjold Foundation, 1994, pp. 59-61.| BACK | 20 .Childers and Uquhart, supra, and Our Global Neighborhood: The Report of the Commission on Global Governance, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1995. | BACK | 21 . Annan, supra. P. 2-31 | BACK | 22 . Rosemary Max, "Advancing the Social Agenda: Two Years After Copenhagen", Social Development Review, (Sept. 1997) 1:5 Montreal, ICSW, 1997. | BACK | 23 "Governance a hot item on world agenda", UN Development Update, (August-October, 1997) 22 New York, United Nations, 1997.. | BACK | 24 . The authors were both participants in the various Copenhagen meetings between the Hon. Lloyd Axworthy, the Hon. Ethel Blondin and representatives of the Canadian social agencies and NGOs. | BACK | 25 .For a summary of the Committee’s concerns about Canada in an earlier review see, Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Report on the Eighth and Ninth Sessions. UN ESCOR, 1994 Supp. No. 3, UN Doc. E/1994/23 E/C 12/1993/19. | BACK | 26 Shelagh Day, "The Politics of Debt, Deference and Devolution", (address at the College of Law, University of Saskatchewan, October, 1997) [unpublished]. The Federal-Provincial-Territorial Council on Social Policy Renewal was created by the First Ministers’ Meeting in June, 1996 It should be noted that while Day and former NAPO head Lynn Toupin are decided critical of lack of federal leadership, other voices of concern like Sherri Torjman of the Caledon Institute, offer more hope based on the development of both the new child benefit proposals and a spirit of collaborative federalism. (See, for example, Sherri Torjman, "The New Handshake Federalism", Caledon Commentary. Ottawa, Caledon Institute of Social Policy. September, 1997.) Observers with experience in such other fields of federal-provincial "cooperation" as the environment, caution against optimism. | BACK | 27 .see John W. Foster, "Meeting the challenges: renewing the progress of economic and social rights", University of New Brunswick Law Review, 1998 [forthcoming] See also, Margaret Biggs, "Building Blocks for Canada’ new Social Union", Working Paper no. F. 02, Ottawa, CPRN Inc., 1996 and Kathy O’Hara, "Securing the Social Union: Next Steps", Reflexion, No. 2, Ottawa, CPRN Inc., November, 1997. | BACK | 28 .The Hon. Erminie Joy Cohen, Senator, with Angela Petten, Sounding the Alarm: Poverty in Canada. Ottawa, 1997. pp. 41-2. | BACK | 29 . Biggs, supra. and O’Hara, supra. | BACK | 30 .Christine Elwell, "World Social Policy Conferences as Rule-Making and a Decentralized Canadian Federation", Canadian Foreign Policy, (Winter, 1997) 4:3 Ottawa, Norman Patterson School of International Affairs, 1997 | BACK | 31 . Letter from Bruce Porter (on behalf of the National Anti-Poverty Organization, the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women and the Canadian Association of Foodbanks) to Philip Alston (Chairperson, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, November 27, 1996., 1996: The International Year for the Eradication of Poverty. | BACK | 32 .Margaret Philp, "Show up early: UN tells Canada", The Globe and Mail, Toronto, November 27, 1997 | BACK | 33 .see Department of Canadian Heritage, The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Right: Third Report of Canada. Ottawa, Minister of Public Works and Government Services, 1997, also author’s interview with Bruce Porter of the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, November, 1997. | BACK | 34 . Christine Elwell, "World Social Policy Conferences as Rule-Making and a Decentralized Canadian Federation", Canadian Foreign Policy, (Winter, 1997) 4:3 Ottawa, Norman Patterson School of International Affairs, 1997. | BACK | 35 for an examination of the Tobin Tax and comparable initiatives see Alex C. Michalos, Good Taxes: The Case for Taxing Foreign Currency Exchange and other Financial Transactions, Toronto and Oxford, Dundurn Press, 1997. | BACK |
|
