View previous stories
	The world seems less and less safe for those who stand up for human dignity by Front Line Defenders, agencies   Michel Forst, United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders:   Almost twenty years ago, the United Nations General Assembly adopted by consensus the Declaration on human rights defenders (HRDs). All governments made the strong commitment to prioritise the security and protection of HRDs, recognising the right of all individuals and organisations to peacefully defend human rights. Yet, the world seems less and less safe for those who stand up for human dignity.   Over the past four years, travelling to document the situation of human rights defenders (HRDs), I have seen how attacks against lawyers, indigenous peoples, journalists, social movement leaders, whistle blowers and community volunteers are on the rise everywhere in the world.   Attacks against those who promote sexual and reproductive rights in countries where fundamentalist religious groups have more weight in decision-making than ordinary citizens. Attacks against those who defend their water or land from mega-scale projects.   Attacks against those who search for their disappeared loved ones. Attacks against those who fight against corruption or impunity. Every day we hear of another killing and each one of these killings is a tragedy. A tragedy for the family of the victim, for their communities and for all of us, as these deaths mean our peace, security and freedom are at risk.   This is not random violence. I have become convinced that the incidents in question are not isolated acts but concerted attacks against those who try to embody the ideal of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, in a world free from fear and want.   I am deeply concerned at the lack of visibility and recognition of defenders work. There is often a disconnect between public opinion and the active community of HRDs.   When I meet with defenders from many countries, they often tell me they are depicted in their own countries as traitors, defenders of criminals or against development. Politicians, business actors or mass media spread these images. This lack of understanding of the role of defenders is exploited by some States to pit entire sectors of the population against one another and to undermine the situation of people who are working to protect human rights and freedoms.   I am concerned by the lack of response to observations that have been made repeatedly, since the establishment of the mandate of the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights defenders. The reports of my predecessors, Hina Jilani and Margaret Sekaggya, referred to the lack of strong and ambitious political action aimed at bringing a lasting end to attacks against defenders. Those who attack and kill HRDs do so in the belief that after an initial flurry of anger these people will soon be forgotten.   It is essential that we never allow this to happen. This is why the HRD Memorial, developed by Front Line Defenders in partnership with a coalition of national and international organisations is such an important initiative, celebrating the courage and commitment of those who gave their lives to defend the rights of others.   It is their example that should inspire us to greater efforts in defence of human rights. We must be bolder and more creative in order to face up to threats that weigh heavily on civil society as a whole and on every individual fighting for fundamental rights and freedoms.   http://www.frontlinedefenders.org/en/human-rights-defender-memorial http://www.protecting-defenders.org/ http://bit.ly/1fmPn45 Visit the related web page
	Growing UN consensus to improve regulation of education in accordance with human rights law by Sylvain Aubry Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, agencies   The last two decades have seen a dramatic increase in scale and scope of non-state actors in education, particularly in developing countries. This privatisation in education includes not only an increase in the number of traditional private schools catering to the elite, but also the rapid expansion of low-cost profit-making schools targeting poor households, large-scale commercial investments in private school chains, private tutoring, privatisation of education services such as testing, the adoption of private sector management techniques in the public education sector, and the growth of community and faith-based schools.   A crucial question is thus to determine, in each particular case, whether this involvement of private sector is acceptable or not.   However, what is still missing is a broadly accepted understanding of the normative framework against which to make this assessment. While there is an increasing and broad range of studies about private schooling, there is not yet a common understanding of what is ‘good’ and what is ‘bad’ in private provision from a social justice perspective, and a delineation of the responsibilities and duties of different actors in education.   It is for this reason that Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education were developed by a group of experts between 2016 and 2019, and adopted in February 2019. They have quickly been recognised worldwide and become a reference point for governments, educators and education providers in understanding their roles and duties in education.   * Abidjan Principles on the human rights obligations of States to provide public education and to regulate private involvement in education: http://www.abidjanprinciples.org/   http://www.gi-escr.org/private-actors-social-services/education/human-rights-guiding-principles http://www.gi-escr.org/private-actors-social-services/education http://www.gi-escr.org/latest-news/amidst-covid-19-un-human-rights-council-reaffirms-recognition-of-the-abidjan-principles-public-statement   Nov. 2018   We are excited about a breakthrough Resolution adopted this week, by the European Parliament declaring that the European Commission must not use development aid money to fund commercial private schools.   The newly-adopted Resolution, which was adopted by over 90% of the votes, considers that it is a requirement under human rights law and a necessity for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals that the European Union refrain from funding commercial private schools.   'This confirms our analysis that taxpayers money should not be used to fund private school chains or for-profit actors in education. Given the detrimental impact of such schools on transparency, democracy and quality, such funding is a violation of States human rights obligations and global commitments to free quality education', said Kira Boe from the Danish Oxfam-IBIS.   This Resolution sets a crucial precedent amidst major concerns that the fast-pace growth of private actors in education in developing countries could be undermining decades of progress in building non-discriminatory free public education systems.   One major donor country, the UK, has begun in recent years to fund commercial actors as part of a contested program, while the US is considering doing the same. This led to detrimental effects on quality and access to education that this Resolution hopes to reverse.   Carole Coupez, of the French Education Coalition, said: 'The evidence is clear: it's only by funding quality public education systems that we can overcome poverty and guarantee social justice in developing countries. The European Parliament positions the EU as the leader it should be to guarantee public services for all'.   While the Resolution does not prevent the European Commission from funding small-scale non-profit private schools, such as faith-based, NGO or community schools, it calls on prohibiting funding to 'commercial establishments'.   Such establishments have been regularly referred to by UN resolutions, and defined in a 2016 civil society paper signed by over 400 organisations as establishments whose one of the primary goals, although not necessarily the only goal, is 'to trade education services and to protect their own interests rather than serving the public interest'.   The resolution makes clear that for-profit private providers such as the highly controversial school chain multinational Bridge International Academies, which operates over 500 schools targeting poor families in four African countries and in India, Omega Schools, which operates in Ghana and Liberia, or APEC schools in The Philippines, which are commercial establishments, do not align with EU's principles and values.   'It is in the DNA of the EU and European countries to guarantee education as a right and public service', said Sylvain Aubry, from the Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.   The Resolution comes at a time when controversies about public support to commercial education providers are raging. In March 2018, over 80 organisations demanded that the European Investment Bank withdraw its investment in the for-profit private school chain, Bridge International Academies.   In the meantime, the Global Partnership for Education (GPE), a multilateral body which funds education in over 65 countries, is in the process of finalising its policy position on its engagement with private actors.   'We now expect that the European Commission, which is currently the largest funder to GPE, will act in accordance with this Resolution and ensure that GPE set a clear policy that none of its funding is used to support commercial private schools. The European Commission must also take steps to ensure that the European Investment Bank equally acts in conformity with EU values and policies, and immediately withdraws its funding from commercial educational establishments', concluded Conny Reuter, from SOLIDAR.   The EU joins a growing group of donors that have expressed concerns about the growing commercialisation of education and committed to address it. The UN Human Rights Council has published four resolutions requesting to 'address any negative impact of the commercialization of education', and France committed in March 2017 to 'act against any attempt at commercialisation of education'. This new Resolution from one of the largest actors in education development aid could set the trend for all the other donors that appear unwilling to follow the UK and US's approach.   http://www.gi-escr.org/latest-news/2018/11/16/european-parliament-bans-eu-development-aid-funding-to-commercial-private-schools http://bit.ly/2FoLnUL http://www.gi-escr.org/latest-news/2019/2/14/new-landmark-abidjan-principles-on-the-right-to-education-and-private-actors-adopted-by-experts http://www.right-to-education.org/issue-page/privatisation-education   July 2018   The UN Human Rights Council adopted yesterday (6.7.2018) an international resolution emphasising with unprecedented consensus the urgent need to better regulate private education providers in order to address the negative impacts of the commercialisation of education, and to do so following human rights principles.   The resolution urges all States 'to put in place a regulatory framework to ensure the regulation of all education providers, including those operating independently or in partnership with States, guided by international human rights law and principles, that addresses any negative impact of the commercialization of education' (paragraph 5).   The resolution, which was adopted without the need for a vote, highlights the increasing consensus among States regarding the human rights requirement to regulate education providers and to address the negative impacts of commercialisation in education. The resolution includes, for the first time, two paragraphs (4 and 5) on the regulation of private actors in education in the core of the text, which States did not question during the negotiations of the text. It also further clarifies and strengthens the language by specifying that States regulatory frameworks must 'ensure the regulation of all education providers', unambiguously requiring to regulate private providers.   This is the fourth resolution in as many years to outline the concerns over the growth of commercialisation of education. It comes against a background of a massive expansion in unregulated private education providers in developing countries in the last 15 years.   This trend raises human rights concerns about commercial actors, such as Bridge International Academies, which attracted complaints from human rights organisations worldwide.   The 2018 text provides significant support for States, in particular in the Global South, that have been struggling in the last years to bring order into the myriad of private providers operating in their education systems. Uganda and Kenya have gained attention in the last months for their attempts to close private schools that negatively impact children's rights, including multinational for-profit companies supported by powerful donors that seek to operate with disregard for human rights standards in order to reduce costs.   This year's resolution also welcomes 'the development by experts of guiding principles and tools for States as part of the steps to implement the right to education'.   * Signatories: Amnesty International, Equal Education Law Centre (South Africa), Global Initiative for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Initiative for Economic and Social Rights (Uganda), Right to Education Initiative   * 2018 Human Rights Council Resolution on the right to education: http://bit.ly/2zf2oxK   http://www.gi-escr.org/private-actors-public-services Visit the related web page
	View more stories