View previous stories
	Protecting Economic and Social Rights during and Post-Covid-19 by CESR, Human Rights Watch   Oct. 2020   Fault Lines Laid Bare, by Lena Simet.   What started as a health crisis has quickly turned into an economic and human rights crisis, with hundreds of thousands of lives lost, over one billion children out of school, and jobs that have disappeared overnight. The people suffering the most from the COVID-19 pandemic are those already marginalised due to race, gender and economic circumstances.   Apart from the immediate tragedy, the pandemic will have long-lasting economic and social effects. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) is warning of a worse impact than the 2008–09 global financial crisis. The broader consequences of coronavirus are already visible, with a staggering number of people pushed deeper into poverty, facing acute food insecurity and losing their homes due to forced evictions.   Before the pandemic, more than 700 million people, or 10 per cent of the world’s population, lived in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 a day, with resources far too low to enjoy their right to an adequate standard of living. Projections by the UNU World Institute for Development Economics Research estimate that 80 million more people could experience extreme poverty in the best scenario of how COVID-19 plays out. In the worst, as many as 420 million people could slip into extreme poverty. The United Nations has warned of a 9.1 per cent increase in poverty among women and a widening of the existing poverty gap between women and men.   At the same time, Oxfam has found that between March and July, eight new billionaires emerged in Latin America alone, and the overall wealth of billionaires there grew by 17 per cent. That’s equivalent to a third of all stimulus packages in the region, or nine times the urgent loans provided by the IMF.   The pandemic’s economic fallout has resulted in income loss primarily affecting people living in or vulnerable to poverty, working in jobs that are more exposed to layoffs and pay cuts, and, in general, working in precarious employment. Workers in the informal economy were hit especially hard since most of those jobs are low paid and cannot be performed remotely.   The pandemic’s unequal health impacts were perhaps most visible in urban areas. New York City reported that COVID-19-related deaths were three times as high in the most deprived areas as in the least deprived. A survey by the Mumbai municipality and research institutes found that over half of Mumbai’s seven million slum-dwellers already had COVID-19. And in Buenos Aires’ largest slum, Villa 31, where overcrowding is high and many households lack water inside their homes, infections have soared despite drastic lockdown measures.   The opposing realities of rich and poor speak to the rise in economic inequality in most countries over the last decades. They also suggest a reversal of any prospect of achieving the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030.   Major setbacks are anticipated on the SDGs most directly related to inequality, including SDG 1 (end poverty), SDG 4 (quality education), SDG 5 (gender equality) and SDG 10 (reduce inequalities both within and between countries).   But even before the pandemic, the SDG process was ill-equipped to reduce inequalities. The targets, indicators and systems for reaching SDG 10 were weak from the start, framing the inequality agenda as one of ‘shared prosperity’ focused on inclusive growth rather than actual reduction of inequalities.   Deepening disparities   Treating the reduction of inequality as just one in a long list of goals is problematic because extreme inequality is a barrier to achieving the 2030 Agenda as a whole.   The rise in inequality had detrimental human rights effects, making it harder to reduce poverty and promoting disparities in access to health, education, housing and other services essential to economic and social rights, including along racial and gender lines.   COVID-19 is deepening these disparities, especially for women and girls, in every sphere, including disproportionately driving them out of education, employment and housing.   The policy measures introduced to prevent some of the pandemic’s worst effects have also benefited people differently, depending on socio-economic class, gender, age, ethnicity or race and territory, and other factors such as disability or migratory status. At Human Rights Watch, we have been following the disproportionate financial impact of COVID-19 and economic relief packages in about a dozen countries.   We found that governments had often taken essential steps, but have not been sufficiently sensitive to inequality or adequately focused on protecting people’s rights and preventing them from falling into poverty.   The pandemic offers a chance to change the status quo, though, and to move towards an economy that uplifts, rather than imperils, human rights. To seize this chance, countries should do at least three things.   1. Avoid austerity measures that violate rights   The spread of COVID-19 has laid bare the catastrophic consequences of austerity-driven fiscal policy that affects basic rights, which has been pursued aggressively since the global financial crisis. The austerity measures led to dilapidated public services, as governments cut spending and hollowed out programmes crucial to guaranteeing human rights. Public health systems in particular have been left strapped for resources necessary to tackle the pandemic.   As countries enter the pandemic recovery phase and face large fiscal deficits, they should guarantee basic economic rights for all, consider progressive taxation, and strengthen public institutions rather than pursuing austerity measures.   2. Expand social protection systems   Most countries have weak and patchy social protection systems, with many people falling through the cracks. Although social security is a universal human right, the International Labour Organization estimates that before the pandemic, 55 per cent of the global population lacked access to social protection. Unemployment benefits covered only one in five unemployed workers worldwide.   Countries need to establish social protection floors, providing income support and other measures to ensure an adequate standard of living. Labour markets should be regulated to protect against exploitative practices.   Both informal and formal workers need support to get decent jobs that pay a living wage and allow them to organise and balance their work–family responsibilities. This is particularly important when other basic services like education are closed, to ensure that women do not suffer the brunt of lost jobs.   3. Institutionalise action and oversight for reducing inequality   In 2015, 193 government leaders committed to reduce inequality as part of the 2030 Agenda. Progressive taxation and social programmes with a robust component to redistribute wealth are part of this commitment (see target 10.4: adopt policies, especially fiscal, wage and social protection policies, and progressively achieve greater equality).   However, most countries seem to have stopped short of taking action. Tackling inequality during the recovery and beyond will require institutions and forums designed for accountability that monitor progress and compel change.   The pandemic’s course provides a painful reminder of the vast inequalities entrenched in our societies and economic systems. Continued poverty and extreme inequality are incompatible with the human right to an adequate standard of living.   The failure to take the necessary steps to eradicate poverty and reduce inequality are policy choices that must be reversed to right the wrongs that have persisted for too long.   Governments should design their recovery efforts with a human rights lens that recognises that economic inequality and rights are intrinsically linked. This is essential if we are to build back better and hold governments and international institutions accountable for the kind of recovery they pursue.   http://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/26/fault-lines-laid-bare   June 2020   Protecting Economic and Social Rights during and Post-Covid-19. (Human Rights Watch)   The Covid-19 pandemic is likely to have long-lasting consequences on economic and social rights stemming from the direct and indirect effects of the illness, people’s cooperation with prevention efforts, and government transmission control policies.   Economic projections have already been revised downward for most regions and countries, driven by shocks to both demand and supply and sharp declines in the circulation of goods, services, people, and capital.   The economic fallout is estimated to increase the poverty headcount at US$5.50 per day by as many as a half-billion people, eight percent of the world’s population. This would reverse a decade of global progress in reducing poverty, and in some regions the adverse impacts could result in poverty levels similar to those 30 years ago.   The pandemic has starkly exposed economic inequalities, especially in countries with fragile social protection systems, where vulnerable groups bear the brunt of the crisis. The pandemic has also highlighted stark inequalities in wealthier countries with previously better-funded social protection.   People living in poverty are more likely to have health complications, live in crowded or poor-quality housing, and lack the resources to stay at home for long periods or follow hygiene recommendations. And low-paid jobs force them to choose between risking their health or losing their income. To remain afloat, people need large, timely, and targeted fiscal support that addresses the multiple axes of inequality and discrimination.   Human Rights Watch is particularly concerned about the pandemic’s impact on the economic and social rights of those already in precarious economic situations, who are often more exposed to financial shocks because of socioeconomic inequalities and discrimination.   This question-and-answer document examines how to ensure that the right to an adequate standard of living, among other human rights standards, is at the center of the economic response to Covid-19. It summarizes several types of government responses and provides recommendations for governments and financial institutions for immediate to short-term, medium-term, and longer-term measures to help mitigate human rights risks posed by the pandemic and containment measures.   Section 1: Human rights standards   What is the human right to an adequate standard of living?   Under international human rights law, governments have an obligation to ensure people’s right to an adequate standard of living, so that everyone enjoys the rights necessary to live in dignity, including the rights to adequate food and nutrition, health and well-being, water and sanitation, and housing. Countries need to ensure equal access to these rights for all, without discrimination on grounds such as gender, race or ethnicity, age, or disability.   The right is set out in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 25(1):   Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.   It is further developed in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has issued several General Comments explaining the components of this right including the right to adequate housing (General Comments 4 and 7), food (General Comment 12), water (General Comment 15), as well as social security (General Comment 19).   Through these General Comments, the Committee elaborates on criteria to fulfill these rights and provides the most comprehensive interpretation of these rights under international law. The right to health has been included in a number of human rights treaties; the main ones are Article 25 UDHR and Article 12 ICECSR.   Are governments obligated to provide social protection or social security?   Yes. Under human rights law, the government is legally obligated to establish social protection systems. The terms social security and social protection are used interchangeably to refer to in-cash or in-kind benefits to provide protection in case of social risks and needs.   This duty to provide social protection flows directly from the right to social security, which is articulated in Article 25 of the UDHR, and in Article 9 of the ICESCR. In General Comment No. 19 on the right to social security, the ICESCR spells out the key features of this right and the content of countries’ obligations. The committee says that the right to social security implies two predominant categories of measures: social insurance schemes, for which beneficiaries have contributed financially; and social assistance schemes, non-contributory and typically taxation-funded measures to transfer resources to groups deemed eligible due to vulnerability or deprivation.   Social protection measures secure protection against lack of work-related income – or insufficient income – caused by sickness, disability, maternity, employment injury, unemployment, old age, death of a family member, or general poverty and social exclusion, among other things. Social protection measures include cash transfer schemes, unemployment or disability benefits, social pensions, food assistance, or subsidized services.   Governments must ensure that social protection is equally available to everyone, and must direct their attention to ensuring universal coverage; reasonable, proportionate, and transparent eligibility criteria; affordability and physical accessibility for beneficiaries; access to information about the provision of benefits; and participation by potential beneficiaries in the administration of these services. Governments need to ensure that there is no discriminatory exclusion from social security and other forms of social protection.   What are countries’ “minimum core obligations”?   UN treaty bodies have set out minimum core obligations on countries, meaning the basic rights they should ensure at all times, for everyone. Within the right to an adequate standard of living, core obligations include ensuring access to the minimum essential nutritionally adequate and safe food and freedom from hunger; to basic shelter, housing, and sanitation; an adequate supply of safe drinking water; and social protection that provides a minimum essential level of benefits.   International law does not require any particular method to ensure everyone has a decent standard of living. Governments may directly provide essentials such as food and water; ensure that essentials are available and affordable; and ensure that everyone has sufficient income for adequate food, housing, and other essentials. This can also be achieved through respecting the related rights of everyone to social security and to wages sufficient to provide a decent living for workers, a so-called living wage.   Countries with limited resources still have an obligation to ensure an adequate standard of living. Even in times of crisis, governments are required to make every effort to meet these obligations with existing resources, including international assistance, and allocate them in the way that maximizes respect for human rights, including taking into account the precarious situation of disadvantaged and marginalized individuals or groups.   What does “progressive realization” mean in this context?   In addition to the minimum core obligations on governments, Article 11(1) of the ICESCR says that they are obliged to ensure for everyone the “continuous improvement of living conditions.” Article 2 of the ICESCR requires governments to use the maximum available resources to achieve progressively the “full realization” of all the rights in the covenant.   How does Covid-19 affect the right to an adequate standard of living?   Covid-19 reinforced the relevance of the right to an adequate standard of living. The impact of the pandemic has been felt particularly hard in situations in which the right had not previously been guaranteed. People without adequate housing are at higher risk of contracting highly communicable diseases like Covid-19 due to their lack of capacity to follow hygiene recommendations or social distancing.   People living on the streets, in shelters, or overcrowded informal settlements are particularly vulnerable to an outbreak. Globally, before the pandemic, over a billion people lived in informal settlements, and an estimated 150 million people, or about 2 percent of the world’s population, were homeless.   Similarly, the lack of safe drinking water and sanitation at home, work, or in healthcare settings make preventive measures difficult and could harm fulfillment of the right to an adequate living standard. In some cases, inadequate water and sanitation itself may be a locus for the spread of the disease.   About 780 million people around the world lack access to an improved water source – which, by nature of its construction, adequately protects the water from outside contamination, and 2.5 billion lack access to proper sanitation. In metropolitan Harare, Zimbabwe’s capital, half the population has undependable access to safe drinking water in their homes. And in Venezuela, handwashing is difficult even for healthcare providers, who often lack soap and disinfectants.   * Access the full briefing via the link below:   http://www.hrw.org/news/2020/06/29/protecting-economic-and-social-rights-during-and-post-covid-19 http://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/14/breaking-poverty-trap   Resourcing a Just Recovery from COVID-19 - Center for Economic and Social Rights   The COVID-19 pandemic is a human rights crisis of unprecedented proportions. Lives have been lost, schools have been closed, jobs and livelihoods have disappeared overnight. Governments around the world are struggling to deal with the pandemic and the economic crisis it has triggered.   It is exposing the weaknesses of underfunded health systems, exacerbating deeply embedded inequalities and revealing just how little protection existing social safety nets really provide.   At the same time, this crisis is not solely the product of the novel coronavirus; rather, it is placing into relief the vast economic and social divisions that existed beforehand both within and between countries, the injustices of the global economic order and the fundamental fragility of public services ravaged by decades of austerity.   Apart from the immediate tragedy, the pandemic will have long-lasting economic and social effects, with every measure that governments and international institutions take to combat its spread and avoid economic disaster having the potential either to uplift or imperil human rights.   There is therefore a pressing need for a human rights analysis of relief and recovery measures. Amidst the devastation, this moment is also an opportunity to learn the lessons of the past, and present a new vision and a new narrative about the values underpinning our economies and the role and accountability of the State.   In this context, our recent work on austerity and fiscal policy—and our mission to harness the power of human rights to inspire fairer and more sustainable economies—takes on ever more urgent relevance.   CESR’s project on Resourcing a Just Recovery from COVID-19 draws on that expertise and distinctive perspective to chart a path forward for economic relief and recovery efforts that place people and their rights at the center.   http://www.cesr.org/covid19 http://www.cesr.org/covid-19-recovering-rights-series-0 Visit the related web page
	COVID-19 response in conflict zones hinges on respect for international humanitarian law by Cordula Droege International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)   Apr. 2020   We are living through a shared, global crisis. COVID-19 does not heed borders or pay deference to people of power or wealth. However, while the virus does not discriminate in its reach, the effects of the pandemic are by no means equally distributed.   It is the men, women and children caught in the crossfire of armed conflict - displaced by violence, living in countries which have been structurally shattered by years of fighting, destruction, erosion of basic services - who are the most vulnerable to the current pandemic.   Nearly 168 million people around the world now depend on humanitarian relief because of conflict, violence and disasters. As terrifying as the health, social, psychological and economic impacts have shown to be, the coronavirus is not one, but rather one more, calamity that befalls them.   Why are conflict zones viewed as powder kegs lying in wait for the spark of COVID-19? Of course, much of the problem lies with armed conflict itself; beyond immediate death and injury, impoverishment, displacement, and lack of access to essential services are the common consequences of armed conflict, and in particular of protracted armed conflicts.   Even in situations where the rules are observed, the conduct of war can cause enormous damage and have important long-term humanitarian consequences, such as protracted displacement, the loss of access to basic services and the erosion of individual and community coping mechanisms.   However, while the root causes of the erosion of essential services, and especially healthcare, in a conflict situation are complex and manifold, the ICRC has repeatedly emphasized that respect for international humanitarian law (IHL) would go a long way towards reducing the suffering of populations and the humanitarian consequences of conflicts.   Ensuring the protection of essential services, in the short- and the long-term, begins first and foremost with better respect for existing rules of international humanitarian law by parties to armed conflicts.   It is a root cause of the problem, and it cannot be overstated: the extreme vulnerability of people in conflict zones to COVID-19, the culmination of degraded or collapsed essential services such as water, sanitation, and health care, is in significant part the result of a disregard over many years of States and other belligerents obligations as set out in international humanitarian law and international human rights law towards populations under their control.   Now we are here, at a new crossroads, but one with familiar signposts. In the long term, a public health response to a pandemic and respect for fundamental legal protections go hand in hand.   To illustrate this, the ICRC Legal Division has produced a basic reminder of the key provisions of international humanitarian law, relevant to the COVID-19 pandemic in conflict situations, that we must all keep close at hand when a pandemic hits countries at war.   Hospital Medical personnel, facilities and transport   Common Art 3 GC I-IV; Arts 19, 23-26 and 35 GC I; Art 36 GC II; Arts 14(1), 15, 18, 20-21 and 56 GC IV; Arts 12, 15-16 and 21 AP I; Arts 10 and 11 AP II; Rules 25, 26, 28, 29 and 35 ICRC Customary IHL (CIHL) Study.   Adequately staffed and well-equipped medical facilities are necessary for the provision of medical care on a large scale, as demonstrated by the outbreak of COVID-19 and the needs it has generated. Under international humanitarian law, medical personnel, units and transports exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. In occupied territories, the occupying power must also ensure and maintain medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene. In addition, international humanitarian law provides for the possibility of setting up hospital zones that may be dedicated to addressing the current crisis.   Water   Arts 54(2) and 57(1) AP I; Arts 13(1) and 14 AP II; Rules 15 and 54 ICRC CIHL Study.   Water supply facilities are of critical importance during the current crisis. In armed conflict situations, many of these installations have been destroyed by fighting over the years. Any disruption to their functioning means thousands of civilians would no longer be able to implement the basic prevention measures, such as frequent hand-washing, which can lead to further spread of the virus.   International humanitarian law expressly prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, including drinking water installations and supplies. Moreover, in the conduct of military operations, constant care must be taken to spare civilian objects, including water supply network and installations.   Humanitarian relief   Common Arts 3 and 9/9/9/10 GC I-IV; Arts 70 and 71 AP I; Art 18(2) AP II; Rules 55-56 ICRC CIHL Study.   Humanitarian action in countries affected by armed conflicts is essential in saving lives during the ongoing crisis. Under international humanitarian law, each party to an armed conflict bears the primary responsibility to meet the basic needs of the population under its control.   Impartial humanitarian organizations such as the ICRC have the right to offer their services. Once relief schemes have been agreed to by the parties concerned, the parties to the armed conflict and third States shall allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of the humanitarian relief subject to their right of control (e.g. by adjusting any pandemic-related movement restrictions to allow victims to access humanitarian goods and services).   Persons specifically at risk   Common Art 3 GC I-IV; Arts 12 and 15 GC I; Art 16 GC IV; Art 10 AP I; Art 7 AP II; Rules 109, 110 and 138 ICRC CIHL Study.   Certain groups of people, including older persons, those who have weakened immune systems, or those with pre-existing health conditions, are at particular risk for severe illness if infected by COVID-19.   Others, including persons with disabilities, may face a variety of barriers (e.g. communication, physical) in accessing necessary health-care services or particular difficulties in implementing the required hygienic measures to prevent infection (e.g. social distancing may not be possible for those relying on the support of others for everyday tasks).   International humanitarian law requires parties to a conflict to respect and protect wounded and sick persons as well as to take all possible measures to search for, collect and evacuate them, without adverse distinction, whenever circumstances permit and without delay.   They must receive, to the fullest extent practicable and with the least possible delay, the medical care and attention required by their condition, without distinction other than for medical purposes.   Moreover, IHL provisions afford specific respect and protection to older persons and persons with disabilities who are affected by armed conflict.   Detainees   Arts 22(1), 23(1), 29-31 GC III; Arts 83(1), 85(1), 91-92 GC IV; Arts 5(1)(b) and 5(2)(c) AP II; Rules 118 and 121 ICRC CIHL Study.   Detention facilities which are often overcrowded, have poor hygiene or lack ventilation pose a grave challenge when it comes to preventing and containing infectious diseases, including COVID-19. Under international humanitarian law, detainees health and hygiene must be safeguarded, and sick detainees must receive the medical care and attention required by their condition.   In the current situation, new arrivals should be tested for the virus and hygiene measures should be increased (e.g. by installing hand-washing stations, providing soap and other washing equipment, and creating isolation wards), in order to prevent the spread of disease.   Internally displaced persons, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees   All general rules covering the civilian population; specific rules include Arts 35, 44, 45(4), 49, 70(2), 147 GC IV; Art 73 AP I; Art 17 AP II; Rules 105, 129 and 131 ICRC CIHL Study.   Internally displaced persons, migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are particularly exposed to outbreaks of COVID-19, given their frequently harsh living conditions and limited access to basic services including health care.   Displaced civilians are entitled to shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition. People facing outbreaks of COVID-19 in camps may aim to move to safety, leading local populations and/or authorities to react forcefully to contain them, including by turning the camps into isolated detention centres.   International humanitarian law protects all civilians against the effects of armed hostilities and against arbitrary deprivation of liberty, and provides for their access to health care without discrimination.   Children and education   Arts 13, 24, 50(1), 94, 108 and 142 GC IV; Art 4(3)(a) AP II; Rule 135 ICRC CIHL Study   Many schools have been temporarily closed to prevent further spreading of COVID-19. While an important preventive measure, this places education continuity under additional strain in contexts where education may already have been disrupted by armed conflict.   The disruption of education has long-term effects, and it is important that efforts to ensure its continuity are not an afterthought in times of crisis. International humanitarian law contains rules that require parties to conflict to facilitate access to education, and State practice indicates the inclusion of access to education in the special respect and protection to which children are entitled under customary law.   Measures to ensure that education is not interrupted and that children can learn from home are urgently needed.   Sanctions regimes and other restrictive measures   Common Arts 3 and 9/9/9/10 GC I-IV; Arts 70 and 71 AP I; Art 18(2) AP II; Rules 31, 32, 55-56 and 109-110 ICRC CIHL Study.   The current COVID-19 crisis requires the mobilization of significant humanitarian resources that are often lacking in countries affected by armed conflicts. Sanctions and other restrictive measures currently in place can impede impartial humanitarian action in these areas, to the detriment of the most vulnerable. Sanctions regimes and other restrictive measures that hinder impartial humanitarian organizations, such as the ICRC, from carrying out their exclusively humanitarian activities in a principled manner are incompatible with the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law.   States and international organizations enforcing such measures should make sure that they are consistent with international humanitarian law and do not have an adverse impact on principled humanitarian responses to COVID-19. They should devise effective mitigating measures, such as humanitarian exemptions benefiting impartial humanitarian organizations. http://bit.ly/2ViW6X3   * Dr Cordula Droege is the chief legal officer and head of the legal division of the ICRC, where she leads the ICRC's efforts to uphold, implement and develop international humanitarian law. Visit the related web page
	View more stories