The optional Protocol to the international covenant on economic, Social and cultural Right was adopted in 2008 and entered into force in 2013? During the five years after its entry into force, 23 States have ratified ...The optional Protocol to the international covenant on economic, Social and cultural Right was adopted in 2008 and entered into force in 2013? During the five years after its entry into force, 23 States have ratified the optional Protocol, and 23 individual communications have been submitted to the committee on economic,Social and cultural Rights? comparing with the acceptance of individual communication procedures under other core international human rights treaties, the record of ratification of the optional Protocol is not satisfactory? in its examination of individual communications,the committee on economic, Social and cultural Rights has made detailed reasoning, extensively referred to its previous general comments, and in case of violations found, suggested both specific and general remedies? in its practice of examining individual communications, the committee on economic, Social and cultural Rights needs to clarify and define the rights under the covenant and their corresponding obligations, while maintaining its nature and role as a supervisory body, without expanding its competence to an unacceptable extent?展开更多
A China-Europe international forum on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment and the optional protocol to the convention was held in Beijing from August 12-13, 2006,
The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(hereinafter referred to as the“Optional Protocol”),aimed at resolving the challenges surrounding the justiciability of econo...The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(hereinafter referred to as the“Optional Protocol”),aimed at resolving the challenges surrounding the justiciability of economic,social and cultural rights(ESCR),has been in effect for 11 years.However,this does not signify a definitive resolution of the justiciability dilemma.A review of the Covenant’s negotiation history reveals that states reached a valuable consensus on the justiciability of ESCR in domestic law.However,significant concerns persist,regarding the scope,methods,and standards of admissibility,as well as substantive issues in international the justiciability in international law.Since the adoption of the Optional Protocol,its acceptance and the operation of individual communication procedures have been far from ideal,further exacerbating the justiciability challenges of ESCR in international law.To address these challenges,individual communication procedures concerning ESCR must strike a balance between international oversight and national sovereignty.In terms of procedural issues,the Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(“the Committee”)should fully leverage admissibility criteria to screen individual communications and ensure procedural safeguards,while adhering to the boundaries of responsibilities within international human rights monitoring mechanisms.In terms of substantive issues,the Committee should further clarify the“reasonableness standard”as the substantive review criterion,avoiding ceiling-like requirements for contract states and minimizing interference with their discretion.This approach would allow the development of a predictable standard of review that combines stability and flexibility.展开更多
文摘The optional Protocol to the international covenant on economic, Social and cultural Right was adopted in 2008 and entered into force in 2013? During the five years after its entry into force, 23 States have ratified the optional Protocol, and 23 individual communications have been submitted to the committee on economic,Social and cultural Rights? comparing with the acceptance of individual communication procedures under other core international human rights treaties, the record of ratification of the optional Protocol is not satisfactory? in its examination of individual communications,the committee on economic, Social and cultural Rights has made detailed reasoning, extensively referred to its previous general comments, and in case of violations found, suggested both specific and general remedies? in its practice of examining individual communications, the committee on economic, Social and cultural Rights needs to clarify and define the rights under the covenant and their corresponding obligations, while maintaining its nature and role as a supervisory body, without expanding its competence to an unacceptable extent?
文摘A China-Europe international forum on the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punish-ment and the optional protocol to the convention was held in Beijing from August 12-13, 2006,
基金a phased achievement of the general project of National Social Science Fund “Research on the Implementation of the Right to Health in the Context of the Synchronous Protection in Public and Private Law”(Project Approval Number 2021BFX169)supported by the Funding Program for the “Peak-Climbing Strategy” in Discipline Development of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (Number:DF2023YS34)。
文摘The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(hereinafter referred to as the“Optional Protocol”),aimed at resolving the challenges surrounding the justiciability of economic,social and cultural rights(ESCR),has been in effect for 11 years.However,this does not signify a definitive resolution of the justiciability dilemma.A review of the Covenant’s negotiation history reveals that states reached a valuable consensus on the justiciability of ESCR in domestic law.However,significant concerns persist,regarding the scope,methods,and standards of admissibility,as well as substantive issues in international the justiciability in international law.Since the adoption of the Optional Protocol,its acceptance and the operation of individual communication procedures have been far from ideal,further exacerbating the justiciability challenges of ESCR in international law.To address these challenges,individual communication procedures concerning ESCR must strike a balance between international oversight and national sovereignty.In terms of procedural issues,the Committee on Economic,Social and Cultural Rights(“the Committee”)should fully leverage admissibility criteria to screen individual communications and ensure procedural safeguards,while adhering to the boundaries of responsibilities within international human rights monitoring mechanisms.In terms of substantive issues,the Committee should further clarify the“reasonableness standard”as the substantive review criterion,avoiding ceiling-like requirements for contract states and minimizing interference with their discretion.This approach would allow the development of a predictable standard of review that combines stability and flexibility.
