There is a widespread misunderstanding about human rights: that they are limited to freedom of speech, protection against torture, and other civil and political rights. It is important that the real meaning of the "rights package" is clarified.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights established that human rights include the right to social security, the right to a reasonable living standard, the right to food, the right to education, the right to housing, the right to health, the right to work and the right to rest and leisure. This is important. It makes social justice a matter of right. It draws a clear line between entitlement and charity. If one day you are in need of State support, there is an enormous difference between receiving such support, because you have a right to it or because someone feels pity for you. The "rights approach" to social welfare protects the dignity of everyone, even the weakest in society.

However, the inclusion of economic and social rights in the Universal Declaration was controversial from the very beginning. When it was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948, there were already voices—not least in the United States—which argued that "Freedom from Want", to use the language of President Franklin D. Roosevelt, should not be seen as a human right.

This division contributed to the unfortunate stalemate in the debate on human rights within the United Nations in the fifties. In the shadow of the cold war, the effort to translate the Universal Declaration into a binding legal convention on human rights was frustrated for years. Not before 1966 could the General Assembly adopt texts with legally-binding human rights norms. However, it had become necessary to separate the rights listed in the Universal Declaration into two conventions.

Now we have the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The fact that it was not possible to keep all these rights within the same package perpetuated the perception that they were different in nature, that economic and social rights were secondary. This misunderstanding was further spread by a terminology which grouped these rights into different "generations", with economic and social rights being placed in the second generation.

The distinction had an impact: in reality, economic and social rights were neglected in the discussion. The United Nations Commission on Human Rights spent little time on these rights, and the committee set up to monitor them received a lower status than did the Committee on Civil and Political Rights. General Assembly statements that all rights were of equal importance and indivisible did not help much. All this had ideological roots. One United States representative to the United Nations summarized what she described as a "Western" position: that economic and social rights could only be regarded as ambitions, no more.

This controversy still prevails. However, Mary Robinson, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, has made repeated statements about the importance of economic and social rights. Some European Governments have also taken a clear position on giving these rights more emphasis and priority. This was done by the Swedish Government a couple of months ago.

A recognition of the importance of economic and social rights does not in any way mean a downgrading of civil and political rights, or cultural rights.

The attempt to create competition or contradiction between the rights is a spillover from the cold war. All rights go hand in hand; they are mutually supportive. This is also supported by experience. The choice is not between economic development and freedom. Governments which have limited freedom of expression tend to have problems with their economic policy. When Prime Minister Indira Gandhi declared a state of emergency in India in 1975 and arrested tens of thousands of political and trade union activists, she argued that India needed stability in order to foster economic development. But stability through repression tends to be short-lived.

It is now widely recognized that economic growth and eradication of poverty indeed are encouraged by free discussion and the rule of law. Professor Amartya Sen has helped us understand these connections through his studies on how censorship contributed to famine in South Asia. Cause-effect operates in the other direction, as well; no doubt it is easier to enhance and promote civil and political rights if there is positive economic development and the rights involved are protected. So what is the problem? What has made this an issue at all? Why have economic and social rights not been fully recognized?

As mentioned, there is an ideological dimension to the question. Human rights are addressed to governments, and it is governments which should guarantee that the citizens can enjoy their rights. Those who believe that Governments should be as small as possible may have difficulties here. They may not accept that Governments should take responsibility for providing possibilities for education, health care and a decent standard of living for the citizens.

In fact, economic and social rights deal with some of the most burning issues on today's political agenda: the right to a job and acceptable working conditions; the right to go to school and have a meaningful education; the right to protection and care in situations of crisis. In periods of structural adjustment and economic reform, these questions tend to be particularly sensitive. This is probably one reason why Governments have hesitated to make them a matter of right.

The fact that economic and social rights are sensitive is no rational basis for treating them as less important or as radically different from other rights. It shows that they are relevant.

However, we should not simplify. There are indeed questions which need to be clarified in order to facilitate the promotion of economic and social rights and make their place in the human rights discourse meaningful and obvious. One is whether these rights are affordable, whether the State indeed can pay for them. Another is whether they can be made legal.

Let me start with the problem of resources. The implementation of most human rights has a cost side. However, some of the economic and social rights tend to be particularly expensive, for instance, how does one conduct a meaningful discussion about the implementation of the right of everyone to education? A Government could say that it wants to meet the requirements, but does not have the funds to finance the necessary reforms. This is indeed what many Governments say. Herein lies the challenge. This should be the beginning of the discussion, not the end of it.

The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights emphasizes efforts for full implementation of the standards. The key formulation included in Article 2 of the Covenant states the obligation of States parties: "Each State party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps individually and through international assistance and cooperation ... to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realisation of the rights recognised in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures."

This means that all available resources, irrespective of whether they are internal or derived from assistance, must be utilized to the maximum in order that the rights should be realized. States must thus strive to attain the goal as efficiently and as soon as possible; they cannot postpone indefinitely the realization of the norms in the Covenant. Also, they should be able to demonstrate that they are taking steps towards full implementation.

The United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors the realization of the Covenant, has developed a two-pronged approach. All States, irrespective of their economic circumstances, must guarantee a minimum acceptable standard (minimum core entitlement), which corresponds with a particular obligation for the State (minimum obligation). At the same time, these rights are to be realized by utilizing available resources to the maximum, which means, for example, that the level of education and health care should be higher in richer countries than in poor ones.

For this, the definition of socio-economic indicators is particularly important; such benchmarks have been developed in the field of health and education by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF), the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). They are an interesting beginning to a discussion on whether States are serious about trying to implement the rights.

Another problem: Can the obligations related to economic and social rights be defined and translated into law?

Equality between the sexes, trade union rights to enable workers to assert their claims, and the right to schooling, together with the protection of children against exploitation, are examples of manifest claims for rights that can be reflected in legal norms. In fact, it is important that they are. However, other rights cannot as easily be given legal form, at least not in a detailed form. This is no reason to downgrade their importance. Law is only one aspect of implementation; other means are available to encourage and monitor compliance.

One aspect which can be legally protected is that the rights are enjoyed by everyone. Prohibition of discrimination is central to all human rights standards. Take for example the norms about equal pay for work of equal value; they can be protected by law. Such legislation can be inspired by the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which rules that women, in particular, should be guaranteed conditions of work "not inferior to those enjoyed by men, with equal pay for equal work".

Implementation of economic and social rights—as with all human rights—is primarily a local and national issue. It is in the national parliaments that essential legislation has to be adopted; it is on the local and national levels that administrative and other structures must be built to protect and enhance these rights. International standards can, however, be a source of inspiration and, of course, be the basis for inter-State agreements, for instance, on development cooperation. When Governments have ratified international norms on human rights, this also means an undertaking to its own citizens.

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has now been ratified by 137 States. With this Convention as a basis, there are articles on economic, social and cultural rights incorporated also into the Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women of 1979 and on the Rights of the Child of 1989.

What can we do? We could press all States to ratify these Conventions. The most successful one so far is the Child Rights Convention, which has near universal support, with the exception of Somalia and the United States.

No international body has been as important for economic and social rights as the International Labour Organisation (ILO). For almost 80 years, tripartite cooperation between Governments, employers and labour organizations has resulted in more than 180 conventions and numerous recommendations concerning labour and social issues. A campaign is now organized for the ratification of the organization's seven key ILO Conventions relating to human rights: Conventions 87 and 98 on Freedom of Association (1948) and Negotiating Rights (1949); Conventions 29 and 105 on the Abolition of Forced Labour (1930 and 1957); Conventions 100 and 111 on Non-discrimination in Working Life (1951 and 1958); and Convention 138 on Minimum Working Ages (1973). This campaign deserves broad support, as does the proposal for a declaration to promote these minimum core standards.

They are so fundamental that they should be regarded as binding on all ILO member countries. The ILO norms are important for operations conducted by other relevant international organizations, including the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and regional development banks. For instance, the decision within the World Trade Organization (WTO) on dialogue with the ILO on labour law issues should be pursued.

The world conferences of this decade dealt to a large extent with economic and social rights. One of them was the United Nations summit on social development, held in Copenhagen in 1995. Its main theme was the battle against poverty, unemployment and social exclusion; and the result was a number of recommendations on the right to an adequate living standard, the right to work and the right to social security.

Other major world conferences during the nineties have also discussed economic and social rights. The first of these was the Summit for Children in 1990. After that came the Vienna Conference on human rights (1993), the Cairo Conference on population issues (1994), the Beijing Conference on women and gender equality (1995), and the Istanbul Summit on habitat (1996). All these meetings have pushed the major international organizations to focus on economic and social issues in their programmes. Indeed, there is now an interesting trend towards applying a rights perspective. The operations within the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) are linked to the right to food; WHO now emphasizes the right to health; ILO develops the right to employment and acceptable working conditions; and UNESCO works within the field of the right to education and culture. UNICEF last year adopted a mission statement that laid down the rights of the child as the aim of the organization; and now uses the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its reporting processes as a basis for its programme dialogue with Governments. The United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) uses the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms Discrimination against Women in a similar manner.

It took about 50 years for the international community to accept the wisdom of President Roosevelt when he urged recognizing "Freedom from Want" as an integral part of our work for human rights. Now it seems possible that economic and social rights might be recognized in real terms. This will enrich the very concept of human rights and the discussion about effective means of making these rights a reality. At the same time, it will add an important dimension to the political work to improve the lives of all disadvantaged individuals, to ensure equal status for women and to give children a better start in life. In other words, it will strengthen the forces for social justice.

About the Author:

Ambassador Thomas Hammarberg is the Secretary-General's Special Representative for Human Rights in Cambodia. Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment. Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work. Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection. —Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 23 (1, 2 and 3).