![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article analyses how the right to science can benefit from the obligations and mechanisms related to anticipation of other, social and cultural rights. It considers how these obligations can be extended to the right to science and how they can benefit the right to science by ricochet. Hence, this article shows, on the one hand, the potential that the obligations of prevention, precaution and due diligence, when applied to, social and cultural rights, have to be extended into the context of the right to science. This analysis of obligations is followed by identifying mechanisms capable of addressing the anticipatory dimension required for implementing this right. It is therefore explored, on the other hand, how mechanisms such as indicators and HRIAs, considered useful in the framework of, social and cultural rights, can play a role in the implementation of the anticipatory aspects linked to the right to science. This analysis is based mainly on the interpretative function of quasi-judicial and jurisdictional human rights bodies.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
1 Samantha Besson, ‘The Human Right to Science: Mapping the Issues’, European Journal of Human Rights 4 (2015): 403–10; Sebastian Porsdam Mann, Helle Porsdam and Yvonne Donders, ‘Sleeping Beauty: The Right to Science as A Global Ethical Discourse’, Human Rights Quarterly 42, no. 2 (2020): 332–56.
2 ‘UNESCO’ Statement on COVID-19: Ethical Considerations from a Global Perspective, SHS/IBC-COMEST/COVID-19 REV (April 6, 2020); UNESCO’s Ethics Commissions Call for Global Vaccines Equity and Solidarity, SHS/BIO/IBC-COMEST/COVID-19 (February 24, 2021); UNESCO’s Brief on the Right to Science and COVID-19, SHS/IRD/2022/PI/1 (2022); ‘Report on the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Cultures and Cultural Rights’, A/HRC/46/34 (2021); Stjepan Oreskovic and Sebastian Porsdam Mann, ‘Science in the Times of SARS-CoV-2’, in The Right to Science, Then and Now, ed. Helle Porsdam and Sebastian Porsdam Mann (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 166–92.
3 Roberto Poli, ‘Anticipation: A New Thread for the Human and Social Sciences?’, CADMUS 2, no. 3 (2014): 23–36.
4 Amartya Sen, ‘Elements of a Theory of Human Rights’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 32, no. 4 (2004): 315–56.
5 E.g. David Trubek, ‘Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the Third World: Human Rights Law and Human Needs Programs’, in Human Rights in International Law: Legal and Policy Issues, ed. Theodor Meron (Oxford: Claredon Press, 1984), 205–71, 231. The Special Rapporteur on Extreme Poverty highlighted how ESCR have been marginalised from civil and in practice, proposing a framework of recognition, institutionalisation and accountability as a response to the lack of recognition of these rights as genuine human rights. (Philip Alston, A/HRC/32/31, 28 April 2016).
6 Catarina de Albuquerque, ‘Chronicle of an Announced Birth: The Coming into Life of the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights - The Missing Piece of the International Bill of Human Rights’, Human Rights Quarterly 32, no. 1 (2009): 144–78.
7 IACtHR, Artavia Murillo et al. v. Costa Rica, Serie C no. 257, (28 November 2012), para. 146.
8 ECtHR [GC], Parrillo v. Italie, no. 46470/11, (27 August 2015), para. 159.
9 CESCR, S.C. and G.P. v. Italy, E/C.12/65/D/22/2017, (28 March 2019), para. 6.12–6.19.
10 Ambre Blanc, Les décisions de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme face au temps (Brussels: Bruylant, 2022).
11 For instance, according to article 5, paragraph 1, of the Optional Protocol, after receiving communication and before deciding on the merits, the CESCR may at any time bring to the urgent attention of the State Party concerned a request that the State Party take such provisional measures as may be necessary for exceptional circumstances to avoid possible irreparable damage to the victim or victims of the alleged violation. Article 63.2 of the American Convention on Human Rights provides the IACtHR with the explicit authority to issue precautionary measures. The European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) does not contain explicit provisions regarding precautionary measures, but in rule 39 of its Rules of Court. See: ECtHR, Mamatkoulov and Askarov v. Turquie, n° 46827/99 (4 February 2005).
12 ECtHR, Klass et al. v. Germany, no. 5029/71, (6 September 1978), para. 36, IACtHR, Ximenes Lopes v. Brazil, Serie C, no. 149, (4 July 2006), para. 235.
13 For example, in Lambert v. France, the plaintiffs challenged a medical decision to discontinue artificial hydration and nutrition for their quadriplegic child, the ECtHR indeed recognised that if discontinued, his death would occur rapidly. Accordingly, the Court considered that he might be the victim of a potential or future violation of the right to life. ECtHR, Lambert and others v. France, no 46043/14, (5 June 2015), para 115.
14 Similar language can be found in other regional human rights instruments: American Convention on Human Rights, adopted 22 November 1969, Article 26. While the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights does not expressly refer to the principle of progressive realization, the concept is widely accepted and has been implied into the Charter in accordance with Articles 61 and 62. ACHPR, ‘Principles and Guidelines on the Implementation of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights’, (2010), para. 13.
15 For a more exhaustive analysis of the stakes involved in the right to science, see Rumiana Yotova and Bartha M. Knoppers, ‘The Right to Benefit from Science and Its Implications for Genomic Data Sharing’, European Journal of International Law 31, no. 2 (2020): 665–91.
16 ECOSOC, ‘Report of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the concept of “progressive realization” of economic, social and cultural rights in international human rights law’, E/2007/82, (25 June 2007), para. 71.
17 CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 3, The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations’, E/1991/23, (14 December 1990), para. 9.
18 CESCR, S.C. and G.P. (represented by counsel, Cesare Romano) v. Italy, 7 March 2019, E/C.12/65/D/22/2017, para 11.4.
19 Ibid., CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 25 on article 15: Science and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, E/C.12/GC/25, (30 April 2020), para 23; Aoife Nolan, Nicholas Lusiani, and Christian Courtis, ‘Two Steps Forward, No Steps Back? Evolving Criteria on the Prohibition of Retrogression in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in Economic and Social Rights after the Global Financial Crisis, ed. Aoife Nolan (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 122–3.
20 CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 11: Plans of Action for Primary Education’, E/C12/1999/4, (10 May 1999), para. 10.
21 Article 13(2)(a), CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 13: Right to Education’, E/C.12/1999/10, (8 December 1999), para. 6.b. See also UNDHR Article 26(1): ‘Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages’.
22 Audrey Chapman and Sage Russell, ‘Introduction’, in Core Obligations: Building a Framework for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, ed. Audrey Chapman and Sage Russell (Anvers, Oxford, New York: Insentia, 2002), 4–5.
23 The Committee stresses the national responsibility of States and the international responsibility of developed States to cooperate and assist the former in the implementation of ESCR. CESCR, ‘La pauvreté et le PIDESC’, E/C.12/2001/10, (2001), para 16.
24 Katharine G. Young, ‘The Minimum Core of Economic and Social Rights: A Concept in Search of Content’, Yale Journal on International Law, 33 (2008): 113–75.
25 Lea Shaver, ‘The Right to Science: Ensuring that Everyone Benefits from Scientific and Technological Progress’, EJHR 4 (2015): 411–30.
26 CESCR, General Comment no. 25, para. 52.
27 CESCR has determined in previous General Comments the minimum content of obligations relating to certain rights, such as the right to food (CESCR, GC no. 12, E/C.12/1999/5, 2000, para. 6, 14, 17), the right to education (CESCR, GC no. 13, E/C.12/1999/10, para. 57), the right to the highest attainable standard of health (CESCR, GC no. 14, E/C.12/2000/4, 2000, para. 43), the right to water (CESCR, GC No. 14, E/C./2002/11, 2002, para. 37).
28 Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
29 CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 19 on Social Security’, E/C.12/GC/19 (2008), para. 41.
30 CESCR, General Comment no. 3, para 10.
31 Even if this distinction between obligations of conduct and of result is not emphasized again in later general comments, it is implicit in the reasonableness standard used by various monitoring bodies. Allison Corkery and Ignacio Saiz, ‘Progressive Realization Using Maximum Available Resources: The Accountability Challenge’, in Research Handbook on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights as Human Rights, Jackie Dugard et al. (Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar, 2020), 275–300.
32 Céline Romainville, Le droit à la culture, une réalité juridique (Brussels: Bruylant, 2014), 753–4.
33 OHCHR, ‘Note Verbale from the Permanent Mission of the Netherlands to the United Nations Office at Geneva addressed to the Centre for Human Rights (“Limburg Principles”)’, E/CN.4/1987/17, (8 January 1987) para 72.
34 The focus here is on the positive obligations arising from case law decisions or quasi-judicial bodies. Through positive obligations, the judge sees himself as a ‘creator of law’. Colombine Madelaine, La technique des obligations positives en droit de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (Paris: Dalloz, Nouvelle bibliothèque de thèses, 133, 2014), 467.
35 As for instance the obligations to respect, protect, and fulfil developed by the CESCR on its General Comment no. 25, para. 42–50.
36 The Inter-American Court has stated the substantial content of the principles of prevention, precaution and due diligence, particularly in environmental cases involving indigenous peoples, as obligations of a preventive nature. These principles emerge in the parameters the Inter-American Court chooses when it pronounces on the due performance of socio-environmental impact studies and when it sets requirements for the Free, Prior and Informed Consultation of Indigenous Peoples and Afro-descendent Communities on activities to be implemented in their territories. The general obligation of the States to prevent, established by the IACtHR, is subdivided into four duties: regulation, monitoring, conducting impact studies, and removing structural obstacles. See IACtHR, Saramaka v. Suriname, Serie C no. 172 (29 November 2007), para. 129; IACtHR, Kichwa de Sarayaku v. Ecuador, Serie C no. 245 (27 June 2012), para 186, 205–206, IACtHR, Garífuna de Punta Piedra v. Honduras, Serie C no. 304 (8 October 2015), para. 215; IACtHR, Kaliña y Lokono v. Suriname, Serie C no. 309 (25 November 2015), para 214.
37 Mylène Bidault, ‘Considering the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and Its Applications as a Cultural Right. A Change in Perspective’, in The Right to Science Then and Now, 140–9.
38 UN Special Rapporteur in the Field of Cultural Rights, Report on the Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress and its Applications, A/HRC/20/26 (2012).
39 Yvonne Donders, ‘The Right to Enjoy the Benefits of Scientific Progress: In Search of State Obligations in Relation to Health’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 14 (2011): 371–81. This is in line with the obligation to protect identified by the CESCR on its General Comment no. 25 para 43: ‘protecting people from participating in research or tests that contravene the applicable ethical standards for responsible research and guaranteeing their free, prior and informed consent’.
40 ECtHR, Ana Ionita v. Romania, no. 30655/09 (21 June 2016), para. 73; ECtHR [GC], Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, no. 56080/13 (15 December 2015), para. 214–215; ECtHR, Traskunova v. Russie, no. 21648/11 (30 August 2022), para. 81.
41 See Lopes de Sousa Fernandes v. Portugal, para. 186 and 189, ECtHR, Sarishvili-Bolkvadze v. Georgia, no. 58240/08 (19 October 2018), para. 74. See also, for the summary of the applicable principles regarding effective functioning of relevant framework in the broader context of unintentional taking of life, ECtHR, Smiljanicc v. Croatia, no. 35983/14 (25 March 2021), para. 66.
42 ECtHR, Traskunova v. Russie, para. 69–88. Here, the Court has also interpretated the European Convention on the basis of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine of 1997, also known as the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine or the Oviedo Convention, para. 55.
43 ECtHR, Durisotto v. Italie, no. 62804/13, (28 May 2014).
44 ECtHR, Traskunova v. Russie, para. 70.
45 ECtHR [GC], Roche v. The United Kingdom, no. 32555/96 (19 October 2005), para. 162.
46 CESCR, General Comment no. 25, para 56, see also HRC, ‘The right to science from the perspective of toxic products’, A/HRC/48/61 (26 July 2021), para. 61–66.
47 CESCR, General Comment no. 25, para. 56.
48 CESCR, ‘General Comment no. 2: International Technical Assistance Measures’, E/1990/23 (1990), para. 8(b). Also, the UN Special procedures have integrated this mechanism in their work, like the Special Rapporteur on the right to education; the Special Representative on Human Rights and Businesses, the Special Rapporteur on the right to health, and the Special Rapporteur on the right to food: Katarina. Tomasevski, UN Special Rapporteur on the right to education, E/C.12/1998/18 (November 30, 1998), para. 10; John Ruggie, UN Special Representative of the Secretary-General on the Issue of Human Rights and Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises, ‘Human Rights Impact Assessment - Resolving Key Methodological Questions’, A/HRC/4/74 (2007); Paul Hunt, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Health, ‘Interim Report to the General Assembly’, A/62/214 (2007), para. 37; Olivier De Schutter, UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, ‘Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade and Investment Agreements’, A/HRC/19/59/Add.5 (2011), 9–11.
49 Human Rights Impact Assessment Resource Centre. Available at: www.humanrightsimpact.org/hria-guide/overview.
50 Richard K. Morgan, ‘Environmental Impact Assessment: the State of the Art’, Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal 30, no. 1 (2012): 5–14.
51 Franck Vanclay, ed., Developments in Social Impact Assessment (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 2014).
52 International Association of Impact Assessment, ‘What is Impact Assessment?’ (2009). Available at: www.iaia.org/publications-resources/downloadable-publications.aspx.
53 Simon Walker, ‘Human Rights Impact Assessments: Emerging Practice and Challenges’, in Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in International Law: Contemporary Issues and Challenges, eds. Eibe Riedel, Gilles Giacca and Christophe Golay (Oxford: Oxford Academics, 2014), 395–6.
54 Simon Walker, ‘Human Rights Impact Assessments: Emerging Practice and Challenges’, 395–6.
55 Simon Walker, The Future of Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements (Utrecht: Intersentia, 2009), 30–34; Olivier De Schutter, ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food: Guiding Principles on Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade and Investment Agreements’, A/HRC/19/59/Add.5 (2011), 9–11.
56 Paul Hunt and Gillian MacNaughton, ‘Impact Assessments, Poverty and Human Rights: A Case Study using the Right to the Highest Attainable Standard of Health’, Health and Human Rights Working Paper Series 6 (Geneva: World Health Organization and UNESCO, 2006), 31.
57 Simon Walker, The Future of Human Rights Impact Assessments of Trade Agreements, 36–37.
58 Simon Walker, ‘Human Rights Impact Assessments: Emerging Practice and Challenges’, 411–2.
59 Paul Hunt and Gillian MacNaughton, ‘A Human Rights-Based Approach to Health Indicators’, in Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights in Action, eds. Mashood Baderin and Robert McCorquodale (Oxford: Oxford Academic, 2007), 303–30.
60 European Committee of Social Rights, MDAC v. Belgium, no. 109/2014, (29 March 2018), para. 78.
61 CESCR, General Comment no. 25, para. 88.
62 ‘Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Right of Everyone to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health’, Paul Hunt, E/CN.4/2006/48, (3 March 2006).
63 IACHR, ‘Lineamientos Para La Elaboración de Indicadores de Progreso en Materia de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales’ OEA/Ser.L/V/II.132 (19 June 2008); Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) ‘Human Rights Indicators - A Guide to Measurement and Implementation’, HR/PUB/12/5 (30 March 2012); Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR) ‘The OPERA Framework – Assessing Compliance with the Obligation to Fulfill Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’.
64 OHCHR Guide, para. 104.
65 Ibid., 104–26.
66 Andrea Boggio and Brian Gran, ‘A Proposal for Indicators of the Human Right to Science’, in The Right to Science Then and Now, 273–8.
67 Ibid., 278.
68 Ibid., 282–3.
69 Eitan Felner, ‘Mesurer les droits économiques et sociaux pour en demander compte aux gouvernements’, Revue de l’OCDE sur le développement 2, no. 9 (2008): 207–28.
70 Ann Janette Rosga and Margaret L. Satterthwaite, ‘The Trust in Indicators: Measuring Human Rights’, Berkeley Journal of International Law 27 (2009): 256.
71 Alain Supiot, La gouvernance par les nombres (Paris: Fayard, 2015), 512 p.
72 Margaret Satterthwaite, ‘Measuring Human Rights: Indicators, Expertise, and Evidence-Based Practice’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting American Society of International Law 106 (2012): 253–6.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Camila Perruso
Camila Perruso is an associate professor of law whose research primarily centers on the intersections between international environmental law and international human rights law. Collaborating with philosophers and political scientists, she recently co-authored a book titled “La société écologique. Normes et relations” (Les liens qui libèrent, Paris, 2023).