VIRGÍNIA BRÁS GOMES

Ministry of Social Affairs and Member of the UN CESCR, Portugal

Résumé

Les Etats Parties doivent protéger les détenteurs de droits, en particuliers les plus vulné- rables, de la violation de leurs droits par les acteurs commerciaux, en établissant des mesures de contrôle, de supervision et des mécanismes de responsabilités appropriées. Les politiques de développement social ont été considérées, de manière erronée, comme étant à l’opposé de la croissance économique et de compétitivité internationale. Lorsqu’un Etat se retire des prestations de service, l’auteur met le doigt sur deux problématiques importantes; les obli- gations Vs. les responsabilités du secteur privé ainsi qu’une compréhension plus large de l’identification des acteurs non étatiques lorsque l’on parle de droits de l’enfant. Les Directives Maastricht requièrent des Etats d’établir une cadre normatif et de règlementer, en gardant à l’esprit ses obligations de garantir la réalisation des droits économiques, sociaux et culturels sans discrimination.

Zusammenfassung

Die Vertragsstaaten müssen die Rechtssubjekte, insbesondere die Schwächsten, vor der Verletzung ihrer Rechte durch die Handelsakteure schützen, indem sie Kontroll- und Aufsichts- massnahmen sowie eine angemessene Rechenschaftspflicht einrichten. Die Massnahmen für Sozialentwicklung wurden fälschlicherweise als Widerspruch zu wirtschaftlichem Wachstum und internationaler Wettbewerbsfähigkeit betrachtet. Die Autorin hebt zwei wichtige Pro- bleme hervor, wenn sich ein Staat von den Dienstleistungen zurückzieht: die Verpflichtungen gegenüber den Verantwortlichkeiten des Privatsektors sowie ein weitergehendes Verständnis der Selbstwahrnehmung der nichtstaatlichen Akteuren, wenn es um Kinderrechte geht. Die Maastricht-Richtlinien verlangen von den Staaten, einen rechtlichen Rahmen zu schaffen, während sie gleichzeitig ihre Verpflichtungen bezüglich Umsetzung der wirtschaftlichen, sozialen und kulturellen Rechte ohne Diskriminierung berücksichtigen.

Resumen

Los Estados Partes deben proteger los titulares de derechos, en particular los más vulne- rables, de la violación de sus derechos por los actores comerciales, estableciendo medidas de control, de supervisión y de mecanismos de responsabilidad apropiados. Las políticas de desarrollo social fueron consideradas de manera errónea como contrarias al crecimiento económico y de la competitividad internacional. Cuando un Estado se retira de las prestaciones de servicio, la autora señala dos problemáticas importantes : las obligaciones versus las res- ponsabilidades del sector privado así como una comprensión más amplia de la identificación de los actores no estatales cuando se habla de derechos del niño. Las directivas Maastricht

solicitan de los Estados establecer un cuadro normativo y de reglamentar, teniendo en cuenta sus obligaciones, la garantía de la realización de los derechos económicos, sociales y culturales sin discriminación.

Summary

States Parties must protect rights holders, in particular the most vulnerable, from violation of their rights by corporate actors, by establishing appropriate monitoring, supervision and accountability mechanisms. Social development policies have been mistakenly considered as being contrary to economic growth and international competitiveness. In the context of the State withdrawing from service provision, the author points two important issues, namely obligations vs responsibilities of the private sector, and a broader understanding of who the non-State actors are in relation to child rights. The Maastricht Guidelines requires States to set the enabling normative framework and to regulate, bearing in mind its obligation to guarantee fulfillment of economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination.

Many thanks to the International Institute for the Rights of the Child and to the other organizers of this Seminar for the opportunity to be here and to contribute to this discussion.

What could I bring to you today that you as child rights specialists and defenders do not already know? Probably, nothing much! But what I can try to do is to bring in the perspective of how the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can help to make the discussion broader, on one hand, and to identify common entry points for the identification of obligations of States and the role (obligations or responsibilities) of the business sector, on the other.

Let me highlight a couple of issues.

Where are children a target group for the Covenant?

Generally speaking, in the implementation of the substantive rights to social security, protection for members of the family, adequate standard of living, health, education and the right to take part in cultural life.

In particular, children are a specific target group in Article 10.3 that calls for “special protection and measures of assistance to be taken on behalf of all children and young people without any discrimination for reasons of parentage or other conditions. Children and young persons should be protected from economic and social exploitation. Their employment in work harmful to their morals or health or dangerous to life or likely to hamper their normal development should be punishable by law. States should also set age limits below which the paid employment of child labour should be prohibited and punishable by law”.

So, this article establishes positive obligations by way of special protection for all child- ren, reinforcing the non-discrimination principle in Article 2.2. of the Covenant (in relation to children from traditionally discriminated groups), because age, as an express ground for discrimination only appeared later, more precisely in 1990, in the International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families, and indicates potential violations that should be punishable by law. These are the three trends that I would like to retain in the discussion of State obligations vis-à-vis the business sector.

Let me now locate this article within the Maastricht Guidelines on the obligations of States. • Respect (refrain from direct or indirect interference)

• Protect (prevent third parties from interfering) • Fulfil (core obligations and progressive realization)

a) Provide (for those unable to do so) b) Facilitate (positive measures)

c) Promote (education and information campaigns for public awareness)

The present backdrop for the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights offers food for thought. The crumbling of the Welfare State and the uneven sharing of costs and distribution of benefits of globalization have had a negative effect on various other trends, such as the demographic unbalance; economic setbacks, unemployment and underemploy- ment; financial, food and climate crises; land grabbing and mega development projects with

displacement and forced evictions.

So, on one hand, individuals, families and social groups have new needs, social inequalities grow in urban, suburban and rural deprived neighbourhoods, and new risk groups are faced with social exclusion. They have little access to resources and their needs cut across sectors. On the other, the Welfare State has come under severe pressure and financial constraints leading to its philosophy being challenged and its scope, personal and material coverage and protection measures being progressively reduced.

Efforts to rethink and reorganise the role of the Government are far from being successful and States are still grappling with the need to balance long-term financial sustainability concerns with the fulfilment of their overall function of ensuring an acceptable level of protection to all their citizens, especially to the most vulnerable.

In this context, State obligations vis-à-vis the business sector assume particular relevance Going back to the Maastricht Guidelines, respecting rights requires States to set the enabling normative framework and to regulate, bearing in mind its obligation to guarantee fulfillment of economic, social and cultural rights without discrimination. This means that laws, policies and regulations must ensure that non-Government actors, whether State-owned companies or private companies, act in conformity.

Unfortunately, social development policies have been mistakenly considered as being contrary to economic growth and international competitiveness and the establishment of social safety nets absolutely necessary to cushion the unwanted or unexpected effects of globalization on poor persons, families and communities, has not been considered a national and interna- tional political priority and therefore not made an essential part of this normative framework.

The protect dimension is probably the most relevant because it is the most difficult to carry out bearing in mind

“that the human rights of individuals, groups and peoples are affected by and dependent on the extraterritorial acts and omissions of States. The advent of economic globalization in particular, has meant that States and other global actors exert considerable influence on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights across the world”1_.

States Parties must effectively protect rights holders, in particular the most vulnerable, from violation of their rights by corporate actors, by establishing appropriate monitoring, supervision and accountability mechanisms. We all know that in these days of weakening of the decision making power of nation states, either due to the failure of governments or an overall unfavorable economic and development environment, and of the myriad options open to transnational corporations to carry out their activities at national and extra territorial levels, 1 _{Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial Obligations of States in the area of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights}

and to settle disputes, the co-relation of power is very unbalanced. However, under the general obligation to protect, all States must take action, separately, and jointly through international cooperation, to protect economic, social and cultural rights of persons within their territories and extraterritorially.2

For example, with respect to children, in addition to positive obligations to implement public policies, States also need to monitor and supervise so as to duly sanction situations of child labour whether explicit and on national territory or as a result of business practices of transnational corporations or business enterprises in other countries or of free trade agreements and special economic zones where supervision is often weak or totally absent.

The core obligation of States, of ensuring access to victims of violations to remedies of a judicial and non-judicial nature, is of particular importance. We know how difficult that can sometimes be because of the different forms of constitution, organization, power and accountability sharing of TNC’s and private companies but that is one area where States need to strengthen their intervention capacity.

In order to fulfill rights, States need the contribution and pro-active support of private actors. I think here we should consider two issues.

The first one is of a general nature – obligations vs responsibilities of the private sector (is it just a terminological difference or is it the reflection of the lack of clarity on what exactly is expected from the private sector as a contribution to the fulfill dimension)?

The second point is a broader understanding of who the non-State actors are in relation to child rights, specially as a result of privatisation and decentralization. Is it only the commercial for-profit sector? Or is it also the non-profit sector?

In some of our countries, the State is delegating provision of services for all age groups, including children, to the non-profit sector.

In fact, increasingly, the State is withdrawing from service provision and passing on the responsibility to private non-profit providers for services for children, whether childcare services broadly speaking, as a space for the harmonious development of a child and a tool for the reconciliation of professional and family life for men and women, but still much more for women, or services for children deprived of a nurturing family environment or with risk behaviours.

This delegation of responsibilities is often part of an agreement in which the State pro- vides financial, technical and training support, and the service providers agree to comply with minimum standards and guarantee availability of a number of places for children from disad- vantaged backgrounds and, in the case of placement services, for children and young people identified by Government services as being in need of immediate care. Though with non-profit objectives, such services definitely come under the supervision of the State, particularly when considering the fulfil obligation and need to be the subjected to on-going supervision so as to 2 _ibidem

assess any breach of conformity with the obligation to ensure the enjoyment of rights. We have come a long way since the understanding of corporate social responsibility as voluntary and business-driven. In more recent times, a more socially oriented concept of corporate social responsibility has been invoked by Governments and the private sector in relations to children’s rights. Buzz words like partnership, networking, community involvement, responsible business conduct, social reporting, social audits, social accountability, business ethics and accountability, and social undertaking have been used and, at times, misused, to set boundaries and promote so-called “innovatory” approaches.

It is a commendable effort, but far from enough. We need to move on and take bolder steps in moving the argument to a human rights framework. The Statement of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on the obligations of States Parties regarding the corporate sector and economic, social and cultural rights, adopted in July 2011, from which I have drawn for this presentation, is a clarification in the right direction.

Bottom line, States have the obligation to ensure that all economic, social and cultural rights laid down in the Covenant are fully respected and rights holders adequately protected in the context of business activities carried out by state-owned or private enterprises. On their side, companies must demonstrate due diligence in not impeding or negatively affecting the enjoyment of the Covenant rights. It is not enough not to be charged with human rights vio- lations; the call is for them to contribute towards the fulfilment of these rights.

I am sure the General Comment on which the Committee of the Rights of the Child has embarked will be a major step forward and we are all looking forward to it. Being the first to deal specifically with the issue of child rights and the business sector, it will certainly set the tone.