Book Review: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Their Implementation in United Kingdom Law
| Published date | 01 September 2002 |
| Date | 01 September 2002 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410202000311 |
| Subject Matter | Part D: DocumentationBook Review |
Part D: Documentation
Bookreview
Ric hard Bu rchill, Dav id Harris , Anne Owe rs (eds.): Economie , So cial an d Cu ltur al Rig hts:
The ir Im plem entati on i n Un ited K ingd om L aw, Un iversity o f Nott ingha m H uma n Rights
Law Ce ntre, 1999, xvii + 174 pp *
Tr aditio nally , in t he West, soc io-econom ic righ ts have b een r egar ded as the softest of
soft law (.. .)- littl e mo re than exh ortat ions to gov ernme nts and decisi on - maker s’. Thi s
quo tation from t he fore word by Ann e Owers to the lit tle, bu t pre cious bo ok on
‘Economic, Soci al and Cultur al Rights: Th eir Imp leme ntatio n in Unit ed King dom Law’
are as true in 2002 as they were in 1999, w hen th e book was pu blished . It is, t herefo re,
legi timate to draw the atten tion to this b ook so me years after its public ation.
Th e bo ok was the outc ome o f a sem inar ‘Enfo rcing E conomic , Social a nd C ultural
Righ ts’, he ld in Londo n, M arch 1998, and host ed by Justice , the Britis h section of the
Int ernat ional Commis sion of Jur ists, a nd the Universit y of Notti ngha m Hum an Rig hts
Law Cent re. The book shows how fruitfu l it can be for a non- gover nmen tal orga nisation
of such high re puta tion as Ju stice to coo perate with an equ ally renow ned resea rch
cen ter as the Notti ngham Hu man Rights Law Ce ntre. The book was pu blishe d at the
time o f th e ado ption o f t he Hum an Righ ts Act 1998, which en tere d into force in
Oct ober 2000 . Un fortuna tely, th e H uma n Rig hts Act o nly ad dresse s th e righ ts
ens hrine d in the Europ ean C onventi on on Hu man Rights an d Fund amen tal Fre edoms
(Rome, 1950) w hich are mostly of a civil and politic al natu re.
Th e book contai ns e ight cha pters writt en by diff erent auth ors. The fir st ch apter
wri tten by Ma tthew Crav en deals with the still u nsolved questi on of the justici ability o f
econo mic, social and cultura l rig hts (pp. 1-13). He righ dy argu es tha t th e simple, glo bal
cha racteri sation of econo mic, social and cul tural rig hts as ‘non- justiciab le’ is
unsu staina ble. A muc h m ore sop histica ted ap proa ch o f thi s que stion is hig hly
wa rranted . David Harri s de als i n th e second ch apte r (pp . 14-31) w ith i ntern ationa l
righ ts of pet ition for econo mic, social and cultura l right s. A rece nt ri ght o f pe tition in
this r espect is pro vided in the O ption al Prot ocol to th e Con ventio n on th e Elimi nation
of All Form s of Di scrimin ation Ag ainst Wom en which ente red into force i n 2001 and
which has b een ra tified in Jun e 2002 by mo re th an 40 States.
Th e Chap ters 3-7 foc us on dom estic law issues. Nichola s Bla ke QC discuss es the
rele vance of citing int ernat ional in strum ents in do mestic (UK) cases (C hapte r 3, pp. 32-
39). H e corre ctly state s that in the UK, and for th at ma tter o ther States, ec onomic a nd
social rig hts only te nd to hav e decisive relev ance in th e cont ext of legislati on whe n they
are sufficie ntly co heren tly d rafte d to have enforc eable effect o r a specific c ontent . It
woul d have bee n imp orta nt if the au tho r w ould have st ressed in this resp ect the
rele vance o f gen eral co mmen ts or rec omme ndati ons ad opte d by treat y bodies, such as
the Com mittee on Econo mic, Social a nd Cu ltural R ights an d the Wo men’s Comm ittee
(CEDAW).
* Cees Fl interma n is memb er of the Board o f Editors
Net h e rla n d s Q u a rte rly o f H um an R ig h t s , V o l . 20/3,393-399,2002.
© N e t h erl a n ds In s t it u t e o f H u m a n R ig h t s ( SI M ) .P rin t ed in t h e N eth e rla n d s . 393
To continue reading
Request your trial