A
CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS
A Matter
of Justice
Securing human rights in
the post-2015 sustainable
development agenda
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

A Matter
of Justice
Securing human rights in the post-2015
sustainable development agenda
“Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made a
nd
it can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.
And overcoming poverty is not a gesture of charity. It is an act of
justice. It is the protection of a fundamental human right, the right to
dignity and a decent life.”
~ Nelson Mandela 1

i
Executive Summary
Barely two years remain before the 2015 deadline for the achievement of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), yet it has become painfully clear that many
of the targets
set out in the MDGs will not be met. With dialogue already underway on the form and
content of a successor framework, it is imperative that a more effective sustainable
development paradigm be agreed, one that avoids the pitfalls of the current process.
While proposals on specific goals and targets are beginning to emerge, the global
debate is currently centered on the principles and broad parameters that should
underpin the new framework.
A key lesson from the last decade is that any new global development agenda
must be more than just an accord between rich and poor governments, with little
ownership by people living in poverty themselves. International commitments on their
own can support, but will never take the place of, effective national and sub-national
processes which compel change. A new sustainable development agenda based
on
justice must be understood as an indispensable contract between people a
s human
rights-holders, and public and private actors as corresponding duty-bearers—a pact
between people and policy-makers which can be practically employed to transform
aspirational commitments into real improvements in living conditions.
As an action-oriented normative framework, human rights law sets out measurable
standards of conduct and operational principles which in turn delineate what
governments and other duty-bearers are responsible for, evaluating their conduct,
and incentivizing continuous and participatory reassessment of progress towards
agreed targets. To be effective in meeting the new and persistent challenges of
our time, CESR believes any future sustainable development framework should be
anchored in the essential human rights principles of universality, interdependence,
equality, participation, transparency and accountability, and in the duty of all states to
guarantee at least minimum essential floors of rights enjoyment, to use the maximum
of their available resources to progressively realize rights for all, and to engage in
international cooperation for this purpose.
Governments are obliged to uphold these principles under international human
rights treaties they have already agreed to be bound by. In practice, however, these
obligations have by and large been overlooked in the design and implementation
of current development commitments. At best, human rights have been referenced
in current development debates as rhetorical abstractions, whose relevance to the
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

ii
nitty-gritty of social policy formulation has rarely been spelled out. At worst, they have
been misperceived as either irrelevant to the development process or too politically-
sensitive for inclusion in a global partnership for development.
This briefing argues that human rights principles provide concrete guidance as to how
goals and targets are framed and how common but differentiated responsibilities are
defined. They also set parameters for how the new commitments are implemented
and resourced, how progress is measured and how accountability for the delivery
of an effective and just 21st century sustainable development framework can be
ensured.
Anchoring the post-2015 sustainable development agenda in the universality
of human rights implies that the new commitments must apply in rich and
poor
countries alike, being tailored and adaptable to different national and sub-national
circumstances, but in service to and owned by poor people anywhere and everywhere.
The interdependence of rights requires that freedom from want and freedom from
fear be recognized as inseparable. The post-2015 framework must take into account

the mutually reinforcing dynamic between promoting economic and social rights (such
as the rights to education, health, sanitation, decent work and an adequ
ate standard
of living) and guaranteeing civil and political rights (such as freedom of expression,
information and association). Interdependence also requires coherence across all
areas of economic and social policy – including tax, financial regulation, trade, aid,
debt, climate and environmental policy – at both the national and international levels.
Given that the widening chasm between the ‘have-lots’ and ‘have
-nots’ is one of the
key factors driving poverty and deprivation around the world, it is likewise essential that
the new framework promotes the twin principles of equality and non-discrimination ,
in practice as well as in law. Aggregate progress on some of the current Millennium
Development Goals has in many countries masked growing disparities along lines of
gender, geography, age, ethnicity and disability, amongst others. Reducing inequality
in the enjoyment of rights must be a central and cross-cutting goal of the future
development agenda.
Guaranteeing a minimum floor of socio-economic wellbeing to every member of the
population, without discrimination, is one of the most basic of human ri
ghts duties, yet
one of the most consistently flouted. Any new set of sustainable development goals
should spur urgent action to ensure universal access to at least a basic set of social
goods and services, such as primary health care or social protection mechanisms.
Due attention to the principles of participation and empowerment would not
only ensure ordinary people’s ownership of the development process, enabling
marginalized groups to influence governments’ policy decisions and resource
allocations, but would also reflect the fact that people living in poverty themselves
generally view lack of voice and power as the most stigmatizing elements
of their
deprivation. Addressing transparency by guaranteeing equal and sustained access
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

iii
to quality, useable information – statistical and otherwise – is an essential step towards
promoting meaningful participation.
A lack of clearly differentiated responsibilities and the absence of real incentives have
undermined accountability under the current MDG process. It is therefore critical that
the post-2015 commitments are buttressed by effective systems of accountability,
through which decision-makers can be held answerable to those affected by poverty
and deprivation. These systems include existing institutions of human rights protection
as well as other oversight mechanisms that can review whether efforts to meet the
renewed development commitments are in line with human rights standards.
The obligation to devote the maximum available resources to the swift and
progressive fulfillment of human rights obliges decision-makers to demonstrate they
have done everything possible both to generate resources in equitable ways and
to prioritize the rights of the vulnerable in their allocations. This pr
inciple therefore
requires fostering a culture of accountability for domestic budget, tax and monetary
policy, as well as international assistance. It also requires greater cooperation
between countries to tackle issues such as large-scale tax evasion, illicit financial
flows, unjust trade policies and poor financial regulation which can impede socio-
economic progress.
The duty of international cooperation and assistance requires collective action to
address the multiple interrelated crises – food, fuel, financial, economic, employment
and ecological – which have afflicted the globe since the MDGs were adopted. It is
widely accepted that the ‘global partnership for development’ agreed under the current
framework has failed. It must be reshaped to ensure coherence between international
development assistance policies and other bilateral and multilateral pol
icies in areas
such as the environment, trade, investment, debt, finance and taxation, which have
had negative human rights impacts.
Taken together, these principles and standards –which almost all countries have
already committed to uphold through their ratification of international human rights
treaties – can help ensure that the sustainable development commitments agreed
in 2015 do not go down in history as yet another set of unfulfilled promises. These
principles can also serve as criteria to guide the difficult choices that must be made
regarding how issues for inclusion in the new framework are prioritized.
To be sustainable, legitimate and transformative, the new development framework
must enable an environment where active and empowered citizens can hold their
governments and the international community to account for what they are doing to
meet commitments made internationally. Reframing development in human rights
terms is not only an ethical and legal imperative; it can also enhance t
he effectiveness
and accountability of future development efforts. Ultimately, human rights principles –
turned into practice – can be the normative building blocks of a fairer, more sustainable
and more just development paradigm for the 21st century .
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

1
“We recognize that, in
addition to our separate
responsibilities to our
individual societies,
we have a collective
responsibility to uphold
the principles of human
dignity, equality and equity
at the global level. As
leaders we have a duty
therefore to all the world’s
people, especially the
most vulnerable and, in
particular, the children of
the world, to whom the
future belongs.”
~ Millennium Declaration, Art 1.2
A Matter of Justice
Securing human rights in the
post-2015 sustainable development agenda
The Millennium Declaration adopted at the turn of the century expressed a global
consensus that poverty is a scourge on our common humanity, which all states have a
shared responsibility to eradicate. It placed human beings at the center of development,
and took human rights as its normative bedrock. As affirmed in international human
rights instruments, poverty is not inevitable, but a product of specific legal and policy
choices. Ending poverty and its associated patterns of human rights deprivation is a
long-standing legal obligation of states—acting individually and through international
cooperation. 2
The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) developed to implement the com
mitments
of the Declaration focused attention on some of the most disquieting dim
ensions of
poverty, such as preventable child and maternal death, hunger, disease, homelessness
and lack of educational opportunities. In setting out aspirational goals
, time-bound
targets and indicators to systematically monitor results, the MDG framework helped
to stimulate progress, mobilize political will and financing, and incentivize timely
action in these areas.
But despite the long-standing commitments to human rights made in the Mi
llennium
Declaration, the MDGs in practice did not reflect a human rights conception of poverty,
either in the framing of the goals and targets, or in the measures taken to reach
these goals. Perhaps the most glaring flaws in the current framework have been its
blindness to the issue of inequality and the lack of accountability for
failure to deliver
on the goals and the human rights obligations underpinning them. This ha
s resulted
in markedly inadequate progress on many of the goals, coupled in many cases with
widening economic and social disparities within and between countries. 3
Although agreed in 2001, the MDGs were still in many ways a product of the 20th
century. A diplomatic pact between donor and recipient governments made
operational by a team of technocrats, the MDGs in practice harked back t
o a model
of development centered more on charity than a sense of obligation between states,
let alone duties of states to their people. The current framework does not reflect
21st century realities in which almost three-quarters of people living in poverty are in
middle-income countries (MICs), 4 and over 170 million people live in poverty in high-
income countries. 5 The compound effects of the food, fuel, financial, economic and
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

2
ecological crises, which have affected all parts of the globe over the last decade, have
shown the current MDG framework to be ill-equipped to address the deep governance
challenges of an increasingly multi-polar, interdependent and volatile world. This
new political and economic terrain requires new forms of collective action beyond
the limited confines of international development assistance, and has motivated the
search for a more holistic sustainable development narrative.
Debates are now underway on the form and content of a successor framework. A
series of UN-coordinated thematic and national consultations has created a plethora
of platforms for exchange of ideas worldwide. The UN Secretary General’s High-Level
Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda is consulti
ng widely
to arrive at a set of recommendations to be submitted to the Secretary General in May
2013. The Panel´s work will be closely coordinated with that of the inter-governmental
Open-ended Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals, created following
the Rio Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio+20). The outcomes of both
processes will be submitted to UN member states for further deliberation.
Global
advocacy networks such as Beyond 2015, CIVICUS and the Global Call to Ac
tion
against Poverty are opening spaces for coordinated civil society consultation on the
vision and values that should guide the successor framework, and organizations and
movements across the globe are also making specific recommendations for what it
should include. These processes, and many more, will converge at the September
2013 UN General Assembly where the broad parameters of the post-2015 agenda
will likely be defined.
At all levels of discussion, there has been a resounding call for human rights to
be made a central pillar of the post-2015 framework. The UN System Task Team
established in 2011 to coordinate support for the post-2015 consultation process
across all relevant UN entities and agencies has recommended that the new set
of goals should be based on the fundamental pillars of equality, sustainability and
human rights. 6 The Rio+20 conference in 2012 reaffirmed a range of human rights
commitments of relevance to sustainable development and proposed that the new
goals should be consistent with international law, among other criteria 7. Broad-based
global civil society campaigns such as Beyond 2015 are calling for the framework
to be wholly consistent with international human rights standards and principles. 8
Consultations prior to the High Level Panel´s February 2013 consultations in Monrovia
“resoundingly called for the post-2015 framework to be anchored in human rights,
guided by the range of obligations already agreed to by member states.” 9
But despite the tentative consensus in principle, the concrete, practical implications
of embedding human rights in the post-2015 framework are rarely discussed. This
briefing aims to move the debate on the role of human rights in the sustainable
development agenda one step further by laying out some of the key implications
these principles and duties have in practice for the task of articulating a new set of
development commitments beyond 2015.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

3
Towards a human
rights-centered sustainable
development agenda
Human rights are fundamentally concerned with regulating the exercise of authority.
They seek to transform the asymmetrical relationships of power that keep people poor,
by converting passive ‘beneficiaries’ of development into active rights-holders and
drivers of their own destiny, and ensuring that those who wield power are answerable
to those whose lives (and deaths) they touch.
A key lesson from the experience of the last decade is that any new development
agenda must be more than just a voluntary aspirational agreement between rich
and poor governments, with little ownership by people living in poverty themselves,
and few means for holding states and the international community responsible for
the commitments made. The new framework must function as an instrument o
f
accountability, and as an incentive for governments and international institutions to
answer for their efforts to eliminate the barriers preventing those living in poverty from
realizing their rights. International commitments on their own will never take the place
of effective national and sub-national processes of accountability. But if framed as a
contract between human rights-holders and duty-bearers, the new set of goals will
stand a better chance than the MDGs of compelling the conditions for pol
icy change
at the international, national and local levels.
While human rights treaties do not contain detailed policy prescriptions nor espouse
a particular development model, they do offer a universally-recognized set of
principles and standards that can serve as a much-needed normative framework
for a sustainable development agenda. The sections below outline the ess
ential
human rights principles in which CESR believes any future sustainable development
framework should be anchored: universality, interdependence, equality, participation,
transparency, accountability, meeting minimum essential floors, using maximum
available resources, and international cooperation. As explained in the sections
below, these principles have direct implications for the selection and framing of post-
2015 goals and targets. They also set parameters for how the new commitments are
implemented and resourced, how progress is measured and how accountability for
their delivery can be ensured.
“Poverty is a human
condition characterized
by the sustained or
chronic deprivation of the
resources, capabilities,
choices, security and
power necessary for the
enjoyment of an adequate
standard of living and other
civil, cultural, economic,
political and social rights.”
~ UN Committee on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, 2001 10
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

4
These principles apply to the range of sustainable development issues po
tentially
covered by the new framework. Rather than arguing for a stand-alone human rights
goal, CESR believes that these cross-cutting human rights principles should inform
the way all goals are articulated, targets are set and associated indicators identified.
This is vital if the new development agenda is to spur all governments to honour their
existing human rights commitments, rather than undermining them.
1. Recognize rights and responsibilities universally
All people living in poverty have inherent human rights, which they are equally entitled
to enjoy the world over. The post-2015 development agenda must not exclude certain
people living in poverty because they happen to live in industrialized o
r emerging
economies rather than developing countries—categories which make incr
easingly
little sense. The 2008 financial and economic crisis and its aftermath have drawn
attention to rising poverty and inequality in middle and high income cou
ntries. This
has direct implications for the design and implementation of a post-2015 agenda
.
Just as all people everywhere are born with inherent human rights, so all countries
must recognize their common and differentiated duties to people living in poverty. In
this sense, a human rights-centered development agenda would rectify the currently
skewed approach which in practice places obligations mainly on low-income
countries, without adequately holding wealthier states to account for wh
at they are
doing to tackle poverty, inequality and environmental harm within and beyond their
borders.
Anchoring the post-2015 sustainable development framework in the universality of
human rights implies that:
i. The new agenda must apply universally, addressing poverty, inequality and
environmental degradation in all countries of the globe, regardless of their level
of income per capita. While specific targets and measures of progress may be
tailored and adaptable to different national and sub-national circumstances, the
framework should be in service to and owned by people experiencing poverty and
avoidable deprivation anywhere and everywhere.
ii. Whatever commitments are made under the post-2015 framework, the
differentiated responsibilities of all states and other stakeholders in the
development process should be clearly defined and equally accounted for. This
includes duties to ensure that trade, investment, debt, tax, financial, monetary,
environmental or other policies do not pose grave obstacles to the enjoyment
of
rights of people living in poverty.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

5
2. Reflect the interdependence of all human rights
The international human rights framework reflects a multi-dimensional conception of
human dignity and well-being, and recognizes the practical indivisibility of all human
rights as socially and legally guaranteed entitlements. Human rights of a civil and
political nature, such as freedom of speech and association, equality before the
law, and the rights to life and physical security, are dependent upon and mutually-
reinforced by human rights of an economic and social character such as educatio
n,
food, health, water, sanitation, social protection, an adequate standard of living, decent
work, a healthy environment and the right to development. 11 As they are inherently
interdependent , a threat to any is a threat to all. Economic inequality, for example, all
too often fuels political disempowerment, which in turn breeds further economic and
social marginalization. Progress in one area, on the other hand, very often propels
progress in others, creating a virtuous cycle of rights realization.
Recognizing the inherent indivisibility and interdependence of human rights post-
2015 entails developing a balanced framework that avoids the compartment
alization
of the MDGs and addresses some of their most critical gaps. These include the need
to better promote and protect civil and political rights as well as economic, social and
cultural rights. As witnessed in the revolts that led to the ‘Arab Spring’, the pursuit of
economic and social development is not sustainable if it is pursued with
a disregard
for basic civil and political freedoms.
i. The post-2015 sustainable development agenda should include explicit
commitments to respect the rights to freedom of expression, association and
assembly, as well as rights of political participation. Guaranteeing these right
s
is essential if conditions are to exist in which people can participate in shaping,
monitoring and challenging development policies affecting their lives.
ii. The framework should also include measurable commitments on other civil
and
political rights of direct relevance to the sustainable development agenda. Priority
issues for consideration include the right to physical integrity (inclu
ding protection
from gender-based violence), the right to birth registration and the right to equal
protection before the law. The protection of these rights is critical to overcoming
the lack of security, voice and access to justice which is so often associated
with poverty, and to creating conditions of governance conducive to sustainable
development.
The interdependence of human rights also implies that government duties extend
beyond the limited confines of social policy or development assistance programs.
The new paradigm, in this sense, must recognize and take aim at the structures and
measures which keep people poor, no matter from which government department they
may arise. A renewed development agenda in line with human rights responsibilities
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

6
would promote a more coherent and inter-sectoral approach to assessing the real
effects of government’s policies on people living in poverty.
iii. The post-2015 agenda should include commitments by all states to ensure that
all laws and policies—including tax, financial regulation, monetary, trade, aid,
debt, climate and environmental policy—are aligned and coherent in the common
cause to realize human rights for all, including when these laws and policies
affect human rights enjoyment beyond their borders. 12 International human rights
standards should be the yardstick with which to evaluate policy coherence at both
global and national levels, so that all areas of policy—be they social, economic,
financial, justice, environmental or other—work in complementarity to uphold
governments’ respective responsibilities. 13
3. Make equality and non-discrimination central to all goals
In many countries, aggregate progress on some of the current Millennium Development
Goals has masked growing disparities along lines of gender, geography, age, ethnicity,
disability, and socio-economic status, amongst others. While child mortality has
decreased in the majority of countries, for example, in most cases this has been
accompanied by widening inequality in child mortality rates between the top and
bottom income groups. 14 It is widely recognized that the current MDG framework failed
to address adequately the discrimination faced by women in all spheres of life and the
impact this has on their rights and on the development process as a whole. Other forms
of discrimination which fuel and exacerbate poverty and exclusion worldwide, such
as discrimination on grounds of disability, have also received insufficient attention in
MDG efforts. Income inequality has widened in many countries, particularly fol
lowing
the global economic crisis and the measures adopted in its wake.
Reducing inequality in the enjoyment of rights, and ending the discrimin
ation which
often fuels it, must be a cross-cutting objective of the future development agenda.
A central tenet of human rights law is the obligation to confront and eradicate
discrimination in law and in practice. This requires specific, proactive measures and
concrete, deliberate steps with accompanying resources to combat structural barriers
to substantive equality wherever they exist.
The 21st century development agenda should reflect human rights duties to equality
and non-discrimination in a more central manner, both in the way the goals and targets
are framed, and how progress is tracked:
i. All new goals and associated targets must be made equality-sensitive, so as to
incentivize action to reduce disparities in rights enjoyment across all thematic
areas covered by the new framework. International human rights standards aimed
at combating discrimination on such grounds as gender, race, indigenous status
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

7
and disability should guide the framing of equality-related objectives, and form
the basis for the identification of appropriate indicators to measure progress.
While some forms of inequality, such as gender, age or disability, are relevant
in all countries of the globe, other grounds of discrimination that objectives or
indicators should focus on may vary across sectors and country contexts. The
most sector-relevant grounds of discrimination in any given context should be
empirically identified and monitored, and space opened for disadvantaged groups
themselves to define which are the most salient grounds of discrimination they
face at the local and national levels.
ii. The new agenda should help overcome significant obstacles to assessing
inequality and discrimination, such as wide data gaps, weak quality, reliability
and comparability of data, and lack of coordination between different institutions
responsible for data collection, collation and dissemination. An essenti
al step in
dismantling discrimination is adequate assessment and data collection. I
njustice
and inequality is very often embedded in the ways in which knowledge and

information is collected, provided and used. A significant outcome of development
agreements post-2015 would be to strengthen across-the-board statistical
capacities over-time and in realtime. Qualitative and quantitative data should
be collected and be disaggregated as far as possible on the basis of gender
and other salient grounds of discrimination to help reveal and expose disparities
in outcomes as well as in policy efforts. Relevant lessons can be drawn from
UNESCO’s World Inequality Database on Education, as well as existing equality
benchmarking, and equality monitoring methodologies which enable people
to
hold their governments to account for progress on commitments made. 15 Data
gathering should not be limited to what is currently available, as this will frequently
exclude data that is of particular relevance to communities facing discrimination
and marginalization. National statistics offices and UN agencies should be enabled
to collect the data needed to monitor disparities on the widest possible
range of
relevant grounds.
iii. Efforts to reduce income inequality within and between countries must also be
central to the post-2015 commitments, which should include specific objectives
or targets in this regard. Income inequalities have widened in many countries
since the MDGs were adopted, breeding economic dysfunction, political
disenfranchisement and social exclusion. Globally, the richest twenty percent of
people receive at least 83 percent of global income, while the poorest 1.4 billion
receive just one percent of income . At current rates, it will take over 800 years
for the bottom billion to achieve just ten percent of global income, according
to estimates. 16 Instituting monitorable commitments, assessed against relevant
policy efforts to address material inequality, would provide much value in focusing
attention on the corrosive trend towards widening socio-economic inequality. This
might be usefully tied to prioritizing decent work and addressing wage disparities
in the successor framework, as central enablers of other rights.
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

8
4. Guarantee an essential floor of rights protection for all
The MDGs, for all their shortcomings, crystallized consensus on the need
to ensure
that no human being on the planet should live below a certain threshold of dignity. 17
The more than 160 governments which have ratified the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) face an immediate duty t
o “ensure
the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of econ
omic, social
and cultural rights”. 18 This principle obliges states to strive as a priority to guarantee
to all within their jurisdiction at least a basic core of essential goods and services
essential for a life with dignity, a floor of material existence below which no one shall
be allowed to fall. Any state must demonstrate that “every effort has been made to
use all resources that are at its disposition in an effort to satisfy, as a matter of priority,
those minimum obligations”. 19
Integrating this principle into the post-2015 agenda implies that:
i. Any new goals and targets are framed in a way that reinforces guarantees of
basic minimum essential levels of economic, social and cultural rights u
niversally
across different sectors, be they decent work, health, housing, education, food,
water, sanitation, social protection, and a healthy environment for all. 20 This
supports setting targets aimed at universal access to essential social services,
as well as ‘zero targets’ for such issues as the reduction of preventable maternal
or child death, chronic malnutrition, or lack of access to safe drinking water and
sanitation, which are areas of ‘core obligation’ under international human rights
standards.
ii. The post-2015 framework should also promote the provision of a social protection
floor as a first step towards comprehensive social protection and a necessary
component of any comprehensive development strategy, as promoted by the ILO/
WHO Social Protection Floor Initiative 21 and endorsed in the outcome document
of the MDG Review Summit adopted by the General Assembly in September
2010. 22 While basic social protection for all has been proven to be affordable
by even the most low-income countries, a Global Fund for Social Protection, as
proposed by human rights experts, is an appealing mechanism for sustainably
and cooperatively financing social protection for all in a climate of increased
funding volatility. 23 Basic social and economic floors have been shown to benefit
economies, while also being imminently achievable by 2030 should the wil
l,
infrastructure and resources be put in place. 24
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

9
5. Enable the meaningful participation of people living
in poverty and promote transparency and access to
information
People living in poverty generally see their condition through various manifestations of
deprivation that go beyond the economic. They are acutely aware of the lack of voice
and power that leaves them open to exploitation and deprivation, under-equipped to
influence the manner in which governments allocate rights and distribute resources,
and subjected to retaliation and retribution when they choose to question their place
in society.
International commitments mean little unless they serve to buttress and strengthen
the inherent rights of people to participate in decisions which affect their lives.
Global pledges are only truly effective when they are translated, known, owned and
advocated for by local actors themselves—including people living in p
overty, civil
society, parliaments, judges, national human rights institutions, and other country-
level development actors. It is through poor people’s ownership over the process and
outcomes of development that well-intentioned top-down proclamations can serve to
stimulate bottom-up transformations in the quality of people’s lives.
To be sustainable, legitimate, lasting and effectively implemented, the new
development framework must promote and enable an environment of empowered
citizen pressure and advocacy to compel the conditions and the will required on the
ground to meet the new aspirational commitments made internationally. It should
recognize that those living in poverty must be in the driver’s seat of decisions about
their future.
Transparency, along with equal and sustained access to quality information, is a
precondition for participatory governance, empowering people to engage in decisions
which affect their lives in informed and consequential ways. While openness itse
lf
does not necessarily lead to rights-realizing results, it is an essential prerequisite for a
robust, informed public debate through which decision-makers become answerable
to their people, and rights-holders are enabled to monitor and assess government
conduct, including how resources are spent and generated. 25 This duty requires
governments to take proactive steps to address the weak institutional capacity of
national statistical bodies, which can pose a barrier to the collection
of quality, reliable
and relevant information for all.
International agreements can have a substantial impact in stimulating domestic
legal and policy reforms to improve freedom of information. Commitments made o n
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

10
access to information in Principle 10 of the 1992 Rio Declaration, for example, helped
to inspire over 90 countries to adopt  framework laws or regulations on access to
information. 26
A 21 st century development agenda based on the human rights principles of
participation, empowerment and transparency would involve:
i. Ensuring that the framework enables those most affected by poverty and
discrimination (and their allies) to shape the design, implementation and
monitoring of development processes and outcomes. Rather than tokenistic,
formal consultations, the perspectives of those living in poverty can en
rich
development processes by being effectively institutionalized into the decision-
making process, with consequent influence on decisions made. Furthermore, the
free, prior and informed consent of certain rights-holders, such as indige
nous
communities, must be respected in any decisions that are taken in the name of
economic development. 27
ii. Explicitly reaffirming guarantees of freedom of expression, information and
association in law and in practice as an essential prerequisite for meaningful
participation and a cornerstone of accountable governance. If the post-2015
agenda is to be legitimate, lasting and effectively implemented, its provisions
should also serve to reinforce the capacity of an active, organized civil society
to transform these global commitments into lived realities. Domestically, right
to information guarantees should enable people living in poverty to obta
in the
quality, accessible information necessary to meaningfully participate in all st
ages
of the legal reform, budget, fiscal, tax and development policy cycles.
6. Ensure greater accountability within, above & beyond
the state
Eradicating poverty is not simply an issue of more development, more growth, or
more aid. It is also a question of holding governments – and other responsible actors
above and beyond the state – to account. A development agenda based on justice
entails putting in place the necessary monitoring and accountability mechanisms so
that people can claim their rights and access effective remedies when responsibilities
are not met.
Human rights can reinforce accountability in several ways. They bring the clarity
and enforceability of law to the identification of responsibilities; they increase the
responsiveness of the state to its people; and they make effective redress an integral,
constituent element of the governance infrastructure. 28 Human rights accountability
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

11
obliges persons in positions of power or authority to take responsibility for their
actions and omissions, to explain and justify their conduct to those to whom they are
answerable, and to be held accountable if their conduct is found to have breached
standards of behavior and performance set out in universally-recognized norms.
Human rights mechanisms of accountability afford those who have been deprived of
their rights access to transparent and effective means to enforce their claims against
those in authority, and to obtain effective remedy if their rights are found to have
been put in jeopardy. Courts, parliamentary and independent oversight bodies, and
administrative bodies at the national level—reinforced by international accountability
mechanisms—have been shown to improve people’s lives and support livelihoods by
placing the onus on officials to demonstrate how they have delivered on development
commitments. 29 In this sense, the ultimate objective of human rights accountability is
not simply to punish violations; effective systems of accountability promote conditions
of governance in which rights can be more fully enjoyed sustainably over time.
A post-2015 development agenda buttressed by human rights accountability will
help to clarify responsibilities, improve answerability to rights-holders, and strengthen
robust incentives for sustaining progress and preventing backsliding. This would
imply:
i. Fair, balanced and effective systems of accountability applying a common
set of standards against which to assess conduct. Embedding human rights
accountability into the post-2015 development agenda would help to clarify
the corresponding responsibilities of governments and other relevant power-
holders and ensure they are answerable to those experiencing poverty and
deprivation. Integrating substantive human rights criteria into assessments of
progress towards development goals means placing accountability for policy and
budgetary efforts, along with development outcomes, at the centre of monitoring
and review processes.
ii. Greater accountability for policy choices and resource allocations can be
supported by ensuring more constructive interaction between the existing human
rights accountability mechanisms (at the national and international levels) and
the post-2015 monitoring, review and accountability infrastructure. In this way,
such bodies can help provide effective remedies to those deprived of their rights
through non-fulfillment of development commitments.
iii. At the national level, independent ‘accountability councils’, working in consultation
with a cross-section of relevant actors, could be established. By continually
monitoring and evaluating compliance among the various branches of government,
and simultaneously acting as a collaborative but autonomous watchdog, such
bodies would strengthen the integrity of public institutions, while also enabling
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

12
the public to hold both the state and the market to account, 30 and elucidating key
extraterritorial or transnational obstacles to success. In some contexts, national
human rights institutions may be well-placed to play this role.
iv. In conjunction with such national-level bodies, a global accountability forum could
provide a much-needed review mechanism to hold different development actors
accountable to their responsibilities, especially those of a transnational nature.
Sector-specific independent expert panels could also be established for each
goal, as has already been demonstrated by the WHO Commission on Information
and Accountability for Women’s and Children’s Health.
v. For a global development partnership to have real meaning, international
accountability mechanisms must not be limited to monitoring national outcomes
and policy efforts; the degree to which states and international institutions are
affecting the fulfillment of development and human rights commitments by
other countries must also be considered. Constraints preventing countries from
achieving their development commitments often have their roots in policy decisions
taken by other states in their capacity as donors, trading partners or members of
inter-governmental institutions. The obligations of these states to respect, protect
and fulfill human rights beyond their borders must be included within the remit of
global accountability mechanisms set up under the new framework.

vi. As confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Extreme
Poverty, access to justice for people living in poverty is both a human right in
itself, and also an essential precondition for addressing the causes of poverty. 31
The post-2015 development agenda should therefore encourage governments to
improve access to justice for people living in poverty, and monitor government
measures to eradicate existing barriers blocking access to justice.
vii. While governments remain the primary human rights duty-bearers, the post-2015
framework should recognize the concurrent responsibilities of a proliferation
of development actors, in particular in the private sector. At the very least, the
framework should affirm the current consensus that business enterprises—across
all economic sectors, including the financial—have a duty to respect human
rights, 32 and that governments are responsible for ensuring these actors comply
with this ‘do no harm’ standard.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

13
7. Ensure resources are generated and deployed
fully and fairly
The provision of financial resources—raised and invested equitably—is critical to
realizing human rights, equality and sustainable development. Recognizing that
governments have limited resources, human rights standards place an onus on
decision-makers to generate the maximum available resources equitably, and to
deploy them in ways which prioritize the rights of the most vulnerable.
Resourcing rights first requires transparent, participatory and accountable budget
and fiscal processes. Human rights law obliges governments to subject their fiscal,
monetary and budgetary decisions—at all phases of the policy cycle—to the highest
standards of transparency, access to information, participation, and accountability.
In this sense, the human rights framework can help visualize skewed allocations
which too often prioritize the interests of business, political and military elites over
development priorities of the majority of the population.
Resourcing rights also requires an analysis of how resources are used and who
benefits. Budgets often reflect unequal relations in society. In most countries, 33 in fact,
large sums could be made available to invest in human rights-centered sustainable
development if measures were taken to reorder priorities in budget allocations.
Consideration of public expenditure to realize human rights is only one side of the coin,
however, as revenue-generation is at least as important. In reality, most governments
could expand fiscal space through more human rights-centered approaches to
tax policy, deficit financing, financial regulation, monetary policy and development
assistance. 34 Obligations under several human rights treaties oblige governments to
assess whether sufficient revenue is being raised and, if not, to increase revenue
in equitable, non-regressive ways. Integrating human rights responsibilities into the
post-2015 development agenda would animate open discussions on whether fiscal
and monetary policies are mobilizing sufficient resources to meet human rights
imperatives, whether fiscal space could be widened to maximize available resources
for human rights, and how to ensure tax contributions and other resources are fairly
and progressively distributed.
Broadening the fiscal and monetary space available to resource rights without
threatening other macroeconomic imperatives (such as price stability, debt
sustainability or crowding-out of private investment) is, according to UNICEF and
others, possible in most countries. 35 Along with its revenue function, tax policy is a
key pillar of the accountability relationship between state and citizen; it is central to
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

14
the distribution of economic gains in ways that combat poverty and inequality, and
also has a useful re-pricing function.
In the post-2015 development agenda, ensuring human rights duties are upheld in the
processes and outcomes of raising and allocating resources implies:
i. Stimulating the open, transparent collection and distribution of reliable and
comparable information relating to fiscal, monetary and budget policies. With
broad participation, especially by those living in poverty, a set of indicators on
budget transparency and participation could be integrated into the post-2015
accountability infrastructure, taking inspiration from the Open Budget Index.
ii. Assessments of budget expenditure and allocation, as well as tax and revenue
generation efforts, must be included in all post-2015 monitoring, review and
accountability mechanisms. The use of public budget analysis should be
encouraged, along with participatory budgeting and benefit incidence analysis
tools to identify how resources are distributed across regions, population groups
and sectors over time, so as to assess whether resource allocations prioritize
reducing disparities or whether they aggravate existing inequalities. Fiscal space
analyses and tax incidence analysis can be used to assess the progressive/
regressive nature of the tax regime.
iii. If properly designed and implemented, the post-2015 agenda can address global
obstacles to open and transparent budget, tax and fiscal processes, in particular
the financial secrecy regimes which encourage illicit financial flows, tax evasion
and avoidance, and corruption. Financial secrecy should be directly monitored and
governments, businesses and other non-state actors held accountable to their
corresponding right to information responsibilities. Meeting these responsibilities
requires international cooperation – for example through the automatic exchange
of tax information 36 and country-by-country reporting 37— to expose those who
attempt to evade their tax responsibilities.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

15
8. Human rights-proofing the ‘global partnership’ for
sustainable development
The MDGs and the Rio+20 commitments are premised on the awareness that achieving
sustainable development goals cannot be done through national efforts alone. Human
rights treaties reinforce this by affirming that international assistance and cooperation
realizing human rights and dignity is, in fact, an express legal obligation. 38 Recognizing
that different countries face very different capacity constraints, human rights set out
the common and differentiated responsibilities of various actors at the national and
international levels.
A truly equitable and effectively global partnership for sustainable development,
founded in justice and human rights, would stimulate international cooperation and
assistance in two ways:
i. First, to be good-faith partners, governments must ensure legal, policy and
regulatory coherence between human rights law, on the one hand, and any laws
and policies which might infringe on the enjoyment of human rights in other
countries, on the other. Preventing negative policy externalities or extraterritorial
impacts of trade, investment, aid, debt, finance, tax or environmental policies
which hinder human rights overseas requires due diligence and systematic
assessment of both government conduct and the behavior of third-parties, such
as businesses under their watch, to ensure private interests do not use their
territory and legal protections to abuse human rights in other countries.
Governments have important duties, in this respect, to cooperate in the
mobilization of resources. 39 No state should be permitted to infringe on another
state’s ability to mobilize the resources necessary for fulfilling human rights. A
future development agenda aligned with this international obligation to cooperation
must encourage a global environment supportive of resourcing rights, through
for example increasing transparency, quality, effectiveness and accountability of
development assistance, and promoting more equitable financing mechanisms
such as financial transaction taxes, 40 and the Global Fund for Social Protection. 41
At the same time, a development agenda founded on justice must also include a
sober assessment of the external obstacles which hinder countries in mobilizing
and investing resources in rights-realizing ways. Government laws and policies
which have the effect of preventing other countries from resourcing rights in
equitable ways (e.g. supporting cross-border tax evasion, improper regulation of
abusive private financial actors, private creditors or other business enterprises, aid
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

16
or trade conditionalities, and unjustifiable constraints on deficit financing) clearly
work against the achievement of common development goals. Consideration
of such laws and policies must therefore be central to determining whether
development actors are meeting their responsibilities this time around.
ii. The second dimension of international cooperation and assistance post-2015
involves the need to propel collective action to tackle head-on the interrelated food,
fuel, financial, economic, employment and ecological crises through proactive
global cooperation beyond the individual policies of sovereign governments.
Guaranteeing a basic floor of economic and social rights fulfillment cannot be
achieved through ‘policy coherence’ alone. As affirmed by one human rights treaty
body, it is “particularly incumbent on all those who can assist, to help developing
countries respect this international minimum threshold” when they are unable to
do so themselves. 42
Post-2015, a holistic and coherent global partnership for development founded
on the principle of international human rights cooperation entails systematic
assessment of global policy coherence and the responsibilities of states beyond
their borders. States should be required to conduct periodic assessments of
the extraterritorial human rights risks of their laws, policies and practices, with
reviews being channeled into future development monitoring and accountability
mechanisms. This should include independent assessments of the degree to which
laws or policies on trade, debt, tax, corporate accountability, fiscal, monetary,
financial, environmental and investment matters effectively sustain or undermine
the achievement of human rights and future sustainable development goals.
Lessons can be drawn from the High-Level Task Force on the Implementation of
the Right to Development regarding ways to draw up effective and monitorable
indicators illustrating the degree to which governments’ laws, policies and
programs respect, protect and support the fulfillment of human rights in other
countries. 43
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

17
Charity or Justice for
the 21 st Century?
Anchoring a set of clear, ambitious, specific, manageable and measurable global
goals, together with any associated targets and indicators, in existing human rights
treaty standards is not only an ethical and legal imperative. It can help elucidate
respective responsibilities for action, improve answerability to human rights-holders,
and strengthen incentives for sustained progress. Reframing development goals in
human rights terms can therefore help to overcome the accountability gaps in the
current MDG process.
In order to be effective, the new set of global development commitments should
by necessity be selective and manageable. Given the array of proposals emerging
from worldwide consultations on the content of the new framework, decisions about
prioritization should be made in a transparent and participatory manner, with reasoned
justification given for the choices made. The human rights principles described in this
briefing offer a set of universally-accepted normative criteria which should be used to
assess proposals for inclusion in the post-2015 sustainable development framework.
Some key questions to ask when evaluating whether the post-2015 framework meets
the human rights litmus test are:
• Will the new framework be universally applicable to all people facing poverty and
avoidable deprivation, regardless of geographical location? Will it identify universal
yet differentiated responsibilities which are equally obligatory on all states?
• Will the successor framework recognize and incorporate the interdependence
of human rights in all their dimensions—economic, political, social, cultural and
civil—into a balanced and mutually complementary set of goals?
• Will the successor framework help to monitor and reduce inequalities in their
many manifestations, and to dismantle forms of discrimination underlying them?
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

18
• Will people living in poverty be able to exercise their right to information about
decisions made in their name? Will the successor framework enable people in
poverty to participate in consequential ways in the design of global and national
development policies, in monitoring progress and backsliding, and in challenging
implementation flaws that affect their rights?
• Will the successor framework set out appropriate incentives and sanctions so that
policy-makers, legislators, executives, businesses and other key actors shaping
development policy are responsive, answerable, and ultimately accountable for
their decisions?
• Will the post-2015 framework stimulate governments to guarantee a universal
minimum floor of economic and social rights protection? Will it address the
obstacles, especially of a transnational nature, which obstruct governments from
generating and utilizing the maximum of available resources to sustainably finance
human rights-centered development?
• Will the successor framework recognize the common and differentiated duties of
all duty-bearers to cooperate and assist one another in order to guarantee a life of
dignity for all the world´s people?
The invitation to envision ‘the world we want’ post-2015 should not merely result in
a long wish-list of desires, but in the creation of a responsive, adaptive and evolving
environment of accountability firmly rooted in the solid ground of human rights.
Addressing the global challenges of ensuring human rights, equality and sustainability
will require that everyone step out of their comfort zones, especially those who are
most uncomfortable about being held up to human rights scrutiny.
If the international community is seriously committed to pursuing development as
a matter of justice rather than charity, the time has come to wed the sustainable
development narrative and agenda to the common aspirations and international legal
obligations of human rights. This is the future we owe to one another, and to all future
generations.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

19
(Endnotes)
1 Speech by Nelson Mandela at the
Make Poverty History rally in Trafalgar
Square, London, February 2005. See:
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/
Poverty/Pages/DGPIntroduction.aspx
2 The Vienna Declaration and
Programme of Action adopted in
1993 affirmed that the existence of
widespread extreme poverty inhibits
the full and effective enjoyment
of human rights, and called for its
immediate alleviation and eventual
elimination as a high priority for the
international community. This was
recently reaffirmed in the UN Guiding
Principles on Extreme Poverty and
Human Rights, adopted by the Human
Rights Council in 2012, which state
that eradication of poverty is not only
a moral duty but a legal obligation
under international human rights law.
Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty
and Human Rights, Un Doc. A/
HRC/21/39, at 1.1, available at: https://
daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/
GEN/G12/154/60/PDF/G1215460.
pdf?OpenElement
3 See Millennium Development Goals
Report 2012 (UN, New York, 2012),
p.5. With regard to disparities in
relation to specific MDGs, see for
example, Yamin, A.E. and Falb, K.L.
(2012), ‘Counting What We Know:
Knowing What to Count: Sexual and
Reproductive Rights, Maternal Health,
and the Millennium Development
Goals’, Nordic Journal on Human
Rights, vol.30, no.3.
4 See Sumner, A. (2010), ‘Global poverty
and the new bottom billion: what if
three-quarters of the world’s poor
live in middle-income countries?’,
IDS Working Papers, Institute of
Development Studies, no.349, at:
https://www.ids.ac.uk/files/dmfile/
GlobalPovertyDataPaper1.pdf .
5 Gentilini, U and Sumner, A. (2012),
‘Poverty Where People Live: What Do
National Poverty Lines Tell us About
Global Poverty?’, International Center
for Inclusive Growth Policy Paper,
no.182, at: https://www.ipc-undp.org/
pub/IPCOnePager182.pdf.
6 UN System Task Team on the Post-
2015 Development Agenda (2012),
‘Realizing the Future We Want for All’
Report to Secretary General, at: https://
www.un.org/en/development/desa/
policy/untaskteam_undf/report.shtml .
7 The Future We Want, resolution
adopted by the UN General Assembly,
11 September 2012, Un Doc. A/
RES/66/288)
8 See Beyond 2015, Foundational
Values, at https://www.beyond2015.
org/document/values
9 UN-NGLS (2013), ‘UN-NGLS Civil
Society Consultation for the High
level Panel of Eminent Persons on the
Post-2015 Development Agenda’, p4,
at: https://www.cesr.org/downloads/
NGLS_Post_2015_HLP_Consultation_
Report_January_2013.pdf.
10 Committee on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, Statement: ‘Poverty
and the International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’,
May 2001, UN Doc, E/C/.12/2001/10,
para 8.
11 The High-level Task Force on the
Right to Development has drawn up
a comprehensive set of operational
criteria and illustrative quantitative
indicators to help policymakers and
development practitioners assess
whether governments´ conduct
complies with their domestic and
extraterritorial (‘internal, external
and collective’) responsibilities in
development. Integrating political
and human rights commitments,
the criteria and indicators embrace
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

20
many dimensions of international
cooperation which MDG 8 leaves out,
including global monetary, economic,
agricultural, debt, trade, taxation and
financial laws and policies; business-
related human rights abuses; capital
flight; inclusive global governance
processes; and innovative financing
for international development. See
‘Report of the high-level task force
on the implementation of the right
to development on its sixth session,
Right to development criteria and
operational sub-criteria’ (8 March
2010), UN Doc. A/HRC/15/WG.2/
TF/2/Add.2, at: https://www2.ohchr.
org/english/issues/development/right/
docs/A-HRC-15-WG2-TF-2-Add2.doc.
12 See Maastricht Principles on
Extraterritorial Obligations of States
in the area of Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights (2011), at: https://
www.maastrichtuniversity.nl/web/
file?uuid=0fc38bc3-63f8-4c99-8b4f-
d0d27fb607ef&owner=bdfe7683-
80b5-4222-9540-09e8ce89e8cf.
13 For more on economic and social
rights monitoring tools, see Center
for Economic and Social Rights,
The OPERA Framework: Assessing
Compliance with the Obligation to
Fulfil Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights, 2012, available at: https://
www.cesr.org/downloads/the.opera.
framework.pdf
14 UNICEF (2010), ‘Progress for Children,
Achieving the MDGs with Equity’,
no.9, at: www.unicef.org/protection/
Progress_for_Children-No.9_
EN_081710.pdf .
15 See World Inequality Database on
Education: https://www.education-
inequalities.org . For an illustration of
how equality and non-discrimination
can be measured and tracked in
relation to specific MDG goals, see the
Final Report of the Joint Monitoring
Program Working Group on Equality
and Non-Discrimination in relation
to Water, Sanitation and Hygiene,
available at: https://www.wssinfo.org/
fileadmin/user_upload/resources/JMP-
END-WG-Final-Report-20120821.pdf
16 UNICEF, ‘A Recovery for All’, (New
York, 2011)
17 See P. Alston (2005), ‘Ships Passing
in the Night: The Current State of
the Human Rights and Development
Debate Seen Through the Lens of
the Millennium Development Goals’,
Human Rights Quarterly, vol.27, no.3,
pp. 755-829, at 774. This article states
that “at least some of the MDGs reflect
norms of customary international law”,
and the minimum core content of
the relevant ESCR rights being in the
MDGs. 
18 CESCR, General Comment No. 3 ‘The
nature of States parties’ obligations’
(14 Dec. 1990), UN Doc. E/1991/23, at:
https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
cescr/comments.htm.
19 Id.
20 The scope and content of state´s
minimum core obligations in relation
to many of these rights have been
defined by the UN Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
in a series of General Comments. See
https://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/
cescr/comments.htm
21 ECA, ILO, UNCTAD, UNDESA
and UNICEF, Social Protection, A
Development Priority in the Post-
2015 UN Development Agenda (UN,
May 2012), available at: https://www.
un.org/millenniumgoals/pdf/Think%20
Pieces/16_social_protection.pdf
22 General Assembly, A/65/L.1, Keeping
the promise: united to achieve the
Millennium Development Goals (New
York, 2010), p. 5.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

21
23 United Nations Special Rapporteur
on the Right to Food, De Schutter, O.,
United Nations Special Rapporteur On
Extreme Poverty And Human Rights,
Sepúlveda, M. (2012), ‘Underwriting
the Poor: A Global Fund for Social
Protection’, at: https://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_
GFSP_en.pdf.
24 Sachs, J. (2012), ‘From Millennium
Development Goals to Sustainable
Development Goals’,The Lancet,
vol.379, at: https://jeffsachs.org/
wp-content/uploads/2012/06/From-
MDGs-to-SDGs-Lancet-June-2012.
pdf.
25 Guiding Principles on Extreme Poverty
and Human Rights supra n2, at paras
42 – 44.
26 For more see Article 19, ‘Rio+20:
Incorporating Principle 10 and the
right to information’, Nov 2011, at:
https://www.article19.org/resources.
php/resource/2808/en/rio+20:-
incorporating-principle-10-and-the-
right-to-information.
27 United Nations Declaration on the
Rights of Indigenous People (13 Sept.
2007), UN Doc. A/RES/61/295, at:
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/
documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.
28 See Center for Economic and Social
Rights and Office of the UN High
Commisioner for Human Rights, Who
Will Be Accountable? Human Rights
and the Post-2015 Development
Agenda. (OHCHR/CESR, forthcoming
2013).
29 For example, 350,000 additional girls
are now going to school in India,
according to estimates, as a result
of the midday school meal scheme
required by the Indian Supreme
Court’s decision on a series of right to
food cases. See: Gauri, V. & Brinks, D.,
‘A New Policy Landscape: Legalizing
Social and Economic Rights in the
Developing World’, in Guari, V. &
Brinks, D. eds (2008), Courting Social
Justice, Cambridge University Press,
p.328.
30 OHCHR (2012), ‘If Rio+20 is to Deliver,
Accountability Must Be at its Heart: An
Open Letter from Special Procedures
mandate-holders of the Human Rights
Council to States negotiating the
Outcome Document of the Rio+20
Summit’. Available at: https://www.
ohchr.org/EN/HRBodies/SP/Pages/
OpenLetterRio20.aspx.
31 OHCHR (2012), Statement: ‘Tackling
poverty requires improving access
to justice for the poor – UN expert
on extreme poverty’, International
Day for the Eradication of Poverty,
at: https://www.ohchr.org/EN/
NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.
aspx?NewsID=12670&LangID=E.
32 OHCHR (2011), ‘Guiding
Principles on Business and Human
Rights’, at: https://www.ohchr.
org/Documents/Publications/
GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR_EN.pdf .
33 Ortiz, I., Chai, J., Cummins, M. (2011),
‘Identifying Fiscal Space: Options for
Social and Economic Development for
Children and Poor Households in 182
Countries’, UNICEF, at: https://www.
unicef.org/socialpolicy/files/Fiscal_
Space_-_17_Oct_-_FINAL.pdf.
34 Balakrishnan, R., Elson, D., Heintz,
J., Lusiani, N. (June 2011), ‘Maximum
Available Resources & Human
Rights: Analytical Report’, Center for
Women’s Global Leadership, Rutgers
University, at: https://www.cwgl.rutgers.
edu/economic-a-social-rights/380-
maximum-available-resources-a-
human-rights-analytical-report- ; Ortiz,
I., Chai, J., Cummins, M., (2011), ,
supra note 34.
CESR | Center for Economic and Social Rights

22
35 Ortiz, I., Chai, J., Cummins, M.,
(2011),supra note 34.
36 Meinzer, M., (2013) ‘Towards
Multilateral Automatic Information
Exchange: Current practice of AIE
in selected countries’, Tax Justice
Network, at: https://www.taxjustice.
net/cms/upload/pdf/AIE2012-TJN-
Briefing.pdf.
37 Murphy, R. (2012), ‘Country by
Country Reporting: Accounting for
globalisation locally’, Tax Justice
Network, at: https://www.taxresearch.
org.uk/Documents/CBC2012.pdf.
38 Guiding Principles on Extreme
Poverty and Human Rights supra
note 2. The Guiding Principles state:
“States should take into account their
international human rights obligations
when designing and implementing
all policies, including international
trade, taxation, fiscal, monetary,
environmental and investment
policies. The international community’s
commitments to poverty reduction
cannot be seen in isolation from
international and national policies and
decisions, some of which may result
in conditions that create, sustain or
increase poverty, domestically or
extraterritorially.”
39 Maastricht Principles on Extraterritorial
Obligations of States in the area of
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
supra note 13.
40 Center of Concern, A Bottom-Up
Approach To Righting Financial
Regulation, ‘The Financial Transactions
Tax: A Human Rights Imperative’, at:
https://cesr.org/downloads/FTT%20
Human%20Rights%20Imperative.
pdf?preview=1.
41 United Nations Special Rapporteur On
The Right To Food, De Schutter, O.,
United Nations Special Rapporteur On
Extreme Poverty And Human Rights,
Sepúlveda, M. (2012),  ‘Underwriting
the Poor: A Global Fund for Social
Protection’, at: https://www.ohchr.org/
Documents/Issues/Food/20121009_
GFSP_en.pdf.
42 CESCR, ‘Substantive Issues Arising in
the Implementation of the International
Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights: Poverty and the
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights’, Statement
Adopted by the Committee on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights
on 4 May 2001, (10 May 2001), UN
Doc. E/C.12/2001/10.
43 See, for example, the Criteria, Sub-
criteria and indicators developed
by the High-Level Task Force on
the Implementation of the Right to
Development, supra note 12.
A MATTER OF JUSTICE | Securing human rights in the post-2015 sustainable development agenda

About CESR
The Center for Economic and Social Rights
(CESR) was established in 1993 to work for the
recognition and enforcement of these rights as
a powerful tool for social justice. CESR exposes
violations of economic, social and cultural
rights through an interdisciplinary combination
of legal and socio-economic analysis. CESR
advocates for changes to economic and
social policy at the international, national and
local levels so as to ensure these comply with
international human rights standards.
CESR serves as a member of the Executive
Committee of Beyond 2015, the global civil
society campaign which advocates for a
strong and legitimate successor framework
to the Millennium Development Goals to be
adopted in 2015. As part of ongoing global
consultations on the post-2015 framework,
CESR coordinated Beyond 2015’s position
paper on governance together with the Global
Call to Action against Poverty. CESR’s aim is
to see a post-2015 framework which reinforces
states’ compliance with their existing human
rights obligations. CESR also works to advance
accountability in economic, fiscal and social
policy, particularly in the wake of the global
economic crisis, and supports the efforts of
civil society groups worldwide to engage with
human rights accountability mechanisms at
the national and global level.
Address
162 Montague Street, 3rd Floor, Brooklyn, NY,
11201, USA
Tel: +1 718 237-9145
Fax: +1 718 237-9147
www.cesr.org
CESR Board
Philip Alston, (honorary Board member)
Professor of Law, New York University, USA
Geoff Budlender, Constitutional and Human
Rights Lawyer, South Africa
Manuel José Cepeda, Jurist, Universidad de
los Andes, Colombia
Sakiko Fukuda-Parr, Professor of
International Affairs, New School, USA
Richard Goldstone, Co-Chair , International
Bar Association Human Rights Institute,
former Constitutional Court judge, South
Africa
Chris Jochnick, Director, Private Sector
Engagement, Oxfam America, USA
Irene Khan, Director General, International
Development Law Organization, Italy
Elizabeth McCormack, Adviser, Rockefeller
Family & Associates, USA
Carin Norberg, Former Director, Nordic Africa
Institute, Sweden
Alicia Ely Yamin, (chairperson), Director,
Program on the Health Rights of Women and
Children, François-Xavier Bagnoud Center for
Health and Human Rights, Harvard University,
USA
Executive Director: Ignacio Saiz
Acknowledgements
This briefing was written by Niko Lusiani, with
valuable input from Ignacio Saiz, Luke Holland,
Gaby Oré Aguilar, and Aldo Caliari.
Cover photo: © Logan Abassi / UN Photo.
© 2013 Center for Economic and Social Rights. This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.

CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL RIGHTS
SOCIAL JUSTICE THROUGH HUMAN RIGHTS