Module 3

  • Explore the issues – How well do you know economic, social and cultural rights?

Explore the issues - How well do you know economic, social and cultural rights?

How well do you know economic, social and cultural rights? Test your knowledge.

Reflection questions: Read each of the statements carefully, and then answer ‘true’ or ‘false’ to reveal the feedback.

1. Under international law, university education is a human right meaning students shouldn’t have to pay for it.

Answer: False. Yes, education is a human right, protected in Article 13 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), but although that provision demands free primary education, it indicates that free secondary and tertiary (college, university) education is an aspiration that states should pursue, but not an absolute requirement.

2. The obligations on states to protect and fulfil economic and social rights must take account of local realities – poor countries and rich countries cannot be judged by the same standard.

Answer: True. As you’ll see, the ICESCR requires states to work progressively to realize the rights it protects, and to use the maximum of their available resources to do so. Both of these standards imply taking account of the particular situation of each state.

3. International law protects economic and social rights but it places a greater priority on civil and political rights, like the right to vote and a free press.

Answer: False. Although some people argue one set of rights should take precedence, international human rights law provides no such prioritization.

4. Disputes about economic and social rights like the right to health or to an adequate standard of living cannot be adjudicated by courts, because it really comes down to questions of government finances.

Answer: False. Courts in many countries do hear cases were claimants allege their economic or social rights are being denied or infringed, and many constitutions explicitly protect these rights (but not in Canada). But some people argue that where the case turns on questions of government spending, the courts should leave such matters to elected parliaments.