This is an archival version of the original KnowledgePoint website.

Interactive features have been disabled and some pages and links have been removed.

Visit the new KnowledgePoint website at https://www.knowledgepoint.org.

 

Revision history [back]

click to hide/show revision 1
initial version
Hannah Neumeyer gravatar image
WaterAid Partners

I can’t speak to the realisation of human rights in connection to mental health in Ghana or South Africa, so this only refers generally to human rights law and development commitments such as the MDGs/SDGs. In short, a combination of both is important, as they can complement each other. Here are a couple of points why I think this is the case:

  • Human rights law is binding, but (internationally) somewhat difficult to enforce. Universal political declarations such as the MDGs/SDGs are arguably supported by more political will than the realisation of human rights. There is more "buzz" around them and so there is more momentum behind the “we end poverty” slogan of the SDGs than the comparable “we realise an adequate standard of living” slogan that human rights law makes. This may (or may not) be the case because the MDGs/SDGs are political declarations that are not technically legally binding. Arguably, governments prefer and put more political will behind political declarations to TRY something than behind legally binding commitments.
  • However, the legally binding nature of rights is crucial. And South Africa is an important example of that. South Africa has one of the strongest Constitutions in terms of economic, social and cultural rights (e.g. food, water, sanitation, housing, health, education) and there is very important jurisprudence on these rights from the South African Constitutional Court. This is important for the individuals/groups whose rights have been violated – they can get a remedy because of the constitutional protection – and it is important because the cases provide guidance for the Government on how these rights should be interpreted and what Government needs to do to realise them. There is actually quite a lot of case law from many countries where the rights to water and sanitation have been used in court successfully. See this link.

  • Also, international human rights law in itself (even if it is not “translated” into national legal systems) can be used side by side with the SDGs, especially now that the SDGs (contrary to the MDGs) commit to universality and equality. Human rights law says that all people have rights (=universality) and that economic, social and cultural rights need to be realised as expeditiously as possible with a focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised (=overcoming inequality). This provides a good basis for holding governments to account on how they are making progress: Do they really ensure that efforts focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised? Do they ensure that other important human rights principles are used, such as sustainability, accountability, participation, access to information? In my view, human rights law can provide many of the "how tos" for the goals and targets of the SDGs. To what extent this will happen will also depend on the extent to which all actors (not just government) are aware of what human rights demand and use rights.

  • Last but not least, a clarification that all countries have already committed to the right to water and sanitation and what the legal basis is: The right to water and sanitation was at the very latest universally recognised in 2013, when the UN General Assembly for the first time adopted a resolution on the topic by consensus, i.e. all UN Member States were for it. The right is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living. This right in turn is contained in three treaties: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (163 state parties); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (194 state parties) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (151 state parties). The right to water and sanitation are further inextricably linked to other human rights (the right to life, the right to health) and to fundamental principles such as human dignity. So they are also relevant in countries that may not be party to any of the three treaties that contain the right to an adequate standard of living, but that do contain for example the right to life or health. So really, there is no way out for governments.

Hannah Neumeyer

Head of Right to Water and Sanitation Team

WASH United

click to hide/show revision 2
No.2 Revision
KnowledgePointAdmin gravatar image
RedR CCDRR

I can’t can't speak to the realisation of human rights in connection to mental health in Ghana or South Africa, so this only refers generally to human rights law and development commitments such as the MDGs/SDGs. In short, a combination of both is important, as they can complement each other. Here are a couple of points why I think this is the case:

  • Human rights law is binding, but (internationally) somewhat difficult to enforce. Universal political declarations such as the MDGs/SDGs are arguably supported by more political will than the realisation of human rights. There is more "buzz" around them and so there is more momentum behind the “we 'we end poverty” poverty' slogan of the SDGs than the comparable “we 'we realise an adequate standard of living” living' slogan that human rights law makes. This may (or may not) be the case because the MDGs/SDGs are political declarations that are not technically legally binding. Arguably, governments prefer and put more political will behind political declarations to TRY something than behind legally binding commitments.
  • However, the legally binding nature of rights is crucial. And South Africa is an important example of that. South Africa has one of the strongest Constitutions in terms of economic, social and cultural rights (e.g. food, water, sanitation, housing, health, education) and there is very important jurisprudence on these rights from the South African Constitutional Court. This is important for the individuals/groups whose rights have been violated – they can get a remedy because of the constitutional protection – and it is important because the cases provide guidance for the Government on how these rights should be interpreted and what Government needs to do to realise them. There is actually quite a lot of case law from many countries where the rights to water and sanitation have been used in court successfully. See this link.

  • Also, international human rights law in itself (even if it is not “translated” 'translated' into national legal systems) can be used side by side with the SDGs, especially now that the SDGs (contrary to the MDGs) commit to universality and equality. Human rights law says that all people have rights (=universality) and that economic, social and cultural rights need to be realised as expeditiously as possible with a focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised (=overcoming inequality). This provides a good basis for holding governments to account on how they are making progress: Do they really ensure that efforts focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised? Do they ensure that other important human rights principles are used, such as sustainability, accountability, participation, access to information? In my view, human rights law can provide many of the "how tos" for the goals and targets of the SDGs. To what extent this will happen will also depend on the extent to which all actors (not just government) are aware of what human rights demand and use rights.

  • Last but not least, a clarification that all countries have already committed to the right to water and sanitation and what the legal basis is: The right to water and sanitation was at the very latest universally recognised in 2013, when the UN General Assembly for the first time adopted a resolution on the topic by consensus, i.e. all UN Member States were for it. The right is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living. This right in turn is contained in three treaties: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (163 state parties); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (194 state parties) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (151 state parties). The right to water and sanitation are further inextricably linked to other human rights (the right to life, the right to health) and to fundamental principles such as human dignity. So they are also relevant in countries that may not be party to any of the three treaties that contain the right to an adequate standard of living, but that do contain for example the right to life or health. So really, there is no way out for governments.

Hannah Neumeyer

Head of Right to Water and Sanitation Team

WASH United

click to hide/show revision 3
No.3 Revision
KnowledgePointAdmin gravatar image
RedR CCDRR

I can't speak to the realisation of human rights in connection to mental health in Ghana or South Africa, so this only refers generally to human rights law and development commitments such as the MDGs/SDGs. In short, a combination of both is important, as they can complement each other. Here are a couple of points why I think this is the case:

  • Human rights law is binding, but (internationally) somewhat difficult to enforce. Universal political declarations such as the MDGs/SDGs are arguably supported by more political will than the realisation of human rights. There is more "buzz" around them and so there is more momentum behind the 'we end poverty' slogan of the SDGs than the comparable 'we realise an adequate standard of living' slogan that human rights law makes. This may (or may not) be the case because the MDGs/SDGs are political declarations that are not technically legally binding. Arguably, governments prefer and put more political will behind political declarations to TRY something than behind legally binding commitments.

  • However, the legally binding nature of rights is crucial. And South Africa is an important example of that. South Africa has one of the strongest Constitutions in terms of economic, social and cultural rights (e.g. food, water, sanitation, housing, health, education) and there is very important jurisprudence on these rights from the South African Constitutional Court. This is important for the individuals/groups whose rights have been violated – they can get a remedy because of the constitutional protection – and it is important because the cases provide guidance for the Government on how these rights should be interpreted and what Government needs to do to realise them. There is actually quite a lot of case law from many countries where the rights to water and sanitation have been used in court successfully. See this link.

  • Also, international human rights law in itself (even if it is not 'translated' into national legal systems) can be used side by side with the SDGs, especially now that the SDGs (contrary to the MDGs) commit to universality and equality. Human rights law says that all people have rights (=universality) and that economic, social and cultural rights need to be realised as expeditiously as possible with a focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised (=overcoming inequality). This provides a good basis for holding governments to account on how they are making progress: Do they really ensure that efforts focus on the most vulnerable and marginalised? Do they ensure that other important human rights principles are used, such as sustainability, accountability, participation, access to information? In my view, human rights law can provide many of the "how tos" for the goals and targets of the SDGs. To what extent this will happen will also depend on the extent to which all actors (not just government) are aware of what human rights demand and use rights.

  • Last but not least, a clarification that all countries have already committed to the right to water and sanitation and what the legal basis is: The right to water and sanitation was at the very latest universally recognised in 2013, when the UN General Assembly for the first time adopted a resolution on the topic by consensus, i.e. all UN Member States were for it. The right is derived from the right to an adequate standard of living. This right in turn is contained in three treaties: The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (163 state parties); the Convention on the Rights of the Child (194 state parties) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (151 state parties). The right to water and sanitation are further inextricably linked to other human rights (the right to life, the right to health) and to fundamental principles such as human dignity. So they are also relevant in countries that may not be party to any of the three treaties that contain the right to an adequate standard of living, but that do contain for example the right to life or health. So really, there is no way out for governments.

Hannah Neumeyer

Head of Right to Water and Sanitation Team

WASH United