View previous stories
	Time to recognize the right to life for those living in homelessness and inadequate housing by Leilani Farha UN Special Rapporteur on adequate housing   An estimated one third of deaths worldwide are linked to poverty and inadequate housing, yet widespread homelessness and inadequate housing are rarely regarded as a violation of the right to life.   Homelessness and inadequate housing are reaching crisis proportions including in both emerging and developed economies. The urgency and outrage that should be provoked in response to the abhorrent conditions in which millions of people live seem to be absent.   Many politicians, judges, and every day people are accustomed to ignoring, stigmatizing, excluding, and even criminalizing people for their poverty and lack of adequate housing. The question is: how did we get here?   At least part of the answer lies in the history of human rights law and the decision 50 years ago to separate the right to adequate housing and the right to life which were originally articulated in a single document: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.   Ever since the advent of the two human rights Covenants divorcing social, economic and cultural rights from civil and political rights, housing has been treated more as a policy aspiration than as a fundamental right; doing so severed it from core human rights values of dignity, security and the right to life that would demand timely rights-based responses and access to justice.   I have been convinced by the artificiality of this separation in my interactions with those experiencing housing deprivation; they understand the deep connections between the right to life and the right to housing. They articulate their human rights claims not simply as a demand for housing with basic services and secure tenure, but also more fundamentally as a claim to equal recognition of their right to live in dignity and security.   They report that they are not treated as humans and are called encroachers, vermin and criminals simply for attempting to survive. They experience being forgotten and neglected by governments as a sustained and systematic devaluing of their lives.   The lived reality of inadequate housing and homelessness underscore this. An estimated one third of deaths worldwide are linked to poverty and inadequate housing. The death rate among homeless people can be up to ten times higher than for those who are not homeless.   100 million children are living in the streets worldwide, facing daily threats to life and security. Lack of clean water and sanitation leads to illnesses that kill over 840,000 each year. 26.4 million people lose their homes through natural disasters every year—60% higher than it was four decades ago.   And, as has been tragically demonstrated in Haiti, inadequate housing dramatically increases risks to life and inadequate post-disaster housing conditions increase vulnerability to the next disaster.   In situations of conflict, homes and infrastructure have been increasingly targeted, at significant cost to life. The housing and financial crises worldwide have resulted in dramatic increases in evictions and foreclosures, irrevocably damaging family life and doubling the number of suicides linked to loss of housing in the United States of America.   People with disabilities continue to be denied supports for independent living, forced to live in overcrowded institutions without social or family relations, frequently in isolation cells for long periods.   Migrants flee life-threatening circumstances only to then confront the risks associated with homelessness in destination countries.   Despite the obvious convergence of the right to life and the right to adequate housing, the separation of these core human rights has resulted in very different treatment in the face of very similar conditions.   When deplorable living conditions are brought to light in the context of prisons and detention centres, there is little question that they be considered critical human rights violations demanding action.   And yet, when similar or worse living conditions are raised with respect to in informal settlements caused by the failure of governments to take necessary actions, these are not addressed as human rights violations.   Rather, they are relegated to policy discussions about infrastructure and sustainable development.   This framework has produced illogical results in the adjudication of human rights. If a person is rendered homeless as a result of state action such as deportation or eviction, the UN Human Rights Committee, for example, has been willing to find a violation of human rights; the right to be free from cruel and inhuman treatment.   However, where a person experiences the very same circumstances of homelessness, but this time caused by state neglect and inaction, the Committee has not found a violation of human rights.   This unequal application results in the denial of substantive human rights claims advanced by those who are homeless, people with disabilities or women experiencing violence and others. They do not see the fulfilment of their human rights merely as freedom from poor treatment or punishment, but more fundamentally as a positive right to a place to live in dignity, security and inclusion.   A refusal to hear, adjudicate and provide remedies for the category of claims to the right to life arising from systemic deprivations such as homelessness has an immense impact. It reinforces a negative rights practice that continues to deny access to justice for many of the most serious violations of the right to life in many jurisdictions.   The UN Human Rights Committee is now drafting a new general comment (No. 36) on the right to life, providing an important opportunity to reaffirm a commitment to a more inclusive understanding of the right to life. But despite some promising changes in the language, the initial draft persists with the division of the right to life into two categories relegating long-term obligations to address homelessness and poverty to the category of unenforceable policy aspirations.   The starting point for understanding the scope of the right to life should not be based in whether the cause of the deprivation is due to government action or inaction, rather it should be based in what rights holders are entitled to.   The challenge before us is to move beyond the two categories of rights and to retrieve a more unified understanding which accords equal recognition to the lives of those living in homelessness and poverty and ensures access to justice and remedies for the most widespread and egregious violations of the right to life and the right to adequate housing.   * This is a brief summary of the report the Special Rapporteur presented to the UN General Assembly in October 2016: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/AnnualReports.aspx http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Housing/Pages/HousingIndex.aspx http://bit.ly/2fiv258 Visit the related web page
	Recommendations for the content of a treaty on business and human rights by International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)   20 Oct. 2016   In a paper published today, the ICJ recommends a series of substantive elements that it considers as key to an effective treaty on business and human rights.   The ICJ is publishing this paper as the second session of the open ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (OEIWG) will be held next week (24-28 October).   On 26 June 2014, the United Nations Human Rights Council (HRC) adopted Resolution 26/9 establishing an “open ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights” (OEIWG) with the mandate to “elaborate an international legally binding instrument to regulate, in international human rights law, the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises”.   The ICJ supports the objective of establishing an international legally binding instrument on transnational corporations and other business enterprises, with a focus on business accountability and access to effective remedies for human rights abuses by business enterprises.   There is a substantial international protection gap to be filled in this respect, on which the ICJ has previously commented extensively.   It is with a view to closing this gap and ensuring that international human rights law can optimally fulfil its protective function that the ICJ is engaging in the present treaty process.   The key elements in the ICJ paper are a contribution to the ongoing discussions about the future instrument, without being exhaustive as to such elements.   The ICJ has already published a paper focused on issues of scope of businesses to be addressed in the treaty, in particular the meaning or “transnational corporations (TNCs) and other business enterprises” a question which remains unresolved and is contentious in the OEIWG discussions.   The present paper''s focus is on the potential content of the prospective treaty. Access the briefing: http://bit.ly/2gWzHeX   Oct 2016   ESCR-Net & FIDH launch 10 key Legal proposals for UN Treaty to stop corporate abuse   ESCR-Net and FIDH, who have jointly run the Treaty Initiative for two years, have launched a legal resource document for advocates and diplomats involved in the UN process to develop a new treaty to address human rights abuses involving the activities of transnational corporations and other business enterprises.   The ''Ten Key Proposals for the Treaty'' publication contains proposals relating to critical issues like the primacy of human rights over trade and investment laws, the scope of the treaty (including options for how the treaty could navigate the polarized debates of whether or not to include domestic businesses) and how the treaty might address the international human rights responsibilities of corporations.   This timely resource also covers vital issues like participation and access to information, human rights due diligence, extraterritorial obligations corporate criminal liability and the critical issue of access to justice, including the key elements of potential new international mechanism to address human rights abuses involving corporations.   Ten Key Proposals is the designed to directly respond to the concerns of civil society consultations, including representatives of affected communities, who expressed their priorities for the forthcoming UN treaty during consultations held in Africa, Asia and Latin America, throughout 2015-16, as well as online consultations with other organisations as well during this time. In total over 150 civil society organisations were consulted in the process of designing the Ten Key Proposals.   A central aspect of the Treaty Initiative has been the facilitation of ongoing interaction between diverse members and legal practitioners, who are members and allies of ESCR-Net and FIDH. To this end, ESCR-Net and FIDH established a Legal Group, experienced in applying international human rights law in the context of corporate human rights abuses, who participated in all consultations and lead in shaping the contents of the Ten Key Proposals. Without the active involvement of the Legal Group, this project would not have been successful.   The combined membership of ESCR-Net and FIDH comprises over 400 human rights organisations, grassroots groups, academic centers and individual advocates, operating in more than half the countries of the world. For over a decade, both networks have been central to calls to strengthen the international legal framework to address corporate human rights abuses based on the experiences of affected communities.   The Ten Key Proposals will support our members everywhere to engage in detailed advocacy discussions with States involved in the treaty making process for several years to come. Access the Ten Key Proposals via the link below. Visit the related web page
	View more stories