Ladies and gentlemen,

I would like to start by thanking the Norwegian Centre for Human Rights for convening this seminar – and for drawing attention to the ongoing UN process on an optional protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The creation of a complaints mechanism for implementing these rights is an important but complicated issue.

A complaints mechanism potentially has great political and legal implications at both the national and the international level. Thus it is important to have a broad public debate where all stakeholders have the opportunity to express their concerns. We need to consider arguments pro and contra such a mechanism. This seminar provides a good opportunity for both the Government and representatives of civil society to present their views.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Human rights have been one of the main pillars of Norwegian foreign policy since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948. Norway furthermore has a long tradition of recognising all human rights as indivisible, interrelated and interdependent. This position was confirmed by the international community in the Vienna Declaration of 1993. The fulfilment of civil and political rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of conscience is of limited value if the persons concerned are without food or shelter. Respect for a person’s human dignity requires the fulfilment of economic, social and cultural rights as well as civil and political rights.

Following a period of extensive normative development, the last few decades have been referred to as an era of implementation. Norway has consistently given priority to supporting the development of international mechanisms for the enforcement of existing human rights obligations.

In its policy platform, the Norwegian government emphasises the importance of a strong international legal order governed by the United Nations. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights forms a part of this international legal order.

Our policy platform also recognises the fundamental nexus between human rights, development and the international fight against poverty. The fight against poverty is singled out as one of the greatest challenges facing the international community and a main task for the government.

If it is implemented, there can be no doubt that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights can be a tool in the fight against poverty and the fight for economic development, democracy and human rights. The realisation of these rights is thus a priority for the government.

This point was very much underlined by High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, in her statement to the Working Group on the optional protocol yesterday. She emphasized that poverty and other denials of human rights can greatly increase the risk of instability and violence, that conflict leads to abuse of human rights and sets back development, and that countries respecting human rights are better placed to avoid conflict and to overcome obstacles to development. I fully agree with Ms. Arbour. My government puts high priority on improving respect for economic, social and cultural rights. This is essential to ensuring the contribution of human rights to both development and security. The last four months I have travelled to many countries and region where conflict is the dominant force in daily life. In Sudan, in Lebanon, and in the Palestinian territories, the conflicts prevent economic and social development. Social networks are destroyed due to conflict, and the victims are always the ordinary and poor people. This is our challenge; this is where we have to put our efforts.

As the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights has been grossly neglected at the international level, it is important to seek a remedy for this situation.

Ladies and gentlemen,

The ongoing UN process offers us an opportunity to explore and discuss different avenues for improved implementation. Norway has therefore co-sponsored the resolutions of the Human Rights Commission regarding the establishment of the UN working group and extension of its mandate.

During the two previous sessions of the working group, important questions were raised regarding the added value of a complaints mechanism. The justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights has been a controversial issue. The role of State discretion with regard to resource allocation has been another. A third is the effect of a complaints mechanism on developing countries that lack the resources to fulfil the Covenant.

There are many unanswered questions as to consequences and the effects of an individual complaints mechanism. The many loose ends explain why a significant number of States have yet to decide whether or not to support the development of an optional protocol.

In order to ensure that Norwegian positions incorporate the concerns of relevant ministries and the Attorney General for Civil Affairs, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has worked closely with these when preparing Norwegian policies and priorities for the third session of the working group. During this process we have also sought advice from Professor Eibe Riedel, Vice-Chairperson of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, who visited Oslo in December last year.

In our dialogue with the ministries and the Attorney General, concerns have been raised with regard to the various aspects of an individual complaints mechanism. Due to these concerns and the many uncertain aspects of a future optional protocol, we found it somewhat premature to present a comprehensive Norwegian position regarding the establishment of an optional protocol prior to the working groups’ third session. As concerns the question of extending the mandate of the working group and charge it with drafting an optional protocol for a complaints mechanism, this position will be finalised after the working group’s third session and prior to the UN Commission’s decision of the matter.

Similar concerns have been expressed among many of our closest allies in the human rights area. For example have Sweden, the UK and others,expressed scepticism about the added value of an optional protocol. We all know that the United States and Australia are even more negative.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Even though we have not yet taken a decision with regard to renewing the working group’s mandate, Norway will participate actively during its third and ongoing session.

Norway is a strong advocate of international enforcement mechanisms, and the decisive question is whether a complaints mechanism would be implementable and effective for this group of rights. In spite of the fact that 150 States have accepted the legal obligations set out in the Covenant, millions of people in these same States lack access to basic rights such as adequate food, shelter and education. Given that the implementation of the Covenant is extremely poor in large parts of the world, and even non-existent in some places, a quasi-judicial complaints mechanism alone would not remedy the situation.

Technical assistance and financial aid must be provided in addition, but this raises the question of whether there should be established new mechanisms of funding or whether the resources should instead be channelled through existing programmes for technical assistance and developmental cooperation. The issue of international assistance and cooperation is controversial and disagreements between developed and developing countries are expected in the ongoing discussions.

The gap between developed and developing countries should also be viewed in the light of the current discussions on a Human Rights Council. There is strong resistance in the G77 to resolutions that target the human rights situation in specific countries. It is clear that there are differences between developed and developing countries regarding methods of protection, promotion and monitoring of human rights. If we are able to establish an effective mechanism to enforce the provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, this could help to resolve some of these differences.

As regards the issue of the justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights, it should be noted that Norway has incorporated both the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights into national law through the Human Rights Act. According to the Act, the Covenants have the same legal status, and their provisions are to take precedence over any other provisions of national legislation that conflict with them. The question of judiciability is therefore not in itself a problem for Norway.

However, the differences between national courts and a quasi-judicial supervisorymechanism could be a problem. A national court will often be better positioned to review sensitive and complicated decisions concerning resource allocation than a quasi-judicial international body because of its knowledge, experience and available resources.

Some Norwegian public actors have expressed particular concern about international interference in resource allocations in areas such as social security and health care. In order to prevent inappropriate interference, Norway will suggest that an optional protocol explicitly recognises the role of State discretion.

One solution could be to stress the importance of respecting a wide margin of appreciation for States as long as minimum standards have been ensured. The Covenant itself contains no reference to minimum standards, but the concept is elaborated in the General Comments of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Another alternative could be to limit the protocol to allegations of serious violations. At present however, it is difficult to conclude whether either of the two solutions is implementable or considered preferable by the majority of States Parties.

If a complaints mechanism should be developed, the Norwegian government would favour a mechanism that covers all the rights of the Covenant. Reservations should not be accepted unless a State has already made the same reservations when ratifying the Covenant.

Ladies and gentlemen,

Norway intends to play a constructive role in the ongoing discussions of the working group. We are deeply committed to improving the implementation of economic, social and cultural rights. At the same time we will have to seek clarification of issues of concern.