A rights-based approach to social issues is about much more than money and legislation, writes Colm Ó Cuanacháin
Human rights are not something that Rory O'Donnell of the National Economic and Social Council (November 21st) appears to understand. He seems to be making a case against an argument that no one has actually presented - i.e., that simply by legislating for rights, social problems will go away.
Dr O'Donnell's notion of a "modern consensus that it is not possible to establish rights on universally valid foundations" is simply not the case.
There is no such consensus, quite the contrary. Human rights are international law, internationally-binding legal instruments. Successive Irish governments have contributed to making them law on our behalf, thankfully.
Take the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It entered into force in 1989, and is now ratified in all but two countries worldwide. Is that not universal enough?
Ironically, the one country Dr O'Donnell cites as an exemplar for his thesis is the US, which is one of the two countries out in the cold when it comes to children's rights.
Human rights are about access to justice, and not only about legislation or resources. All human rights place an onus on states to respect, protect or fulfil obligations, and these must be delivered through institutions of government.
The rights-based approach goes beyond legal instruments and finances. Amnesty's experience teaches us that in many countries state institutions are ineffective, and legislation alone does not usually make them more effective.
Having access to justice means that when a government ignores a citizen's basic rights, that person can take a government to court to ensure that their rights are respected. We would agree that "the challenge of social rights does involve the challenge of creating effective policies and institutions to set and achieve high standards of service for people in need". However, since successive governments in Ireland have chosen not to meet this challenge - think of autistic children, people with mental illness, the homeless, for example - it is necessary to have legal authority at national level.
In 2002 the Irish Government was heavily criticised by the UN committee, which could find no financial reason for the Government's failure to comply with the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. There were "no insurmountable difficulties preventing the state party from implementing the covenant", the committee said.
The idea presented by Dr O'Donnell, that respect for the rights of rape victims could be proportional to the level of support services provided to address their needs, is preposterous. Does this mean that the rights of women in Denmark are somehow more integral than the rights of women in Ireland because service provision there is more elaborate?
Or, given the fact that the Rape Crisis Centres are non-governmental organisations, is the implication that it falls on civil society to vindicate the rights of rape victims while the Government stands idly by? The fact of the matter is that women have the right to protection from violence, and to remedy should this right be violated.
This is a fact in international and national law, and if Dr O'Donnell has only "now seen it as a right", it is his loss.
The issue of resources for delivery of social and economic rights is, of course, significant - but inappropriately used by opponents of the rights-based approach.
The positive resource implications for our economy that would arise from the realisation of the right to an education and a job for all have been ignored.
The boost to the economy which would accrue from the inclusion of currently marginalised groups such as people with disabilities or the poor would be enormous, yet it is not considered in this debate.
Similarly, there is an assumption that rights-based legislation will result in a costly rush to the courts, when the evidence from the enactment of equality legislation and the establishment of the Equality Authority is that this is emphatically not the case.
Progressive realisation of economic, social and cultural rights using the maximum available resources is all that is required under international law. What is vital is that the policy be established and be demonstrably under delivery.
Likewise, as has been mooted in the case of rights-based disability legislation, an ombudsman can be appointed to adjudicate on whether a claim is justified or vexatious, in a cost-effective manner, and ensure that only serious cases, where the State has demonstrably failed in its duties, would actually go to court. And why should this not be the case?
Amnesty International doesn't care if the approach presented "is about rights understood in the way described by NESC".
Tens of thousands of able politicians, lawyers, and activists have worked for over 55 years to describe human rights in internationally agreed and ratified declarations, conventions, and treaties through the offices of the UN, the Council of Europe, the EU, and other intergovernmental fora.
If it's all the same to Dr O'Donnell I think we'll stick with these versions, and we'll continue our work to ensure that the Irish Government does too.
Colm Ó Cuanacháin is secretary general of the Irish section of Amnesty International