Realizing a Promise: A Case for Ratification of theOptional Protocol to the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

economic, social and cultural rights (social rights). This category of rights has been given second-class status and treated with mistrust and caution. Their adjudication was considered impossible and undesirable. Yet on December 10, 2008, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted an Optional Protocol (Protocol) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Covenant) that enables victims of violations of rights covered by the Covenant to file individual complaints to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Committee). Its adoption marks a watershed in the quest for realizing the UDHR’s promise expressed by the UN motto, “All human rights for all.” Adoption of the Protocol resonated positively within the global human rights community. Thirty-six UN human rights Special Rapporteurs welcomed the Protocol’s adoption as “an essential step” in reinforcing “the universality, indivisibility, interdependence and interrelatedness of all human rights, and the guarantee of dignity and justice for all.”1 Similarly, the International NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights described it as “an historic advance for human rights.”2 The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navanethem Pillay, described the adoption as having “singular importance by closing a historic gap.”3 Not all, however, are excited about the Protocol. Most notably and importantly, the reaction of states was mixed. Although some states expressed their intention to become parties to the Protocol, others voiced serious skepticism regarding the rationale of adjudicating social rights and therefore the existence of the Protocol itself. This essay briefly describes the main features of the Protocol before specifying the concerns held by some states regarding the Protocol. Finally, the essay attempts to dispel the concerns and present arguments for why states should ratify the Protocol.