The justiciability of economic, social and cultural rights is recognized in several domestic and international systems, including under the Optional Protocol (OP) to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which entered into force on 5 May 2013.[1]

According to FAO (2004),[2] in relation to the right to food, the notion of justiciability can be understood as: “the possibility of a human right, recognized in general and abstract terms, to be invoked before a judicial or quasi-judicial body that can: first, determine, in a particular concrete case presented before it, if the human right has, or has not, been violated; and second, decide on the appropriate measures to be taken in the case of violation”. In other words, the justiciability of the right to food means that States can be held accountable for their obligation to realize the right to food.

Since the adoption by consensus of the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (Right to Food Guidelines) ten years ago, there have been significant legislative and judicial developments in several countries and regions around the world. Relevant jurisprudence reveals today how the right to food has been protected and enforced.

At its 39th Session in October 2012, the Committee on World Food Security (CFS) agreed to have a 10 Year Retrospective on the progress made in implementing the Right to Food Guidelines (RtFG) during the plenary of the 41st Session in 2014 (CFS 39 Item VIII, para 21d). As mentioned in the CFS Multi-Year Programme of Work 2014-2015, the “preparation for this retrospective should be carried out in 2014, mainly based on the work of FAO ESA Division, of the Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food, and of the Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights”. The 41st Session of the CFS in October will represent a privileged platform to discuss the different dimensions of the implementation of the RtFG, look back at the progress made over the last ten years, review the lessons learned and best practices, identify the gaps and challenges and discuss the way forward. The Committee will be asked to consider the progress made and reaffirm its commitment to the Right to Food Guidelines.

Objective

The side event “Right to Food Justiciability in Perspective” aims at stimulating the discussions on the advances on the justiciability of the right to food, taking into account existing national and regional contexts. It will be addressed to CFS members and partners, and to any interested stakeholders.

A presentation by three distinguished panelists on achievements so far and challenges ahead, followed by a multistakeholder discussion, will provide an opportunity to exchange experiences and share knowledge on this important subject matter.

This side event is of particular relevance to the CFS41 (afternoon) Plenary Session V Coordination & Linkages with CFS, which will feature two main items:

a)National case studies and lessons learned: Right to Food. This item presents an opportunity to discuss national best practices and lessons learned from three countries (El Salvador, India, Jordan) on implementing the Right to Food Guidelines.

b)Right to Food Ten Year Retrospective. This item will provide a chance to discuss the different dimensions of the implementation of the Guidelines, look back at the progress made over the last ten years, review the lessons learned and best practices, identify the gaps and challenges and discuss the way forward.

[1] The OP recognizes the competence of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to receive and consider communications submitted by or on behalf of individuals or groups of individuals, under the jurisdiction of a State Party, who claim to be victims of a violation of any of the economic, social and cultural rights set forth in the Covenant (Article 2). The OP also requires all available domestic remedies to be exhausted before a communication to the Committee can be considered (Article 3). In exceptional circumstances, it allows the Committee to request that the State Party take interim measures, before a determination on the merits has been reached, to avoid possible irreparable damage to victims of alleged violations (Article 5). It also allows a State Party to recognize the competence of the Committee to receive and consider interstate communications relating to the rights protected in the ICESCR (Article 10).

[2] FAO. 2004. Intergovernmental Working Group for the Elaboration of a Set of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security – Justiciability of the Right to Food. Information Paper, FAO Document IGWG RTFG/INF 7.