Is the neglect of economic, social and cultural abuses in international criminal law a problem of positive international law or the result of choices made by lawyers involved in mechanisms such as criminal prosecutions or truth commissions? Evelyne Schmid explores this question via an assessment of the relationship between violations of economic, social and cultural rights and international crimes. Based on a thorough examination of the elements of international crimes, she demonstrates how a situation can simultaneously be described as a violation of economic, social and cultural rights and as an international crime. Against the background of the emerging debates on selectivity in international criminal law and the role of socio-economic and cultural abuses in transitional justice, she argues that international crimes overlapping with violations of economic, social and cultural rights deserve to be taken seriously, for much the same reasons as other international crimes.

Increasing numbers of academics and practitioners are employing the language of economic and social rights (ESR) when conceptualizing the aims, scope and implementation mechanisms of transitional justice. Their contributions have added to an evolving debate on the boundaries of transitional justice. However, when employing rights language, the current debate on the economic and social dimensions of transitional justice frequently suffers from terminological and conceptual confusion. Problematically, it is not unusual for the claims made by transitional justice commentators with regard to ESR to be founded on apparent misconceptions about both the legal framework and the existing scholarship relating to ESR. Addressing these misconceptions in terms of four key dichotomies and suggesting the way forward, we prepare the ground for a more effective debate on the desirability and feasibility of incorporating ESR into transitional justice processes. In doing so, we assert that such a debate must be based on an accurate understanding of ESR and the obligations they impose. We conclude by demonstrating how inclusion of ESR considerations in transitional justice does not necessitate rethinking transitional justice as a whole.

Commentators and practitioners increasingly emphasise that redressing violations of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) and improving the living conditions of individuals and communities is key in countries emerging from armed conflicts and widespread human rights abuses. Yet, it remains difficult to achieve this objective in practice and it is not obvious how international law can contribute to the enhancement of ESCR in the aftermath of pervasive abuses. This article addresses some of the subject's conceptual and practical complexities: Based on an analysis of all relevant concluding observations, the article traces the evolution of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' jurisprudence on armed conflict. It then uses this analysis to highlight specific ways in which the reporting procedure before this supervisory body could be used more effectively to address ESCR problems related to armed conflicts, including by forging synergies with transitional justice mechanisms and broader post-conflict recovery policies.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract