Laura-Maria CRĂCIUNEAN-TATU*
Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Faculty of Law
Abstract: The General Comment no. 27 (2025) on economic, social and cultural rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development is the last general comment adopted by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Committee), in September 2025, after a consistent work that lasted almost 6 years. It highlights the adverse impacts of environmental degradation on economic, social and cultural rights and clarifies the obligations of State parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (the Covenant), with respect to the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The general comment seeks to provide guidance to states with regard to the fulfilment of their obligations under the Covenant, in light of the current realities related to climate change and environmental degradation, namely in a manner that respects ecological limits and the finite character of natural resources. At the same time, the general comment is following a wider trend that it is currently present in the work of several international organizations, namely that of clarifying states international obligations in the context of environmental degradation and climate change.
While making a short overview of the document, the present paper aims at looking at it with a critical eye with a view to responding to two main questions, namely: 1. How did the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights approached economic growth, sustainable development, environment and the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025)? and 2. Is GC 27 (2025) proposing a different approach, including a different economic model? And, if yes, what would this new approach entail.
Consequently, the paper is proposing an short overview of the Committee ’s approach to economic growth, sustainable development, environment and the progressive realization of economic, social and cultural rights rights, before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025) (Section I), followed by a short presentation and evaluation of CG no. 27 (2025), including with regard to the Committee ’s stance on a new economic model that would be able to reconcile the realization of economic, social and cultural rights with planet ’s ecological limits (Section II). This paper will conclude with identification of the main takeaways and of future perspectives on the topic.
Key-words: ESC rights, sustainable development, environment, economic growth, doughnut economics, ecological limits, future generations.
Introduction
Adopted in 1966 and entered into force in 1976, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[1] currently stands for one of the main human rights treaties adopted by the United Nations, being so far ratified/accepted by 173 States parties.
Economic, social and cultural rights are central to everyone ‘s day to day lives as these rights relate to food, water, housing, standard of living, health, education, employment or culture, to name just a few examples. Protection and fulfilment of these rights are not only conducive to the enhancement of the lived experience of everyone but also need to be seen as entitlements of individuals to enjoy “a life with dignity” and this stands at the core of the values that are enshrined in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights[2]. Or, as pointed out by the Human Rights Committee[3] in its recent general comment on the right to life[4], “a contemporary understanding of the right to life must engage with the myriad social, economic and environmental threats to life experienced by millions of people across the globe” and “States parties should take appropriate measures to address the general conditions in society that may give rise to direct threats to life or prevent individuals from enjoying their right to life with dignity”. This approach implies that the right to life has economic and social dimensions – which are also relevant from the perspective of economic, social and cultural rights – and that the implications for the right to life of environmental degradation and climate change as well as of unsustainable development are nowadays undeniable.
The implementation of the ICESCR[5] is monitored by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights[6], which was established as a subsidiary body of the ECOSOC in 1985 following the adoption of ECOSOC Decision 1985/17 of 28th of May 1985. Thus, as of 1985, the Committee is composed out of 18 independent experts, elected by the ECOSOC, following, among others, the criteria of the equitable geographical distribution. The experts act in their personal capacity, work by consensus and their main task is to monitor the implementation of the Covenant by the States parties through the reporting procedure referred to in art. 16 of the Covenant.
The Covenant makes no reference to environment or to a right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment, nor to sustainable development as such. Nevertheless, the relationship between human rights and international environmental law was present, in the last decades, in the work of human rights treaty bodies, including CESCR with the argument that many of the economic, social and cultural rights enshrined in the ICESCR also involve an environmental component. This human rights-based approach to the environment became critical to address due to the multiple and interconnected environmental crisis and of the imperative to act with a view to preserve the ESC rights not only for the present but also for the future generations. Moreover, there were also attempts to look at ESC rights from an international environmental law perspective[7].
Following the principles that were enshrined in the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action[8], in 1993, on the universality, indivisibility inter-dependence and inter-relatedness of all human rights, the ICESCR become one of the two pillars of international human rights law. This approach also led to an emphasis on the justiciability of ESCR rights and to the adoption, in 2010, of an Optional Protocol to the ICESCR[9]. The Protocol has 31 States parties, has entered into force in 2013 and enables the CESCR to consider individual communications (article 1-9), inter-state communication (article 10) and also use the inquiry procedure (article 11). The latter two possibilities being provided for following the separate acceptance of articles 10 and 11 of the OP-ICESCR.
While exercising its monitoring functions under art. 16-18 of the Covenant, the Committee adopts concluding observations[10]. From the procedural point of view the adoption of COBs follows several steps. Thus, the monitoring starts with the submission of a written report by the State party, followed by the adoption of a list of issues[11], the State party replies to the LOIs and, finally, a constructive dialogue held, in person, in Geneva.
Apart from its monitoring function the CESCR also adopts statements – on problems/issues of general interest – and general comments[12]. The general comments are adopted as a result of the substantive work undertaken the Committee on matters that are relevant for the implementation of the Covenant and serve as interpretative tools/instruments that provide guidance to States parties with respect to their obligations under the ICESCR.
General Comment no. 27 (2025) on ESC rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development[13] it is the last GC adopted by the CESCR. The GC was adopted in September 2025 after a consistent work that has lasted almost 6 years. The process of adoption was widely consultative, with CESCR holding a series of regional, thematic and group focused consultations (including regional consultations with children). Within CESCR, several substantive and conceptual debates have influenced both the general orientation of the document, as well as its final language. As indicated in the title, the general comment focuses on the ESC rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development while at the same time acknowledging the link and interdependence between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development.
The general comment highlights the adverse impacts of environmental degradation on economic, social and cultural rights and clarifies the obligations of State parties to the ICESCR (the Covenant), with respect to the environmental dimension of sustainable development. It seeks to provide guidance to states with regard to the fulfilment of their obligations under the Covenant, in light of the current realities related to climate change and environmental degradation, namely in a manner that respects ecological limits and the finite character of natural resources (para. 4 of GC no. 27). At the same time, the GC is also following a more general trend with regard to the work of international organizations and/or bodies[14], namely that of clarifying states international obligations in the context of environmental degradation and climate change.
While making a short overview of the document, the present paper aims at looking at it with a critical eye with a view to responding to two main questions, namely: 1. How did CESCR approached economic growth, sustainable development, environment and the progressive realization of ESC rights before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025) ? and 2. Is GC 27 (2025) proposing a different approach, including a new economic model? And, if yes, what would this new approach entail.
Consequently, the paper is proposing an short overview of CESCR’s approach to economic growth, sustainable development, environment and the progressive realization of ESC rights, before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025) (Section I), followed by a short presentation and evaluation of CG no. 27 (2025), including with regard to CESCR’s stance on a new economic model that would be able to reconcile the realization of ESC rights with planet ’s ecological limits (Section II). This paper will conclude, with identification of main takeaways and future perspectives on the topic.
1. CESCR ’s approach to economic growth, sustainable development, environment and the progressive realization of ESC rights, before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025)
Although ICESCR is not an economic, nor an environmental treaty but a human rights treaty, it is nevertheless connected with economics, sustainable development and environment, through the cross-cutting provision enshrined in article 2 (1)[15], in particular. Thus, the maximum available resources that a state is expected to mobilize, under the Covenant, with a view to achieve progressively the realization of ESC rights, are undoubtedly directly connected with economics. Thus, the existence, availability, allocation and use of these resources are linked with the economic resources and the fiscal policies of a state and by way of their concrete amount and use are able to influence the fulfilment of the international obligations of that state under the ICESCR.
As regards the environment, while the existence and availability of some natural resources is clearly linked with the maximum available resources provision, namely, article 2 (1), at the same time the realization of some of the rights enshrined in the Covenant, like for example, the right to an adequate standard of living (article 11 of the Covenant), could also be influenced by environmental aspects and would request the adoption, by the state concerned, of adaptation measures. In this regard, in the last 10 years, in its LOIs and COBs, CESCR has raised/addressed climate change mitigation issues under article 2 (1) while climate change adaptation measures were generally raised/addressed under article 11 of the Covenant.
a. Economic growth and sustainable development are also not mentioned in the treaty itself but, indirectly, these concepts are, again, connected with the provisions of article 2 of the Covenant on international cooperation and progressive realization of rights, as well as with the minimum core obligations.
Needless to mention that, the links of the ICESCR with economics were also not easy to manage in the post WWII ideological debate regarding the different economic systems embraced by States parties or with respect to their views on the different legal nature of CP and ESC rights, respectively. Moreover, the issue of sustainable development and its connection to human rights, has also raised the question of whether human rights, in general, are means or ends of sustainable development, or both. In the view of CESCR one of the two principles that are relevant with respect to development cooperation activities is that “development cooperation activities do not automatically contribute to the promotion of respect for economic, social and cultural rights”[16].
As shown in its thematic work, CESCR has navigated, sometimes skillfully, these ideological controversies with a view to fulfil its mandate, namely that of monitoring with a view to protect ESC rights.
Thus, in 1990, in its GC no. 3 (1990) – The nature of State parties ‘obligations (art. 2 para.1)[17], CESCR has explicitly affirmed ICESCR ‘s neutrality vis-à-vis any economic and political system and noted the relevance of other human rights and of the right to development: “The Committee notes that ‘the undertaking to take steps (…) by all appropriate means including particularly the adoption of legislative measures’ neither requires nor precludes any particular form of government or economic system being used as the vehicle for the steps in question (…). Thus, in terms of political and economic systems the Covenant is neutral and its principles cannot accurately be described as being predicated exclusively upon the need for, or the desirability of a socialist or a capitalist system, or a mixed, centrally planned, or laissez-faire economy, or upon any other particular approach. In this regard, the Committee reaffirms that the rights recognized in the Covenant are susceptible of realization within the context of a wide variety of economic and political systems, provided that the interdependence and indivisibility of the two sets of human rights, as affirmed inter alia in the preamble to the Covenant, is recognized and reflected in the system in question. The committee notes the relevance in this regard of other human rights as well as the right to development”.
Nevertheless, this statement of neutrality was often interpreted as being a self-restraint approach and of being, in fact, an indirect validation of unlimited economic growth as an ipso facto element for the realization of ESC rights, as well as of the GDP as being the exclusive indicator of evaluating this growth.
The above-mentioned evaluation is confirmed by the approach taken by the CESCR with respect to sustainable development and economic growth in some of its general comments and statements adopted between 2000 and 2009. This approach was also reflected in the practice of the Committee.
One of the earliest references of CESCR to sustainable development is the Statement to the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization in 2000[18]. In this statement, the CESCR recognizes the advantages of the international trading system envisioned in the Preamble of the Marrakesh Agreement, noting its objectives of “higher standards of living, steady growth of real income, full employment and economic growth patterns compatible with sustainable development”.
In 2002, in its Statement to the Commission on Sustainable Development – relationship between sustainable development and human rights[19] CESCR has stated that: “international commitments to human rights and on sustainable development should be considered in the light of their important points of convergence, and of the legally binding nature of human rights obligations”. Thus, the Committee has recognized, in general terms, the important relationship between sustainable development and human rights and stated that any sustainable development related obligations must be understood from the perspective of binding human rights treaties. Following the same line, CESCR has stressed the need to place human rights at the center of efforts to achieve sustainable development and that the core of sustainable development is the realization of human rights.
With respect to the link between sustainable development and the environmental issues, in the same statement, the CESCR noted that “a failure to prevent human rights and environmental harm by extractive industries affects sustainable development and also constitutes a breach of treaty obligations under the Covenant” (para. 3).
Moreover, in 2005, in the GC no. 18 (2005) on the right to work (art. 6 of the ICESCR)[20], CESCR connected economic growth with ESC rights’ realization. In this context, by referencing the ILO Convention no. 122 concerning the Employment Policy (1964), CESCR has explicitly affirmed that the aim of States parties’ employment policy should be economic growth and development and that economic growth is linked with the obligation to progressively realize (to fulfil) the right to work: “(…) This obligation include inter alia the obligation to recognize the right to work in national legal systems and adopt a national policy on the right to work as well as a detailed plan for its realization. The right to work requires formulation and implementation by States parties of an employment policy with a view to stimulating economic growth and development, raising levels of living, meeting manpower requirements and overcoming unemployment and underemployment”.
In 2009, CESCR has departed, slightly, from this vision, when it adopted the GC no. 20 (2009) on Non-discrimination in economic, social and cultural rights (art. 2 para. 2 of the ICESCR)[21]and later, in 2012, confirmed this shift in its Statement in the context of the Rio+20 Conference on “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” (2012)[22].
Thus, in its GC no. 20 (2009) CESCR states that: “Economic growth has not, in itself, led to sustainable development and individuals and groups of individuals continue to face socio-economic inequality often because of entrenched historical and contemporary forms of discrimination” (para. 1). Moreover, “(…) Economic policies, such as budgetary allocations and measures to stimulate economic growth, should pay attention to the need to guarantee the effective enjoyment of the Covenant rights, without discrimination” (para. 38).
Consequently, the main takeaways from this document are that sustainable development is more than economic growth, it must include equality and non-discrimination and that non-discrimination is an immediate and cross-cutting obligation in the Covenant (para. 7).
At the same time, with the Statement of CESCR in the context of the Rio+20 Conference on “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” the CESCR has come very close to a definition of sustainable development: “(…) In this regard, while recognizing the concept of green economy as highlighted in the zero draft, the Committee emphasizes the need to integrate the green economy into the broader concept of sustainable development which encompasses social development, together with economic growth and environmental protection, and thus has close linkages with economic, social and cultural rights” (para. 3); “many of the provisions of the ICESCR link with the environment and sustainable development, and the Committee in its dialogue with States Parties, has regularly stressed the interlinkages of specific economic, social and cultural rights, as well as the right to development, with the sustainability of environmental protection and development efforts” (para. 5).
The elements of the definition of sustainable development provided by CESCR are in line with the widely recognized definition of sustainable development as enshrined in documents such as the Brundtland Report (1987)[23], the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (1992)[24], the Copenhagen Declaration on Social Development (1995)[25] and the Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2015)[26].
The main takeaways from this document would be that, in this statement, CESCR conceptually emphasis the inclusion of green economy within the concept of sustainable development, the affirmation that sustainable development encompasses social development, economic growth and environmental protection and, the fact that, while noting that: “sustainable development encompasses social development, economic growth and environmental protection and thus has close linkages with economic, social and cultural rights” (para. 3), CESCR calls upon the participants of that conference to ensure that: “the new concept of green economy (which does not specifically incorporate social development) is intrinsically linked with the comprehensive concept of sustainable development” (para. 8).
In 2016, in the context of the 50th anniversary of the ICCPR and ICESCR, in the Joint Statement the International Covenants on Human Rights: 50 Years On[27], adopted by the Human Rights Committee and the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, both human rights treaty bodies stressed the importance of the two covenants for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals and the implementation of the 2030 Agenda (para. 8 of the Statement).
In 2019, CESCR started to pave its way, to what later would become GC no. 27 (2025), with the adoption of the Statement on the Pledge to leave no one behind: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development (2019)[28]. In this statement, the Committee has emphasized the importance of ensuring that rights are fulfilled through methods that are sustainable so as to ensure that the rights are secured for both present and future generations (para. 12, e). Moreover, in the view of the Committee “the Covenant is also ideally suited for the implementation of Sustainable Development Goal 16, which is to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide that access to justice for all and built effective, accountable and inclusive institutions for at all levels.
With regard to its practice (both COBs and LOIs), the issue of economic growth and sustainable development, CESCR’ approach was not systematic.
Thus, sometimes CESCR favoured the approach of unlimited economic growth (measured by reference to GDP/economic indicators only) as indispensable for the realization of ESC rights in relation with States from the Global North, while with respect to states from Global South and some less influent states from Global North it stated that economic growth is important ipso facto but it did not link it with the progressive realization of ESC rights.
In other cases, such as that of the COBs with regard to Solomon Islands (1999) CESCR has recommended “sustainable economic growth”, in the COBs on Republic of Moldova (2017) CESCR recommend the “promotion of sustainable consumption and production patters (para. 69)” and with respect to Angola (2016) the recommendation was “to create a sustainable economy resilient to shocks”.
Another interesting aspect is mentioned in the COBs of France (2016) in which CESCR has expressed concern that “due diligence requirements related to sustainable development do not provide full protection to ESC rights” (para. 7). Or the one of Tunisia (1999) where the CESCR has addressed the social component of development and commanded the State party for its success in the promotion of sustainable human development: “as evidenced by the reduction in the number of persons living below the national poverty line, the increase in life expectancy, the decrease in illiteracy and the decrease in infant mortality, as indicated by the overall human development index” (para. 5).
To sum up, before the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025), CESCRs usage, in practice, of the terms “sustainable” and “sustainability” was not necessarily connected with sustainable development concept but more with the idea that the ESC rights need to be realized for both present and future generations, namely by having in mind the human rights principle of sustainability[29] as well as its relationship with the principle of non-discrimination, non-retrogression and progressive realization[30].
Nevertheless, in the thematic work, the CESCR understanding of sustainable development, included the following aspects: 1. sustainable development is a concept that may impose limitations on standards of living, growth of real income, full employment and economic growth; 2. commitments related to sustainable development can, and should, be framed as human rights obligations where they overlap with human rights; 3. human rights, including the principles of equality and non-discrimination are at the core of sustainable development; 4. sustainable development encompasses social development, economic growth and environmental protection, and the notion of green economy; 5. sustainable development has important links to ESC rights and the right to development; 6. sustainable development necessitates good governance and sound institutions (indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights); 7. international cooperation under article 2(1) needs to be interpreted to include cooperation required for sustainable development.
b. As regards the climate change and environmental issues, apart from some references included in the documents that were already mentioned above, there are less references to these topics in CESCR ‘s general comments and statements.
One of the most explicit GC with respect to the right to a healthy environment is GC no. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health (article 12 of the ICESCR)[31]: “The right to health embraces a wide range of socio-economic factors that promote conditions in which people can lead a healthy life, and extend to the underlying determinants of health, such as food and nutrition, housing, access to safe and potable water and adequate sanitation, safe and healthy working conditions, and a healthy environment”. Moreover, article 12.2 (b) the right to healthy natural and workplace environments comprises, inter alia, “the prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to harmful substances such as radiation and harmful chemicals or other detrimental environmental conditions that directly or indirectly impact upon human health”.
This GC identifies States Parties specific legal obligations with respect to the right to health and environment, namely: the obligation of states to refrain from unlawfully polluting the air, water and soil e.g. through industrial waste from State owned facilities, from using or testing nuclear, biological or chemical weapons if such testing results in the release of substances harmful to human health (negative obligation to respect); the obligation of states to adopt measures against environmental and occupational hazards and against any other threat as demonstrated by epidemiological data and the obligation of states to formulate and implement national policies aimed at reducing and eliminating pollution of air, water and soil, including pollution by heavy metals such as lead from gasoline (obligations to fulfil/facilitate).
In light of the above, the following actions would be considered as violations of the right to health: the suspension of legislation or the adoption of laws and policies that interfere with the enjoyment of any of the components of the right to health (violation of the obligation to respect); the failure of the state to enact or enforce laws to prevent pollution of water, air and soil by the extractive and manufacturing industries (violation of the obligation to protect).
In GC no. 15 (2002) the right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR)[32], the Committee has stated, with regard to the right to water, the principle of intergenerational equity, one of the most important principles of environmental protection: “Water should be treated as a social and cultural good, and not primarily as an economic good. The manner of the realization of the right to water must also be sustainable, ensuring that the right can be realized for present and future generations”.
Moreover, “States parties should adopt comprehensive and integrated strategies and programmes to ensure that there is sufficient water for present and future generations. Such strategies and programmes may include: a. reducing depletion of water resources through unsustainable extraction, diversion and damming; b. reducing and eliminating contamination of watersheds and water-related ecosystems by substances such as radiation, harmful chemicals and human excreta; c. monitoring water reserves; d. ensuring that proposed developments do not interfere with access to adequate water; e. assessing the impacts of actions that may impinge upon water availability and natural eco-systems watersheds, such as climate changes, desertification and increased soil salinity, deforestation and loss of biodiversity” (para. 27).
With regard to the violations of the right to water in the context of environment, para. 44, a (iii), identifies as a violation of the obligation to respect, pollution and diminution of water resources affecting human health, while para. 44, b (i) identifies as a violation of the obligation to protect the right to water, the failure to enact or enforce laws to prevent the contamination and inequitable extraction of water.
In GC no. 12 (1999) the right to adequate food (article 11 of the ICESCR)[33] the Committee acknowledged that the right to adequate food requires appropriate economic, environmental and social policies, at both national and international level, and that the core content of the right to adequate food implies: “the availability of food in quantity and quality sufficient to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and acceptable within a given culture” and “the accessibility of such food in ways that are sustainable and that do not interfere with the enjoyment of other human rights”.
In the Statement in the context of the Rio+20 Conference on “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” (2012) CESCR has emphasise, inter alia, the obligation of States parties to avoid adverse environmental effects on the right to food of its population (art. 11, para. 1 a), and, in particular, the need to fully assess the impacts of newly developed green technologies in the area of energy and in relation to access to food and water; it emphasises the adverse implications for the right to food of cases of land grabbing and overexploitation of fisheries which not only have detrimental effects on environmental sustainability but also gravely affect the livelihood of present and future generations; the need to conserve the natural habitat and the sustainable use of natural resources as elements of the enjoyment of the right to health (art. 12) and, in particular, access to safe and potable water and the prevention of water degradation and pollution that affect the right to health (para. 6).
Another reference to environment is the one on the determinants of the right to health, in para. 6, namely: “the need to conserve the natural habitat and sustainable use of natural resources as elements of the enjoyment of the right to health (article 12) and, in particular, access to safe and potable water and the prevention of water degradation and pollution that affects the right to health”.
In 2018, the Statement on Climate change and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural[34],the CESCR stated that: “the impacts of climate change on a range of rights guaranteed under the ICESCR have been amply documented” and that “complying with human rights obligations in the context of climate change is a duty of both State and non-State actors. This requires (…) fulfilling human rights by adopting policies that can channel models of production and consumption towards a more environmentally sustainable pathway”. Consequently, “a failure to prevent foreseeable harm to human rights caused by climate change or a failure to mobilize the maximum available resources in the efforts to do so, could constitute a breach of this obligation” (para. 6).
Moreover, “under the Covenant States parties are required to respect, protect and fulfil all human rights and for all”, “they owe such duties not only to their own populations, but also to populations outside their territory” (para. 5).
Consequently, “the Committee will continue to review the impacts of climate change on economic, social and cultural rights and provide guidance to states on how they can discharge their duties under the Covenant in the mitigation of climate change and adaptation to its unavoidable effects”.
In 2020, in the GC no. 25 (2020) on the right to science[35] although there is only one reference to climate change, the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific knowledge and of its applications is, nevertheless, relevant to climate change and to measures taken to address it. Thus, by establishing that States parties have a core obligation to “adopt mechanisms aimed at aligning government policies and programs to the best available, generally accepted scientific evidence” and to “promote accurate scientific information and refrain from disinformation, disparagement or deliberately misinforming of the public, so as to erode citizen understanding and respect for science and scientific research” this GC makes an important contribution also in the area of scientifically proven data related to climate change and measures to mitigate and adapt to it. Moreover, the same GC also stressed the need to “ensure that people have access to basic education and skills necessary for the comprehension and application of scientific knowledge” and to “promote accurate scientific information” including on climate change.
In the history of the CESCR reporting procedure, the first COBs that made reference to climate change obligations date back to 2008. At that time CESCR has recommended to Ukraine “to adopt legislation on climate protection giving effect to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”. Ever since, the climate change topic was present in the work of the Committee and the COBs adopted reflect this stance. CESCR recommendations started to be focused on four main areas related to climate change, namely: mitigation, adaptation, procedural rights and international cooperation.
Consequently, environment-related concerns have started to emerge in CESCR’s practice and, in terms of substance, referred to: pollution, harm from extractive industries, diminished environmental protection, lack of environmental and human rights impact assessments[36], consultation with indigenous people[37], mobilisation of resources through increased fees for foreign investors exploiting natural resources[38], investigations of threats, violence and harassment against environmental human rights defenders[39].
On State parties mitigation policies, which were addressed by CESCR in a significantly greater proportion than the others, this resulted in recommendations such as: to set national climate change targets with time bound benchmarks (Russian Federation, 2017); to increase efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (Germany, 2018; Swiss Confederation, 2019); to take measures to reverse the current trend of increasing absolute emissions of greenhouse gases and pursue alternatively renewable energy (Australia, 2017); to ensure compliance with commitments made under the Paris Agreement in relation with the exploitation of fossil fuels (Argentina, 2018).
On adaptation to climate change, CESCR has produced recommendations such as: to address the impact of climate change on indigenous people more effectively while fully engaging indigenous people in related policy and program (Canada, 2016); to reduce the vulnerability of communities by increasing their preparedness and fostering prevention measures (Mauritius, 2019).
On procedural rights, the focus was on the participation of civil society in climate policy making. Thus, the CESCR adopted recommendations such as: to put in place effective mechanisms to ensure meaningful participation of Maori in all decision-making processes affecting their rights and ensure that its climate change policies are developed and implemented through their effective participation (New Zeeland, 2018); to ensure that the national and regional strategies and action plans on climate change and disaster response and risk reduction are formulated with the meaningful participation of affected communities and civil society (Bangladesh, 2018).
As regards the COBs on international cooperation, all of them are linked with the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992, and vary accordingly, following the principle of shared by differentiated responsibilities. Thus, in the recommendations addressed to developing states CESCR advised these countries to seek international support and assistance in order to mobilize the financial and technological support, while in those addressed to developed states the focus was on reminding them of their international responsibilities to provide climate change finance to the Green Climate Fund, over and above the current ODA.
In the last 8 years, climate change and environmental issues are addressed in a more systematic way – under article 2 (1), where the Committee raise issues related to climate change mitigation and, under art. 11 – the right to an adequate standard of living – in which context the Committee is raising issues related to climate change adaptation. Moreover, the LOIs include explicit standard questions[40] on these two aspects of climate change and states commitments under the Kyoto Protocol (1997) and the Paris Agreement (2015) serve as interpretative benchmarks.
2. Is GC 27 (2025) proposing a different approach, including a new economic model?
In September 2025, CESCR has adopted, after an almost 6 years process, its GC no. 27 (2025) on ESC rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development. The aim of this section is to briefly present this document and to evaluate whether what the CESCR is proposing is a different approach to economic growth, sustainable development and environmental issues. The section is also meant to reply, in case of a positive answer to the first question, whether this approach is compatible, or not, with any of the already existing economic models? And alternatively, is there is need for a new economic model to be imagined, in order for the provisions of this document to be implemented, and, if this is the case, how this model will look like?
The structure of the GC 27 (2025) is complex but accessible as the document sets clear from the very beginning the context, the scope and methods of interpretation (Sections I and II), followed by one general section on the obligations of States parties under the ICESCR in the context of environmental degradation, namely: general obligations/to respect, protect and fulfil, progressive realization, maximum available resources; core obligations; international obligations/extraterritorial obligations, international assistance and cooperation; obligation of equality and non-discrimination, equal rights of men and women (Section III), then the document makes an analysis of the States parties obligations in relation to specific rights (Section IV). The last part of the document deals with individuals and groups in a particularly vulnerable situation (Section V) as well as with remedies and accountability (Section VI).
There are several key messages that one can identify by reading the provisions of the document namely that: 1. a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is both an essential precondition for the enjoyment of ESC rights, because nature is indispensable for human existence and well-being, as well as an autonomous human right; 2. the interconnected environmental challenges of our time increase the risk of reaching irreversible biophysical tipping points that threatens fundamental ecological systems and processes that sustain life; 3. the planetary environmental threats are driven by unsustainable level of production and consumption shaped by enduring relations of domination over both nature and people, deeply rooted in colonial era resource extraction; 4. at the current rate of resource exploitation, pollution and environmental destruction without regard for the earth environmental limits it is impossible to equally realize ESC rights for all; 5. there are multiple interlinkages between the economic, social and environmental dimensions of sustainable development and for this purpose State parties need guidance on how they should discharge their obligations to respect, protect and fulfil ESC rights, while at the same time respecting the ecological limits and the finite character of natural resources.
With regard to the principles of interpretation, although the ICESCR makes no reference to environment or environment protection, nor to sustainable development, the right to a clean and healthy environment is implicit in the provisions of the Covenant and, as already acknowledged, sustainable development requires a balanced and integrated approach across its economic, social and environmental dimensions. Thus, the ICESCR is a living document that need to be interpreted in the light of the current realities with a view to ensure respect for the principle of effectiveness of human rights.
Moreover, protecting the environment is indispensable for the realization of ESC rights of present and future generations. Thus, ensuring the progressive realization of ESC rights requires an intergenerational perspective with a view not to compromise the rights of the future generations.
Moreover, when clarifying the obligations of States Parties, international environmental law must be taken into account in accordance with art. 31 (3) c of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. The framework offered by the ICESCR should be further informed and interpretation guided by: the right to clean, healthy and sustainable environment, the right to development, intergenerational equity, common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities and precaution (para. 9 of GC no. 27(2025)). Moreover, the full realization of ESC rights demands a just transition towards sustainable economy that centres human rights and the wellbeing of the planet.
The above-mentioned principles would also influence the way in which the obligations of States Parties under the ICESCR, with respect to the fulfilment of ESC rights. Thus, the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil, the progressive realization, the maximum available resources, the core obligations, the extraterritorial obligations, international assistance and cooperation, the obligation of equality and non-discrimination, the equal rights of men and women and the obligations to respect, protect and fulfil ESC rights would need to be read in a different key of interpretation and that would correspond, basically, to questions such as: is development exclusively about unlimited growth? And, more importantly, is infinite growth on a finite planet possible?
In the view of CESCR, in the current context, respecting, protecting and fulfilling the Covenant rights requires addressing the root causes of the interconnected crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution. These are driven by unsustainable patterns of consumption and production and an economic model based on unlimited growth.
Consequently, a transition to an economy that centres on human rights and well-being of the planet is imperative with a view to ensure the equal enjoyment of human rights within the Earth’ s ecological limits (para. 15).
State parties are bound to implement both mitigation and adaptation measures to protect the Covenant rights from the effects of climate change and to provide reparation for the adverse impacts of climate change. These measures must reflect the highest possible ambition to meet the global temperature goal, aiming to avoid the worst climate-related harms and uphold human rights and sustainable development (para. 16 and 17).
Traditionally, CESCR is addressing mitigation policies under article 2 (1), while adaptation measures are discussed under article 11 on the right to an adequate standard of living. Thus, in the introductory part of the GC, the Committee has only indicated some examples of possible mitigation measures, while in Section IV – Obligations of States parties with respect to specific rights, when article 11 is discussed, CESCR has clarified States parties ‘obligations with respect to climate change adaptation and has indicated some examples of climate change adaptation measures that could be envisaged.
In the view of the Committee, to mitigate climate change, States parties must take all available measures based on the best scientific evidence, to reduce greenhouse emissions in line with the goal of limiting global warming to the Paris Agreement temperature goal; they should phase down the expansion of fossil fuels infrastructure, phase out inefficient fossil fuels subsidies that do not address energy poverty of just transitions; they should promote renewable energy; they should phase down unabated coal power; and they should transition away from fossil fuels in energy systems. Developed states should take the lead in mitigation efforts and provide financial and technological assistance to developing states to enable them to meet these requirements.
With respect to adaptation measures, the main principle is that, although the right to an adequate standard of living requires States parties to ensure that everyone have access to the goods and services necessary for an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, water, sanitation, clothing, housing, electricity, transport and communications, the reference in article 11 of the Covenant to the “continuous improvement of living conditions” must be understood in light of the planet’s environmental limits. States parties should promote transitions in areas such as food, water, housing, transport systems to ensure sustainability and resilience to environmental change. Thus, States parties must promote a transformation of food systems consistent with human rights obligations, ensuring the long-term viability of production and distribution; States parties are required to develop and reform the agrarian systems in “such a way as to achieve the most efficient development and utilization of natural resources” and efficiency must be understood to include long-term preservation of natural resources for the present and future generations; current agricultural policies and subsidies that support unsustainable use of land and deplete natural resources must be transformed to enable food systems that ensure an adequate standard of living for present and future generations; States parties should adopt strategies to ensure the right to water for present and future generations; States parties must take measures to ensure that housing is resilient to climate impacts, including insulation, efficient heating and cooling but at the same time these measures should not undermine the right to adequate housing especially for residents of informal settlements and persons in disadvantaged or marginalized situations, by increasing housing costs, energy poverty or homelessness, or reinforcing pre-existing inequalities etc.
As regards, progressive realization (article 2 (1)) this entails the prohibition of retrogression but, at the same time, the full realization of the Covenant rights must occur within the planet ’s ecological limits. Consequently, measures taken by states with a view to addressing excessive levels of consumption and production should not be considered retrogressive but retrogression would be present, and impermissible, when a State party takes measures with the aim of weakening environmental regulations; when is sustaining or promoting consumption patterns that cause significant environmental harm, thereby undermining the equitable realization of rights over time; when is reducing access to water and sanitation; as well as when it fails to consider the long-time impacts of environmental degradation such as climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution on future generations.
The maximum available resources (article 2 (1)) would also need to be read in a different way and the international obligations of States parties adjusted accordingly.
Firstly, States parties must mobilize and allocate the maximum available resources for the progressive realization of the Covenant rights in a manner compatible with the ecological limits and the objectives of sustainable development.
Secondly, States parties should enhance resource availability though: combating tax evasion, tax avoidance and corruption, strengthening progressive tax systems, while avoiding undue burdens on disadvantaged individuals and groups; fiscal policies should be sustainable, support a just transition to low-carb economies and protect low-income households from increased costs during this transition and address economic and structural inequalities including with respect to access to land, natural resources and scientific research.
Thirdly, with respect to the natural resources CESCR has adopted the ecosystem approach, namely the obligation to manage in a sustainable way the resources, for present and future generations, including through incentives for sustainable practices and investment in climate adaptation.
The GC also identifies the core obligations of States parties in the context of environmental degradation and the transition to sustainable economies. Thus, states have a core obligation to ensure, at the minimum, essential levels of each right recognized in the Covenant including in situations of conflict, emergency and natural disasters. This includes: access to essential healthcare, basic shelter and housing, safe and sufficient water and sanitation, adequate and safe food, and education that meets the minimum standards; moreover, access to essential public services and basic income security, occupational safety etc.
In light of the Committees assessment, States partes have a core obligation to safeguard environmental conditions necessary for realizing essential levels of Covenant rights in the short, medium and long term. This includes: protecting sources of water for domestic use, reducing pollutants and preserving critical ecosystems such as forests and wetlands; to prevent and, where not possible, to mitigate environmental harm that threatens the realization of the essential levels of the Covenant rights.
The above-mentioned obligations also extend beyond the borders of the state concerned, thus the GC also makes reference to the existence of extraterritorial obligations and ground them in the customary international law rule, namely the obligation to prevent significant environmental harm to other States[41]. States parties also have an extraterritorial obligation to prevent the activities of business enterprises under their jurisdiction from causing environmental harm that affects the enjoyment of Covenant rights in other countries and to this end, States parties are expected to adopt appropriate regulatory and policy measures to ensure that business entities domiciled in their territory or under their jurisdiction respect human rights, including by conducting human rights and environmental due diligence throughout their operations and value chain.
In the last part of Section III, CESCR addresses the issue of international assistance and cooperation. Thus, with a view to protect ESC rights, States parties must take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation to mitigate and adapt to climate change, and to address biodiversity loss and environmental degradation in line with the objectives of sustainable development. The main principles here are that States parties should consider historical contribution to environmental degradation, different capabilities, and the specific needs of the developing countries and that just transition must reduce, not reinforce, inequalities within and between countries.
In light of the environmental dimension of sustainable development, the obligation of equality and non-discrimination (article 2 (2) requires States to address structural and systemic discrimination and inequality. Moreover, States must take into account the rights of the future generations to equal enjoyment of all human rights, and refrain from acts and omissions likely to result in or perpetuate discrimination against them.
Finally, on the equal rights of men and women (art. 3) the CESCR departs from the idea that environmental crises exacerbate existing gender inequalities particularly in access to land, natural resources, essential services, including healthcare, food, water, sanitation and waste management, consequently, in addressing environmental crises and fulfilling their obligation to ensure substantive equality, States parties must guarantee women’s access to, control over, and secure tenure of land and other means necessary for food security and livelihoods; to reduce and redistribute unpaid care and support work by ensuring accessible, rights-based care and support systems and to integrate a gender-responsive ad whole-of-government approach into all sustainable development policies, especially those related to disaster use.
Section IV of the CG discusses the obligations of States parties with relation to specific rights and focuses on the right to self-determination (article 1); the right to just and favourable conditions of work (article 7); the right to form and join trade unions (article 8); the right to social security (article 9); the right to an adequate standard of living (article 11); the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health (article 12), the right to education (articles 13 and 14) and the right to take part in cultural life and to enjoy the benefits of scientific knowledge and its applications (article 15).
Section V addresses the issue of individuals and groups in a particularly vulnerable situation namely: children, indigenous peoples, peasants, pastoralists, fishers, and other people living in rural areas, persons displaced in the context of climate change.
Finally, in Section VI the Committee addresses the issue of remedies and accountability.
The key takeaways from this document would thus be that: a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a precondition for the equal realization of ESC rights but also autonomous human right; we can no longer continue business as usual because we are in danger of not having the material support for our actions, the planet; environmental law principles are important for the current interpretation of the international human rights law, in light of the living document and effectiveness principles; allocating the maximum available resources does not mean that these resources are unlimited but there are ecological limits which correspond to the planetary boundaries; with regard to natural resources – ecosystem approach – resources must be managed sustainably for present and future generations; the full realization of the Covenant rights must occur within the planet ’s ecological limits; measures addressing excessive levels of consumption and production should not be considered retrogressive and efficiency must be understood to include sustainability.
However, the question that still remains is whether any of the already existing economic models are equipped to sustain and implement this vision? Or, is there a need to think in terms of a new economic model? And, if yes, what that model would entail?
After reading GC no. 27 (2025), one could question CESCR’s stance on neutrality with respect to existing economic models, because the theoretical model that seems to be endorsed by this GC share close ties with the very interesting proposal that comes from the British professor and economist Kate Raworth[42].
In her book Doughnut Economics, professor Raworth puts forward a new economic model as a response to one of the most complex existing questions, namely: how could the needs of human beings and societies continue to be satisfied, within the existing planetary resources?
Thus, the model that professor Raworth envisages has the shape of an American doughnut, where the doughnut itself is a safe and equitable space for the sustainable development of humanity, because it takes into account an economic development that is in line with the environmental protection and social equity; the empty hole, inside the doughnut is the space where the complex needs of human beings (civil, political, economic, social and cultural) are not satisfied; while the exterior of the doughnut would mean the satisfaction of these complex human being needs above what it is possible within the current planetary boundaries.
Consequently, the economic model envisaged by professor Raworth states that, with a view to preserve our planet, human societies should move away from the unlimited and exclusive economic growth towards a more comprehensive approach which places at the basis of sustainable development not only economic growth but also the equitable human development in harmony with environmental protection. The book sets out an optimistic vison of humanity’s common future: a global economy that creates a thriving balance thanks to its distributive and regenerative design. Along the same lines, one could also mention the human rights economy approach[43]. However, it remains to be seen, how such models could be translated into practice and how they would be able to function and produce the expected results in the already existent world and its complex challenges. Moreover, another aspect that remains to be assessed in the future is how CESCR would be able to test this approach in practice and convince States parties of its advantages.
Conclusions
To conclude, through the adoption of GC no. 27 (2025) the CESCR is proposing a new interpretation of the general cross-cutting obligation to use its maximum available resources with a view to progressively realize the rights enshrined in the ICESCR. This approach represents the materialization of the fact that human rights treaties are living instruments that need to be interpreted in light of the existing realities with a view to render effective the protection of the respective rights. Thus, the existence, today, of different world settings and conditions that the ones existing in 1966, would require an adaptation of the interpretation of States parties ‘obligations with a view to respond to existing challenges, including the ones related with the multiple planetary environmental crisis[44]. Realizing the Covenant rights in the context of the planetary environmental crisis requires a renewed interpretation of State’s obligations, including the general ones in article 2 (1) of the Covenant. Moreover, approaching the environmental limits of our planet also influences the policy, options and measures required to implement all ESC rights. However, the theoretical framework that has been propose would need to be tested in practice – with 173 heterogeneous States parties – and the time would it say whether this GC was able to make a difference/a change or it remained just one, among others, sterile intellectual exercise.
With respect to the doughnut economics model, although this model has received some criticism with regard to its pragmatism and the lack of practical implementation tools, some of the positive examples of its application, at the local level[45], could be valuable and deserve careful evaluation in the future.
* Associate Professor, PhD, Lucian Blaga University of Sibiu, Romania, Faculty of Law. Member of the UN CESCR (2017-present), Former Chair (2023-2025) and Vice-Chair (2019-2021) of the same body; Independent expert elected in respect of Romania to the Council of Europe Advisory Committee of the Framework-Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (2016-2020 and 2022-2026). Email: laura.craciunean@gmail.com. The opinions expressed in this paper are solely the author’s and do not engage any of the institutions she belongs to.
[1] Further referred to as ICESCR.
[2] Further referred to as UDHR.
[3] Further abbreviated as CCPR.
[4] CCPR, G.C. no. 36 (2019) on the right to life (article 6 of the ICCPR), CCPR/C/GC/36, 3rd of September 2019, para. 26.
[5] Initially, the ECOSOC has set up a Sessional Working Group on the Implementation of the ICESCR through the adoption of the ECOSOC Decision 1978/10 on the 3rd of May 1978. This Sessional Working Group was later, in 1985, renamed CESCR.
[6] Further referred to as CESCR or the Committee.
[7]Stephanie Chuffart, Jorge E. Vinuales, From the other shore: Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from an International Environmental Law Perspective in Eibe Reidel, Gilles Giacca, Christophe Golay, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law. Contemporary Issues and Challenges, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 286-307.
[8] At the UN World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 12th of July 1993, the Vienna Declaration and Plan of Action the Conference concluded that: “the international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing and with the same emphasis”.
[9] Further referred to as OP-ICESCR.
[10] Further referred to as COBs.
[11] Further referred to as LOIs.
[12] To date, CESCR has adopted 27 general comments. The latter being the one which is analysed in this paper. The next GC would be on the implementation of ESC in the context of armed conflict.
[13] CESCR, GC no. 27 (2025) on ESC rights and the environmental dimension of sustainable development, E/C.12/GC/27, 26th of September 2025. Further referred to as GC no. 27 (2025) or the GC.
[14] UNGA, A/RES/76/300; HRC, A/HRC/RES/48/13. In 2022, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) recognized that unsustainable development and climate change “constitute one of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to effectively enjoy all human rights”. Both the UNGA and the Human Rights Council have recognized the clean, healthy and sustainable environment as a human right which is interconnected with the rights enshrined in the two main human rights covenants, that constitute nowadays the core of the human rights protection. They both acknowledge that such approach requires the full implementation of multilateral environmental agreements under the principles of both human rights and international environmental law.
[15] Article 2 of the ICESCR states: “1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take steps, individually and through international assistance and cooperation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures. 2. The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to guarantee that the rights enunciated in the present covenant will be exercised without discrimination of any kind as to race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. 3. Developing countries, with due regard to human rights and their national economy, may determine to what extent they would guarantee the economic rights recognized in the present Covenant to non-nationals”. See for a detailed interpretation of article 2 of the ICESCR, Olivier de Schutter, Article 2, in Emmanuel Decaux, Olivier de Schutter, Le pacte international relatif aux droits économiques, sociaux et culturels. Commentaire article par article, Edition Economica, Paris, 2019, pp. 111-159.
[16] CESCR, GC no. 2 (1990) – International technical assistance measures (article 22 of the ICESCR), E/1990/23, para. 7.
[17] CESCR, GC no. 3 (1990) – The nature of State parties ‘obligations (art. 2 para.1 of the Covenant), E/1991/23, para. 8.
[18] CESCR, Statement of the CESCR to the Third Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (2000), para. 1.
[19] CESCR, Statement of CESCR to the Commission on Sustainable Development acting as Preparatory Committee for the World Summit on Sustainable Development, May-June 2002, para. 2 and 4.
[20] CESCR, GC no. 18 (2005) on the right to work (art. 6 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/GC/18, 6th of February 2006, para. 26 (the obligation to fulfil the right to work).
[21] CESCR, GC no. 20 (2009) on Non-discrimination in Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 2 para. 2 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/GC/20, 2nd of July 2009.
[22] CESCR, Statement in the context of the Rio+20 Conference on “the green economy in the context of sustainable development and poverty eradication” (2012).
[23] See for details the Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development: Our Common Future (1987), A/42/427, para. 27 where sustainable development is defined as development that “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs”; “sustainable development requires meeting the basic needs of all and extending to all the opportunity to fulfil their aspiration for a better life”.
[24] June 1992, A/CONF151/26, principle 3: “the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet developmental and environmental needs of present and future generations”.
[25] 14th of March 1995, A/CONF166/2, article 6: “Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development, which is the framework for our efforts to achieve a higher quality of life for all people”.
[26] UNGA, A/RES/70/1, preamble, Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, 21st of October 2015.
[27] CESCR, Joint Statement the International Covenants on Human Rights: 50 Years On (2016).
[28] CESCR, Statement on the Pledge to leave no one behind: the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, (2019).
[29] For more details, see also Human Rights Council, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the human right to safe drinking water and sanitation, Catarina Albuquerque, A/HRC/24/44, 12th of July 2013.
[30] CESCR, GC no. 12 (1999), para. 7; CESCR, GC no. 15 (2003), para. 11 and 12; CESCR, GC no. 19 (2008) on the right to social security (article 9 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/GC/19, 4th of February 2008, para. 11.
[31] CESCR, GC no. 14 (2000) on the right to the highest attainable standard of health (article 12 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/2000/4, 11th of August 2000, para. 4.
[32] CESCR, GC no. 15 (2002) the right to water (arts. 11 and 12 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/2002/11, 20th of January 2023, para.11.
[33] CESCR, GC no. 12 (1999) the right to adequate food (article 11 of the ICESCR), E/C.12/1999/5, 12th of May 1999, para. 4, 8.
[34] CESCR, Statement on Climate change and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural (2018), E/C.12/2018/1, 8th of October 2018, para. 10.
[35] CESCR, GC no. 25 (2020) on the right to science (2020), E/C.12/GC/25, 30th of April 2025.
[36] E/C.12/NZL/CO/4, para. 9; E/C.12/KAZ/CO/2, para. 17 (e).
[37] E/C.12/MEX/CO/4, para. 10; E/C.12/PHI/CO/5-6, para. 14.
[38] E/C.12/SEN/CO/3, para. 11.
[39] E/C.12/ARG/CO/4, para.17; E/C.12/ZAF/CO/1, paras. 12-13; E/C.12/ECU/CO/4, para. 13-14.
[40] For example, between 2020-2021, CESCR has requested in the LOIs prepared for countries such as Norway, Azerbaijan, Italy, Canada, France, Latvia, Kuwait, Belgium, Guatemala, PRC, Cambodia, Quatar, Chad, Guatemala etc. that the respective country provides information on measures taken to implement national climate targets; information on the mitigation policies in view of the delay in reducing its carbon dioxide emissions; information on the State Party contributions to the Green Climate Fund and/or ODA; . As regards the COBs, CESCR has included specific references to emission reductions targets – Norway (2020), Belgium (2020) and Latvia (2021) – and encouraged states to increase the ambition of their targets
[41] ICJ, Advisory Opinion on the obligations of States with respect to climate change (2025), para. 272.
[42] See for details, Kate Raworth, Doughnut Economics. Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist, Penguin Books, 2022.
[43] Proposed by the OHCHR. One hallmark of the human rights economy is the high priority accorded to respecting, protecting, fulfilling and enforcing ESC rights. The primary role of the economy is to protect and fulfil the rights and wellbeing of people, ensure environmental protection and sustainable use of natural resources, and secure a fair and equitable world, free from want and fear.
[44] As summarized in the Stockholm 50+ Report: Unlocking a Better Future, 2022: “Humanity has been facing multiple interlinked environmental, social, economic and health challenges – the climate change crisis, pollution, bio-diversity loss and the extinction of species, deforestation, land degradation, increased incidents and environmental disasters, widening gaps between rich and poor, backlash to woman ‘s rights, lack of decent jobs and new emerging zoonotic diseases”.
[45] This model was tested and seamed feasible, in Amsterdam, in respect to the housing crisis, pollution and water consumption.
