Economic, social and cultural (ESC) rights include a number of entitlements, such as the right to work and the enjoyment of just and favourable conditions of work; the right to form and join trade unions; the right to social security; the protection of the family, mothers and children; the right to an adequate standard of living, which includes adequate food, clothing and housing and continuous improvement of living conditions; the right to the highest attainable standard of mental health; the right to education; and the right to participate in cultural life and enjoy the benefits of scientific progress. All these are protected under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).

Chapter 18 provides a human rights’ narrative in envisioning the implementation of competition law in the food value chain. The authors argue that competition law, with its inherent focus on market regulation and providing a level playing field to market players, offers a credible conceptual and institutional response for addressing this challenge along transparent, predictable and sustainable lines. They argue that not only does the implementation of the right to food stand to benefit from a market-centred approach but also that competition itself becomes a more “holistic” and meaningful tool for social reform by taking into account values inherent in the progress towards the global right to food by integrating the multi-dimensional reality of the global food supply and retail chain in the assessment of specific commercial practices and/or sectors. The Chapter provides the “grammar” of a more holistic competition policy in this crucial sector for national and global economies and attempts to dissect the actual and potential impact of the right to food rhetoric on competition law enforcement.

Chapter 3 focuses on the financialisation of land and agribusiness, a dimension that is often omitted. Throughout the world, private equity funds, pension funds, special purpose vehicles and hedge funds are increasingly acquiring control over land and agribusinesses. Without underplaying the relevance of finance in shaping other pieces of the food system such as seeds production, transformation and distribution, the present Chapter exclusively focuses on the link between financial actors, farmland and agribusinesses and offers a critical overview of the way in which this process is taking place along with their potential legal and socio-economic implications. In the main two sections, the Chapter utilises data and examples to trigger further debate and investigation, in particular, among scholars whose work deals with the competitiveness of food chains, the respect of the right to food, and the more theoretical debate between increasing production and redistribution. Finally, the conclusions focus on governance and present the case of a recent environmental campaign around Indonesian forests to underline the new forms of accountability and control that may lie behind the expansion of the financial interests over land and agribusinesses.

The chapter considers the inter-relationship between the right to life and other fundamental human rights, in particular the right to freedom from torture, to family life, to fair trial, to liberty and to security, to privacy, to peaceful assembly, and to food. While the remedy of a survivor of unlawful State action is likely to exist under the right to freedom from inhumane treatment, where the intent of State agents was to kill, a violation of the right to life may also have occurred.

This chapter explores altruistic commitments that are specifically between developed and developing countries. In particular, an emphasis is placed on the right to development, official development assistance (ODA), the right to food and particular aspects of the international economic order, as well as the special role played by the principle of solidarity in this context. Indeed, development is central to the contemporary international legal order. As such, this chapter explores the various instruments, institutions and processes that are directed at furthering the cause of development by facilitating the transfer of resources from developed to developing countries.

It seems easy to assert that every human being is entitled to food security. Besides article 11 of the International Covenant on Social and Economic Rights (ICESCR), a plethora of international documents contain authoritative statements to this effect. Yet, the evolution of right to food (RTF) into a justiciable right at the national level has been met with several challenges. Even in cases where this right has been guaranteed in the constitution, one has to admit that there are neither efficient mechanisms to ensure its effective operationalisation nor clear steps to be followed by the state for its fulfilment. In the case of South Africa, the RTF is generally recognised as a fundamental right. Nevertheless, over the last two decades this right has not been translated into a well-defined entitlement with corresponding state responsibility. The chapter concludes by recommending that in light of the prevalent food insecurity at the household and individual levels, it is imperative that (quasi)judicial bodies adopt a creative interpretation of the Constitution and relevant international instruments to hold the state accountable for breaching section 27 of the Constitution and the ICESCR.

Concerns about manageable remedies have been a major impediment to recognition of socio-economic and cultural (SEC) rights. Part I examines remedies available for SEC rights violations in supra-national and domestic courts including interim remedies, suspended declarations of invalidity and other remands to legislatures, damages, declarations and injunctions. Part II argues that individual remedies should not be rejected because of concerns that they may result in inequitable queue jumping. Part III examines the role that proportionality principles and reasonableness review can play in justifying delays and limits on SEC rights. including in emergencies. Part IV examines South African engagement remedies. Although they can result in consensual and creative agreement, they can also be used as a means to limit rights and authorize evictions. Courts should address inequality of bargaining power including through the use of interim remedies. Part V suggests that South African courts are taking a two-track approach when they combine anti-eviction remedies with more dialogic systemic remedies including engagement. The relation between individual remedies and the minimum core of SEC rights is explored, as is the importance of individual remedies in responding to remedial failure and triggering cycles of reform.

Complaints procedures offer a unique opportunity for individuals and groups to have claims of human rights violations considered and their rights vindicated in a judicial or quasi-judicial procedure. For non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and human rights lawyers, complaints procedures are an important avenue to pursue strategic objectives, in addition to supporting victims in individual cases. States, on the other hand, may find themselves having to defend allegations of specific or systemic violations. Ideally, complaints procedures act as a mirror that provides an opportunity for states to bring their practices into conformity with the respective treaty. In practice, however, states often view unfavourable decisions as unwarranted criticism, which may create difficulties at the implementation stage. The treaty bodies themselves are in theory neutral arbiters that apply the treaty provisions and rules of procedures. However, inevitably, their position as bodies created by states, and relying on states’ cooperation on the one hand and seeking the effective protection of human rights on the other, raises a host of challenges in actual practice.

Activists have long turned to courts to influence policy. Much of the literature analyzing the experience of activists using courts has focused on judicial outcomes, yet accomplishments beyond successful judgments can be of equal importance as they also effect social change. In particular, engaging in litigation can have a demonstrable impact on the social movements themselves – building and strengthening movements, and providing spaces for manoeuvring. This chapter examines the impact of litigation on the development of the Right to Food Campaign in India, one of India's largest contemporary social movements. Using qualitative data from in-depth interviews with activists and lawyers and a comparative analysis with an earlier case, this chapter analyzes the factors and conditions under which courts can be catalysts for social mobilization, including the existence of opportunities for reform, pre-existing rights consciousness and organizational resources available for mobilization.

By the 1990s, India’s appellate courts had become closely involved in the regulation of street vending in several metropolitan cities. However, despite the frequent use of legal mechanisms by street vendor collectives, there has been little progress towards “formalization” of the street vending economy. To understand the limited impacts of legal intervention, it is necessary to examine the timing and the circumstances under which street vendor collectives first turned to judicial forums for protecting their livelihoods. Based on a historical examination of street vendor politics in Bombay and Madras, I show that legal mobilization in both instances was a response to serious threats faced by the political regimes that had previously shielded street vendors from dispossession and exploitation, rather than being a direct result of new legal opportunities (such as the emergence of public interest litigation). Since organized street vendors had a strong preference for maintaining the status quo, litigation was used as an effective method for buying time in the face of a hostile or uncertain political environment, even when the ultimate verdict was not likely to favor street vendors.

This chapter critically evaluates the impact of the Indian Supreme Court's interim orders in the Right to Food case, a Writ Petition seeking better implementation of the Midday Meal Program (the largest school nutritional program in the world). We cite significant and varied empirical and social science evidence demonstrating that the Program expanded significantly – from a quantitative as well as a qualitative standpoint – in the years immediately following the Court's orders. The harder question is whether the expansion in the Program was "caused" by the Court's intervention, or was largely the consequence of changed political circumstances. We argue that while the supportive political environment was undoubtedly a significant factor, the evidence available seems to indicate that the Court played an important role too. These orders helped in improving the scheme in certain specific respects, in bringing sustained media attention to the issue, in entrenching the Program against subsequent shifts in political priorities, and in providing a platform for the broader social movement to coalesce around. The experience suggests that there is room for "qualified hope" as to the ability of courts to help realize socio-economic rights, albeit in certain limited situations and in partnership with other actors.

This chapter critically evaluates the impact of the Indian Supreme Court's interim orders in the Right to Food case, a Writ Petition seeking better implementation of the Midday Meal Program (the largest school nutritional program in the world). We cite significant and varied empirical and social science evidence demonstrating that the Program expanded significantly – from a quantitative as well as a qualitative standpoint – in the years immediately following the Court's orders. The harder question is whether the expansion in the Program was "caused" by the Court's intervention, or was largely the consequence of changed political circumstances. We argue that while the supportive political environment was undoubtedly a significant factor, the evidence available seems to indicate that the Court played an important role too. These orders helped in improving the scheme in certain specific respects, in bringing sustained media attention to the issue, in entrenching the Program against subsequent shifts in political priorities, and in providing a platform for the broader social movement to coalesce around. The experience suggests that there is room for "qualified hope" as to the ability of courts to help realize socio-economic rights, albeit in certain limited situations and in partnership with other actors.