In August 2001, Amnesty International (AI) adopted a new mission statement: “AI's mission is to undertake research and action focused on preventing and ending grave abuses of the rights to physical and mental integrity, freedom of conscience and expression, and freedom from discrimination, within the context of promoting all human rights.” This new mission replaced AI's mandate that existed at the time, which concentrated on the area of civil and political rights.

My task here is to discuss some of the main factors driving the “remissioning” of the organization, to consider some of the key arguments that were articulated for and against the expanded focus during the lengthy organizational discussions that preceded the decision, and to reflect on some of the institutional steps the organization is taking to define its work as it seeks to address economic and social rights more prominently.

When I came to Amnesty in the 1980s, much of the human rights literature referred to economic, social, and cultural rights (ESCR) as “second-generation” rights. Of course, this traditional characterization clearly implied that “first-generation” rights – civil and political – were somehow more important and deserving of attention. The disclaimers in rhetoric and literature about complementarity, universality, and indivisibility of all rights notwithstanding, the actual practices of many human rights organizations in effect signaled to the world that the right to food, housing, basic education, health care, and so on were second-class rights and somehow less urgent and less important than the right to freedom of expression or association or the right to be free from torture.