1 ESC Res. 1985/17. For a general description of the background to the Committee and the principal challenges it will face in the years to come, see Alston, , Out of the Abyss: The Challenges Confronting the New U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 9 Hum. Rts. Q. (forthcoming 1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 This has been manifested in the debates and resolutions of both the Commission on Human Rights and the General Assembly. Thus, e.g., at its most recent session the former adopted separate resolutions on: the right of everyone to own property (Res. 1987/17); the realization of economic, social and cultural rights (Res. 1987/19); the work of the new Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Res. 1987/20); and the right to adequate housing (Res. 1987/22).

3 UN Doc. E/l987/28, Ann. 1.

4 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, GA Res. 2200, 21 UN GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52 and 49, UN Doc. A/6316 (1966).

5 The third preambular paragraph of each of the Covenants states that “the ideal of free human beings enjoying freedom from fear and want can only be achieved if conditions are created whereby everyone may enjoy his economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights.” Id.

6 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, supra note 4, Arts. 16–21.

7 The sessional working group was established pursuant to ESC Res. 1988 (LX) (1976). The arrangements pertaining to the work of the group were subsequently modified in ESC Decision 1978/10, ESC Res. 1979/43, ESC Decision 1981/158, and ESC Res. 1982/33, 1983/41, and 1984/9. These and other resolutions and decisions relevant to the work of the new Committee are reproduced in Selected Resolutions and Decisions of the Economic and Social Council relating to the Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: Note by the Secretary-General, UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/1.

8 For the reports of the working group to the Economic and Social Council, see the following UN Docs.: E/1979/64, E/1980/60, E/1981/64, E/1982/56, E/1983/41, E/1984/83, E/1985/18, and E/1986/49. For a comprehensive critique of the methods of work of the sessional working group and its achievements, or lack thereof, see Commentary, Implementation of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: ECOSOC Working Group, ICJ REV., No. 27, December 1981, at 26.

9 ESC Res. 1985/17, para, (b) provides that “due consideration” shall be

given to equitable geographical distribution and to the representation of different forms of social and legal systems; to this end fifteen seats will be equally distributed among the regional groups, while the additional three seats will be allocated in accordance with the increase in the total number of States parties per regional group.

On that basis, the allocation of seats on the Committee, in terms of regional representation, was as follows: African states, 4; Asian states, 3; Eastern European states, 3; Latin American states, 4; and Western European and other states, 4. UN Doc. E/1986/48, para. 6.

10 The most important exceptions in this regard are that: (1) the mandate of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is embodied in a resolution of the Economic and Social Council, whereas that of the Human Rights Committee is provided for in the Covenant; and (2) whereas the latter reports directly to the states parties, the former reports to ECOSOC, which may or may not endorse any recommendations it proposes.

11 For the Committee’s report, see 1987 UN ESCOR Supp. (No. 17), UN Doc. E/1987/28.

12 UN Doc. E/1985/SR.18 and 20.

13 Un Doc. E/1985/SR.18, at 10 (Mr. Yakovlev).

14 See generally Meron, T., Human Rights Law-Making in the United Nations: A Critique of Instruments and Process (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

15 Accordingly, the compilation is reproduced in full in UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/SR.28, at 3–5, para. 11.

16 Id.

17 It is appropriate to distinguish between “primary” and “secondary” concerns on the basis that, while the Committee is entitled to concern itself with broader issues of macroeconomics and related policy, such inquiry should be characterized as subsidiary or secondary because it can only be justified insofar as it is necessary to enable the Committee to address effectively its primary concerns, which are those directly identified by the Covenant.

18 See UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/SR.28, at 4–5.

19 Nevertheless, representatives of the ILO, the FAO and UNESCO each made statements at different times during the session.

20 UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/SR.3 (Mr. Samson, ILO).

21 At its fifth session, UN Doc. A/41/45 (1986).

22 UN Doc. E/1987/28, supra note 11, para. 320.

23 The submission by the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) consisted of an excerpt from a report of a meeting between members of the ICJ and the Association of Soviet Lawyers held in Madrid in October 1986. See ICJ Newsletter, No. 31, October/December 1986, at 4–9. The document submitted by the Four Directions Council was identical to one that organization had already submitted to the Commission on Human Rights, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1987/ NGO/68. The document suggested that the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights should consider revising the guidelines for states parties’ reports so as to include the following formulation:

It is recommended that States parties include, where possible, statistical information indicating comparative trends in the enjoyment of these rights by men and women, children and the elderly, mentally or physically disabled persons, immigrants and migrant workers, racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious and other minorities, indigenous communities, isolated or otherwise disadvantaged regions of the country and any other particularly vulnerable groups of the population.

Id., para. 7.

24 These rules are spelled out in considerable detail in ESC Res. 1296 (XLIV) (1968). See generally Chiang, Pei-Heng, Non-Governmental Organizations at the United Nations: Identity, Role and Function (1981)Google Scholar.

25 Eduard Sviridov (USSR) and Vassil Mratchkov (Bulgaria). See UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/SR.24, paras. 64 and 67.

26 ESC Res. 1985/17, para. (h).

27 The guidelines are reproduced in UN Doc. E/C.12/1987/2.

28 Comm’n on Human Rights Res. 1987/20, 12th preambular para.

29 See, e.g., the proposal contained in the rapporteur’s compilation, text accompanying note 16 supra.

30 UN Doc. E/1987/28, supra note 11.

31 The other three reporting states were the Netherlands (in a report dealing only with the Antilles), Jordan and the Federal Republic of Germany. For summaries of the Committee’s consideration of all states parties’ reports, see UN Doc. E/1987/28, supra note 11, paras. 15–297

32 See id., para. 66.

33 UN Doc. E/1986/49, paras. 22–27.

34 The issues dealt with include: the relationship between human rights and international peace, the relationship between the availability of resources to a state and respect for human rights, and the right to adequate housing.

35 ESC Res. 1985/17. Initially, it was envisaged that the Committee would meet in Geneva and New York alternately, but for financial reasons it was subsequently decided that all sessions would be held in Geneva. ESC Decision 1986/102.

36 Similar problems have been encountered by the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

37 Kristol, , “Human Rights”: The Hidden Agenda, National Interest, Winter 1986/87, at 3, 6 Google Scholar.

38 See, e.g., supra note 10.