Judith Bueno de Mesquita

The UN General Assembly has recently recognised that unsustainable development and climate change ‘constitute some of the most pressing and serious threats to the ability of present and future generations to effectively enjoy all human rights’. International human rights law is evolving to obligate States to tackle climate change, including through mitigation measures. At the same time, economic growth and sustainable development are often upheld to underpin the realisation of human rights. However, economic growth is a significant contributor to climate change, which, in turn, harms human rights. This article argues that these contradictions require a recalibrated interpretation of economic growth under international human rights law, in particular in terms of; (i) the nature of the relationship between human rights and sustained economic growth in Global North States, which disproportionately contribute to climate change, and consequentially (ii) the degree of alignment of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development with international human rights law. Different visions are abounding for ecologically sustainable social and economic life. This includes proposals for degrowth which centre on a planned reduction in consumption and use of resources, especially in the Global North. This article uses degrowth as a case study to argue that such proposals provide crucial insights to support the interpretation of, and pathways for, the realisation of human rights within planetary boundaries, and to shape a rights-based, and sustainable post-2030 development landscape.

While human rights law has evolved to provide guidance to governments in realizing human rights in public health emergencies, the COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the foundations of human rights in global health governance. Public health responses to the pandemic have undermined international human rights obligations to realize (1) the rights to health and life, (2) human rights that underlie public health, and (3) international assistance and cooperation. As governments prepare for revisions of global health law, new opportunities are presented to harmonize global health law and human rights law, strengthening rights-based governance to respond to future threats.

The right to health has been cast in increasinglybroad terms in international human rights law, not only as a right to health care but also as a right to an ever more broad range of underlying and social determinants of health. Utilizing an analytical framework grounded in this broad view of the right to health, this article presents the findings of an empirical review of the right to health in the recommendations issued to states during the first two cycles of the Human Rights Council's Universal Periodic Review. The Universal Periodic Review, a peer-review mechanism, has come to occupy a prominent position in global human rights oversight, not least because all United Nations member states are regularly scrutinized under the procedure. It has also been identified as a potentially valuable mechanism to enhance accountability around the Sustainable Development Goals. The article highlights that the right to health is prominent in the Universal Periodic Review's recommendations, a conclusion that contrasts with existing perceptions that the right has been given limited attention by the procedure. However, the article argues that the quality of these recommendations is uneven. Increasing the engagement of key health stakeholders in the procedure will be important to enhance its potential for the right to health.

The Universal Periodic Review is a comprehensive, state-to-state peer-review mechanism of the United Nations (UN) Human Rights Council. Created in 2006, the mechanism scrutinizes the human rights record of all UN Member States, including their efforts to realize the right to health. However, the mechanism is relatively under-used in global health governance compared to treaty-based procedures, such as those overseen by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities or the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women. We suggest that the Universal Periodic Review could be used to support the monitoring and review processes of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). The review could offer a unique perspective for other actors on how to ensure accountability for the complex and intertwined SDGs, including their commitments for health. This article provides an overview of how health-related rights have been addressed in the Universal Periodic Review process and how the review can contribute to advancing global commitments to health, including those embodied in the SDGs. We present some of the current limitations in the way health is addressed in the Universal Periodic Review. We also consider what role specialized UN agencies, such as the World Health Organization, might play during the Universal Periodic Review process and how this involvement can contribute towards the comprehensive realization of health and wellbeing for all.