No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 May 2019
Department of Law, London School of Economic and Political Science [[email protected]].
Department of Law, European University Institute [[email protected]].
1 S. Moyn, Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World (2018), at 127.
2 Ibid, at 138.
3 J. Bockman, ‘Socialist Globalization against Capitalist Neocolonialism: The Economic Ideas behind the New International Economic Order’, Humanity (spring 2015) 109.
4 Addo, H., ‘Introduction: Pertinent Questions about the NIEO’, in Addo, H. (ed.), Transforming the World Economy: Nine Critical Essays on the New International Economic Order (1984), 1Google Scholar.
5 Moyn, supra note 1, at 118.
6 CESCR, General Comment No 3, The Nature of States Parties’ Obligations (Art. 2(1)), (5th session, 1990).
7 See Craven, M., ‘The Violence of Dispossession: Extraterritoriality and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’, in Baderin, M. and McCorquodale, R. (eds.), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Action (2007), 71, 86CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Salomon, M. E., ‘Why Should it Matter that Others Have More: Poverty, Inequality and the Potential of International Human Rights Law’, (2011) 5 Review of International Studies 2137CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8 Moyn, supra note 1, at 208–9.
9 Moyn, supra note 1, at 176.
10 Thlimmenos v. Greece, ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgment of 6 April 2000 (Application no. 34369/97).
11 D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic, ECtHR Grand Chamber Judgment of 13 November 2007 (Application no. 57325/00).
12 See Zwaan-de Vries v. the Netherlands, HRCttee Final Views of 9 April 1987 (Communication no. 182/1984); Derksen v. the Netherlands, HRCttee Final Views of 1 April 2004 (Communication no. 976/2001); Young v. Australia, HRCttee Final Views of 6 August 2003 (Communication no. 941/2000).
13 Gueye et al. v. France, HRCttee Final Views of 3 April 1989 (Communication no. 196/1985).
14 M. E. Salomon, ‘Sustaining Neoliberal Capital through Socio-Economic Rights’, Critical Legal Thinking, 18 October 2017, available at criticallegalthinking.com/2017/10/18/sustaining-neoliberal-capital-socio-economic-rights/.
15 Salomon, M. E., ‘Nihilists, Pragmatists and Peasants: A Dispatch on Contradiction in International Human Rights Law’, in Christodoulidis, E., Dukes, R. and Goldoni, M. (eds.), Research Handbook on Critical Legal Theory (forthcoming)Google Scholar. Available as IILJ Working Paper 2018/5 (MegaReg Series) at www.iilj.org/publications/nihilists-pragmatists-peasants-dispatch-contradiction-international-human-rights-law/.
16 Moyn, supra note 1, at 213.
17 Scheinin, M., ‘Economic and Social Rights as Legal Rights’, in Eide, A., Krause, C. and Rosas, A. (eds.), Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: A Textbook (2001), 29Google Scholar; Scheinin, M., ‘Indirect Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in International Law’, in Chirwa, D.M. and Chenwi, L. (eds.), The Protection of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Africa (2016), 72CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18 Daniel D. Bradlow, Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of Plaintiffs– Appellants in BI Jam, KA Manjalia, SK Jam, R Jadeja, N Panchayat, and MAS Sanghathan (Plaintiffs– Appellants) v. International Finance Corporation (Defendant– Appellee), On Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, No 15- cv- 00612. Document No 1630690, Filed 16 August 2016. As this goes to press, the US Supreme Court ruled 7–1 on 27 February 2019 in Jam et al. v. IFC that international organizations like the World Bank Group can be sued in US courts.
19 Moyn, supra note 1, at 193.
20 Ibid.