The United Nations’ International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights transformed political desires into enforceable claims, eroding the classical understanding of natural rights.
Let’s not lose touch…Your Government and Big Tech are actively trying to censor the information reported by The Exposé to serve their own needs. Subscribe to our emails now to make sure you receive the latest uncensored news in your inbox…
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (“ICESCR”) is one of the core components of the International Bill of Human Rights, alongside the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“UDHR”) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“ICCPR”).
The Covenant is monitored by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which reviews periodic reports submitted by state parties and issues concluding observations and recommendations.
173 countries, including the UK, are parties to the Covenant, with five others, including the United States, having signed but not ratified it. According to Wikipedia, a number of countries have made reservations and interpretative declarations to their application of the Covenant.
As Aidan Grogan explains below, the ICESCR conflates desires with rights, which provides an impetus for the expansion of government power at the risk of undermining our individual inalienable rights.
The UN’s ‘International Covenant’ at 50: When Desires Become “Rights”
By Aidan Grogan, as published by The Daily Economy on 2 January 2026
On 3 January 1976 – 50 years ago – the United Nations’ ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ entered into force with the backing of the Soviet Union and the Cold War Non-Aligned Movement (“NAM”). Intended to secure the “right” to housing, health care, fair wages, paid vacations and other benefits globally, the International Covenant is a prime example of conflating rights with desires.
Thankfully, this socialist project, advanced under the banner of “human rights,” never became the law of the land in the United States. President Jimmy Carter signed the International Covenant at the UN headquarters in 1977, but it has since awaited ratification in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Cold War anxieties about the spread of socialism and communism may have hindered its acceptance among Congress and the public. However, 35 years after the Cold War, socialism is surging in popularity, especially among young Americans, and it’s important to reiterate the dangers of the UN’s International Covenant, lest it makes a comeback and the treaty is ratified.
Russell Kirk wrote that two “essential conditions” are attached to all true rights: first, the capacity of people to claim and exercise the alleged right; and second, the correspondent duty that is married to every right. The right to practice one’s religion freely involves a duty to respect others’ religious beliefs; the right to private property dovetails with the responsibility to not violate someone else’s possessions. Thus, true rights are mutually beneficial and reinforcing, undergirded by the virtues of justice and prudence.
[Related: Individual Rights Determine Constitutional Arrangements, Not the Other Way Around]
What Kirk designated as “true rights” are synonymous with “natural rights” or “negative rights,” which are inherent in our nature and cannot be taken away.[1] The only obligation they impose on others is to not infringe upon them. “Positive rights,” by contrast, require the individual to sacrifice portions of his earnings or potentially his life in the service of others, even against his own conscience and free will. One individual’s “positive right” to free health care, for example, violates another individual’s right to the fruits of his own labour. In short, one person’s desire becomes someone else’s obligation, and the former bears no responsibility while exercising his “right.”
[1] Note from The Exposé: Natural rights are intrinsic rights that individuals possess by virtue of being human, independent of laws, customs, or government authority. These rights are considered universal, fundamental and inalienable, meaning they cannot be repealed or taken away by human laws, although one may forfeit their enjoyment through actions such as violating others’ rights.
The conflation between rights and desires – or negative rights and positive rights – was explicitly manifest in President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “Four Freedoms” articulated in his 1941 State of the Union Address. “Freedom of speech” and “freedom of worship” are negative rights that may be exercised by individuals and secured by government, but “freedom from want” and “freedom from fear” are impossible to achieve – for “want” and “fear” are immutable aspects of the human condition. Our perpetual yearning for more than we presently possess, or our anxieties about future uncertainties, can never be entirely satisfied or relieved, even under the most healthy, safe and prosperous conditions.
As Edmund Burke wrote, “The great Error of our Nature is, not to know where to stop, not to be satisfied with any reasonable Acquirement; not to compound with our Condition; but to lose all we have gained by an insatiable Pursuit after more.” The “great Error of our Nature” may impel us to demand unbridled resources from government, all in the pursuit of abstract “rights,” and therefore jeopardise the natural rights that are indispensable to a just social contract.
FDR’s “Four Freedoms” inspired the UN’s 1948 ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’, which affirms the “right” to rest and leisure. While these may be human needs and social goods that both public and private entities should respect, they ought not be framed as “rights.” Unlike freedom of speech and freedom of worship, rest and leisure are exercised without adjacent responsibilities and often require the provision of goods, services or accommodations by others to be meaningful.
The International Covenant drastically expanded the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. No correspondent duties are associated with the “right” to the free and generous provisions championed by the UN, but instead require the burden and sacrifice of someone else’s labour and its fruits.
The treaty includes not only the “right” to rest and leisure, but also to an “adequate standard of living” and the “progressive introduction of free education.” It even declares the extremely vague “right” to “enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications.” There is no theoretical reason why such broad and elastic provisions cannot be extended to absurd proportions, where even non-essential consumer goods and vogue technologies like video game consoles or robot vacuum cleaners are labelled “human rights.”
The conflation of rights and desires is an impetus for the expansion of government power, which risks undermining the true rights most vulnerable to usurpation. As Andrew Cowin wrote in a 1993 Heritage Foundation report, the International Covenant “identified rights that were never meant to be granted. For decades, though, it gave Soviet totalitarian governments the cover that justified their accumulation of power and property.”
While the US Congress shelved the International Covenant and stopped its provisions from becoming American law, the treaty was ratified by many other countries, including US allies such as Japan, Mexico, France, Germany and Italy.
If desires became “rights” in these capitalist democracies, the same could happen in America, which is why – on its 50th anniversary – we must remain vigilant against the UN’s International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
Further reading:
- UN SDGs implant “human rights” and attempt to override our inalienable rights, The Exposé, 1 July 2023
- Courts are increasingly linking “climate change” with human rights, The Exposé, 13 April 2024
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, World News
This is a succinct explanation of complex ideas.
Not only do the woke feel that giving up part of what they earn, own or control to the state is good, they trust the state to use it for purposes beneficial to everyone. They refuse to recognize history’s proofs that human nature doesn’t allow a state of idealized equalitarianism to exist for long: the corrupt always rise to the top and repress and exploit everyone else. Live in a socialist system and get the results socialism has already produced all around the world. It won’t and can’t be different this time because human nature doesn’t change overnight or in a few generations or millenia.
When the woke don’t like the truths of history, they simply rewrite it. But that doesn’t change it in the least. Those who refuse to learn from real history are doomed to repeat it.
Are you looking for an easy and effective way to make money online? Do not search anymore ! e Our platform offers you a complete selection of paid surveys from the best market research companies.
.
Here Come ……………… Goto.now/QCMrY
Get rid of the UN. They are responsible for most wars.
Easy to said than done. But, the real culprit of all problems here is the people/person that given too much power by own people.
Change the attitude, change (get rid) the person who responsible, not the organisation that created to help people are now do the opposites. They wearing the ‘good’ mask too long. Time to strip (reveal) the real face of these people to the whole world.
Exposes the corrupts and the evil people. The world would be better even if not entirely good but still there will be hope for humanity if we all stand for our rights.
Small sparks could ignite the loud boom.
https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/ZMnLnRkcikw Rome is dying