Testing the Judgment Watch
Monitoring Tool for ESC Rights
Malcolm Langford
Norwegian Centre for Human Rights
ESCR-Net Adjudication Group and
Judgment Watch

500000
Cases?
But latin
american
tutelas
dominate
•
1970
•
1990
2010
A (partial) social rights litigation
explosion
Degree of Enforcement and Impact
• But growing critique that ESC rights judgments are not enforced or that
litigation does not have impact or foster social transformation.
• Opinions on the question tend to swing between wild optimism and
pessimism. Caution is needed in assessing the existing evidence and the
underlying causes.
• But there are judgments that remain unimplemented which is problematic
for both justice and the legitimacy of ESC rights
• Unfortunately, a lack of knowledge on extent of implementation, the
causes behind it and good implementation strategies.
• There is also a definitional challenge as remedies can be interpreted
differently by case actors and commentators.
• Impact can be also understood differently: direct/indirect,
material/symbolic, material/political, intermediate/outcomes,
micro/macro.
• The methods chosen to measure enforcement and impact also vary.
For advocates, the key challenge is to understand what
has been achieved, why and which methods can be
used to improve strategies.
New Initiatives on Judgment
Monitoring
• Monitoring and Strategies: e.g., CEJIL IAS
Monitoring, World Bank Courts Project,
Amnesty Campaigns, Interights v Greece
• Research: e.g., Courting Social Justice (2008),
From Judgment to Justice (2011), Symbols or
Substance (2012), Making it Stick (2013)
• ESCR-Net: Bogota Meeting 2010, Follow-Up
Regional Workshops, Campaigns and
Monitoring (including with Judgment Watch)
Housing rights litigation in South
Africa: Enforcement and Impact
Case
Not Evicted
or Relocated
to Lower
Standard
Improved
Services or
Emergency
Housing in
Short-Run
Formal
Housing
in 5 years
Formal
Housing
in 10
years
Improved
Community
Organisation
Policy
Change or
Innovation
Legal
Precedent
used
Average
Proportion
81%
56%
43%
100%
63%
75%
50%
Grootboom
1
1
0
1
0
1
1
Valhalla
1
1
0
1
1
1
0
0.71
0.64
Modderklipp
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.00
Olivia Rd
1
1
0.5
n.a
1
1
1
0.92
Bardale
1
1
1
1
0
1
0
0.71
Joe Slovo
1
0
n.a
n.a
1
1
1
0.83
Makuse
1
0
0
n.a.
1
0
0
0.25
Mandelaville
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0.14
66%
Judgment Watch
Mandate: The mandate of Judgment Watch is to support, monitor and
promote the implementation of human rights judgments.
Scope: Judgment Watch will focus on domestic and international court
judgments (including decisions of UN treaty monitoring bodies on individual
cases) covering all human rights - civil, economic, political, social and cultural.
Aims: Judgment Watch aims to:
Support implementation by raising awareness about the implementation of
judgments and strengthening capacity on follow-up, particularly amongst civil
society, lawyers, media, legislatures, the judiciary and other stakeholders.
Monitor the implementation of judgments by developing methodologies,
synthesizing information and assisting partners on implementation projects.
Promote better implementation procedures at the national, regional and
international levels.
As far as possible in these activities, help maximize the broader impact material, symbolic and political - of judgments b….
Piloting a Monitoring Tool
• A draft monitoring tool has been developed
to measure the degree of enforcement and
identify risks and opportunities for
implementation.
• In 2011 and 2012, this template will be piloted
with ESCR-Net and NCHR in 6-8 jurisdictions
for respective judgments on economic, social
and cultural (ESC) rights and Lesbian, Gay,
Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) rights.