Through this note, my attempt is to understand the dimensions of the hunger problem and therefore the meaning of the right to food, examine the experiences in other countries of the world with respect to this important right, analyze the position of India with respect to right of the hungry people to food and the laws and precedents supporting this right, focus on inequality that exists which leads to denial of this right and shed light on the efforts of concerned individuals, NGOs, etc. to increase the momentum for making this right a real for impoverished Indian masses and how judiciary has been supportive of at least to some extent.
To accomplish the above objectives, I went on to examine all the debates surrounding this right.
Is there such a Right?
This was the first debate I had to overcome as Robert L. Bard in his article titled “Right to Food” published by Iowa Law Review in year 1984 had said that “Not only does no right to food exists, but it is unlikely that one can be established. That is, both poor and wealthy nations are unlikely to subject themselves to law-based claims of either their own citizens or foreign governments pertaining to access to food.”[1] He gave various reasons – political and economics related for denial of this Right by both poor and well off nations. As there is a tendency on the part of nation-states to insist on a right to retain absolute discretion in determining the level of their contribution to world welfare requirements, he observed that economically developed countries would not be alone in their resistance to the establishment of a right to food. Third World Countries might be happy to impose legal requirements on other nations toward themselves, but they will strongly resist any legal norms that obligate them to their own citizens.[2]
In just three years time, there was turnaround and the right to food was recognized as a human right. In the year 1987, Goler Teal Butcher in his article went on to establish the relationship of law to the hunger problem by declaring Food as a Human Right. He supported his declaration by placing the same on tripod of Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant of Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR).[3] While identifying different dimensions of the hunger problem, Goler Teal Butcher viewed hunger not a problem of mere geography or of distribution of food but related to powerlessness, financial, economic and political powerlessness of individuals and social classes within nations and international community.
The major breakthrough came in the year 1996 with when world leaders assembled in Rome Summit Summit
In the year 1999 this right gained further momentum when it was brought to notice that hunger exists because of the gross inequities in food production and distribution patterns. For instance, developing or third world countries account for 75% of the world’s population; they produce over 50% of the world’s food and yet consume only 40% of agriculture produced. ..Approximately 75% of all people make their living by cultivating land. Despite the fact that a majority of the world’s population engaged in land cultivation, only a small minority disproportionately controls the vast majority of land through plantations and farms. This small percentage of wealthy individuals enjoy the protection of national and local governments and receive a superfluous percentage of governmental loans, subsidies, investment incentives, and tax privileges. In turn this elite minority becomes wealthier and exercises greater control over the government, which results in legislation that ensures the inequality between the classes and the maintenance of poverty.”[5]
Now the questions is – should this denial to such an important right – without which – “the individual will lack the ability to journey through life and experience the ability to develop a moral sense, love and be loved and participate as a productive member of society”[6] - continue?
Many developed nation states would question imposition of any responsibility on them to provide any type of aid to developing nation states to fed their hungry and starving population and thereby provide the right to food. Questions will be raised as to why should Europe and USA Somalia
Even within domestic scenario, rich owe duty towards poor – because rich are engaged in all policy making matters which tend to neglect welfare of the poor and on long term consequences that some policies may produce on very existence of poor. For instance, strong and powerful people involved in policy making aspects of our country do not seem to be bothered about the impact that liberalization of land and agriculture, that is taking place step by step in every state, may create for the rural population. We are fast approaching towards the day when majority of population of our country will come under hunger wave as liberalization and privatization of agriculture and land will result in food production becoming a private affair, not regulated by state and devoid of all the subsidies that we enjoyed so far. The rising prices of many food commodities will make them inaccessible to low income groups. With this possibility in future, it is all the more necessary to strike down any argument that questions justiciability of this right.
Meaning of the Right to Food
Legal scholars, economists, health administrators - all give their own outlook to this right. For instance, according to Goler Teal Butcher whereas the practical conception of a right to food arises out of a biological imperative, the theoretical conception of a right to food arises out of a trilogy of factors: one, the evolution of human rights concepts; two, the convergence of moral imperatives and notions of distributional justice; and, three, the reality of collective responsibility regarding both the enormous disparities between the North and South and the situation of the least developed countries and of the almost one billion people living in dire poverty on the edge of existence, utterly without the basic necessities of life.[8]
World Food Summit held in Rome
Nobel Laureate Economist Prof. Amartya Sen characterized food security as entitlements: production based entitlements, the right to consume the food a person produces; labor-based entitlements, the right to income through sale of labor; trade-based entitlements, the right to get food through the market; and transfer-based entitlements, food donated by others.[10]
According to Philip Alston, “it is not the same as the right not to starve, nor the right not to be hungry”. According to Katarina Tomasevski, “the right to food is not synonymous with the right to be fed, for that implies an unhealthy dependency upon others.”[11]
In his 1987 report, the Special Rapporteur to the Economic and Social Council of the UN said that right to food implies, “the physical and institutional environment in which food is procured must be optimally utilized and protected from erosion or distortion…”[12]
Robert E. Robertson, in “Right to Food- Canada’s Broken Covenant” has defined the scope of this right as – “a condition in which each person can eat food which, be prevailing medical standards, is judged adequate for the full realization of physical and mental health. A person’s diet should also consist of food which satisfies cultural preferences. The food should be obtained in a manner which is not an affront to the dignity or self-esteem of the person and the process by which the food is made available should be stable and sustainable, thus ensuring continuous access to food of acceptable standards.”
So many different versions about the meaning and scope of this right prove that it is still ill-defined and underdeveloped, a victim of the indifference of states. Also, there being no clarity about the scope of this right, nation states will always oppose its explicit introduction into domestic legal systems.
Link between right to food and other rights
Katarina Tomasevski, in note in Iowa Law Review of 1984 has called for connecting the right to food with other rights. According to this author, to realize the right to food, people need access to resources and therefore right to food cannot be realized unless and until the right to - land, an equal opportunity to grow food for themselves, income-generating activities enabling them to purchase food with salaries earned, work, freedom of movement, freedom of association and trade union rights – are granted. Finally, without popular participation in decision-making, strategies and policies negating or violating human rights can be made without people participating or knowing what has been decided on as to their future.[13] Therefore the right to information is also valuable right for realization of the right to food. In Indian context this right assumes tremendous importance for realization of the right to food. Jean Dreze who maps poverty related issues in rural India
Support from International Law to this Right
The international community has broadly recognized the right to food and states’ obligations involving the right to food. According to one compilation, there are over 100 international instruments which are relevant to the establishment and definition of the right to food.[15]
Treaty law – ICESCR in Article 11 recognizes both a right to adequate food and the right of everyone to be free from hunger.
Declarations - UDHR in Article 25 provides everyone the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing, medical care and necessary social services. The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) declaration - states that to ensure that a global coalition against hunger performs effectively, industrialized countries must make specific commitment of financial resources calculated as a percentage of their gross domestic product (GDP). The document says the volume of funds should correspond to the magnitude of the hunger problem and should be channeled through the U.N. in order to avoid politically based stipulations.[16]
There have been specific declarations, conferences and resolutions to stress the importance of this right. For instance, Universal Declaration in the Eradication of Hunger and Malnutrition, GA Res. 3180 U.N. GAOR World Food Conference 28th Session convened under General Assembly resolution 3180 (XXVIII) of 17 December 1973 and endorsed by General Assembly resolution 3348 (XXIX) of 17 December 1974; World Declaration on Nutrition – product of the International Conference on Nutrition held in December 1992[17]; United Nations Millennium Declaration – contained in a resolution adopted at the end of the largest-ever gathering of world leaders, known as the Millennium Summit, held at the United Nations between the 6th- 8th September, 2000.[18]
Resolutions – For example, the UN Commission on Human Rights has issued resolutions, as have the General Assembly of the UN, the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) and the FAO regarding the right to food.[19]
Conferences – The international community considers the right to food so integral that international conferences have been held on the right to food, such as the World Food Summit. One commitment of the World Food Summit was to “strive to ensure that food, agriculture trade and overall trade policies are conducive to fostering food security for all through a fair and market-oriented world trade system”.[20]
Comments – For example, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights issued a General Comment that defined the right to “adequate food” as “realized when every man, woman and child, alone or in community with others has physical and economic access at all times to adequate food or means for its procurement.”[21]
In addition to above, the right to food is recognized in international humanitarian law and other commitments which disallow the use of food as a method of warfare. For example, the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts in articles 54, 69, 70[22]; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, article 32, etc. obligate states to respect people’s right to food. [23]
State recognition of the Right to Food at the National Level
The first step in the inquiry is to measure the commitment of individual states to the right to food by measuring the status of ratification of food-related human rights treaties.
States that have ratified ICESCR have recognized the right to adequate food provided by Article 11. As of January 2005, 151 states were parties (while six remained signatories) to the ICESCR.
State parties to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have agreed to take special measures to eliminate discrimination against women, including assurance of equal access by rural women to food security measures (Article 14) and appropriate nutrition during pregnancy and lactation (Article 12). As of January 2005, 179 states were parties to the CEDAW.
State parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) have undertaken to respect and ensure the right to a standard of living adequate for the child’s physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development and thereby provide adequate food for his well being (Article 2, 24 and 27). As of January 2005, 192 state were parties to the CRC.
- Entitlement feeding (Integrated Child Development Services [ICDS], Mid-Day Meal Scheme [MDMS])
- Food subsidy programmes (targeted Public Distribution System [PDS] including Antyodaya and Annapurna Yojana)
- Employment programmes (National Rural Employment Guarantee Act [NREGA], Sampoorna Grameen Rozgar Yojana, National Food for Work Programme, Rashtriya Sam Vikas Yojana)
- Social security programmes (National Maternity Benefit Scheme, National Old Age Pension Scheme and National Family Benefit Scheme).
These are comprehensive programmes that address the nutritional needs of a person from the time of birth through to old age. The ICDS seeks to take care of the nutritional challenges faced by infants and young children (0-6 years) and pregnant women, nursing mothers and adolescent girls; the MDMS provides meals to all primary school children; the targeted PDS provides subsidised grain to families below the poverty line; the NREGA provides 100 days of employment in 200 districts (to begin with); the social assistance programmes cover the aged who are left out of the social security net.
This makes one wonder if the US, considered to be richest country of the world, in all aspects, can have statute the -Food Stamp Act, 1964, with the objective of providing nutrition to those in need and improving the method of distributing surplus food, why comparatively poorer nations like India are shirking their responsibilities and not bringing any statute to explicitly provide this right?
Constitutional protection to the right to food
The FAO Legal Office undertook a survey of all national constitutions in June and July 2003, using the following criteria for inclusion: (i) explicit recognition of the right to food of everyone; (ii) explicit recognition of the right to food of specific groups (such as children, the elderly, pensioners, prisoners); (iii) implicit recognition of the right to food through explicit recognition of a wider right, such as the right to an adequate standard of living, a decent life or livelihood; (iv) recognition of a right to social security for non-workers, which constitutes an implicit recognition of the right to food; (v) recognition of the rights of the child, which can normally be taken to include their nutrition rights; (vi) recognition of the right to minimum wage for workers, enough to provide for the basic needs of the worker and his or her family, including food needs; (vii) recognition of the importance of agriculture, food safety or consumer rights through explicit provisions on rights or on the duty of the state; (viii) recognition of the right to health, in such a way as to include food rights. A statistical review reproduced below revealed that a majority of countries recognize some dimension of the right to food. This statistics does not take into account overlap between the categories.[24]
Constitutional provisions | Number of countries | |
1. | Direct mention of the right to food applicable to the whole of the population [Bangladesh-Article 15; Pakistan-Article 38; Sri Lanka-Article 25] | 22 |
2. | Explicit protection of the right to food of a specific group [Sri Lanka–Article 22] | 17 |
3. | Protecting a broader right, including the right to food, such as adequate standard of living or dignified life [India-Articles 21 and 47; Pakistan-Article 38] | 46 |
4. | Rights of the child protected [India-Article 39; Nepal-Article 26; Pakistan-Article 35; Sri Lanka-Article 22] | 66 |
5. | Right to social security provided [Bangladesh-Article 15; India-Article 41; Nepal-Article 26; Pakistan-Article 38; Sri Lanka-Article 22, 25] | 114 |
6. | Provision on minimum wages provided [India-Article 43] | 37 |
7. | State responsibility for food safety, consumers, promotion of agriculture, etc. | 23 |
8. | Broad constitutional provision on the right to health, which could include the right to food [Bangladesh-Article 18; India-Article 47] | 13 |
Total number of constitutions reviewed | 203 | |
This survey also took into account those countries which did not have written constitutions, but the judiciary in those countries recognizes right to food as a constitutional right. For instance, Israel 19th March 2001 . (REC 4905/98) delivered by the Supreme Court of Israel on
The survey reveals low priority and protection offered to this right by the Indian constitution. Whereas our neighbours – Bangladesh [article 15], Pakistan [article 38] and Sri Lanka [article 25] have constitutions that provide high level of constitutional protection by containing explicit provisions relating to the right to food; the Indian constitution protects the right to food implicitly in articles 21, 39, 41, 43 and 47 – which are broader provisions dealing with the right to an adequate standard of living.
Judicial protection to this Right in India
The Indian judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, has on many occasions reaffirmed that the “right to life enshrined in Article 21 means something more than animal instinct and includes the right to live with dignity; it would include all these aspects which make life meaningful, complete and living”[25]. Other statutory constitutional institutions like the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC) have also stated: “There is a fundamental right to be free from hunger” (January 17, 2003 ).
The Supreme Court in Chameli Singh v. State of U.P. India
In Air India Statutory Corporation, etc. v. United Labour Union and others [27] - the Supreme Court held that the enforcement of the provisions to establish canteen in every establishment under Section 16 of Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970 is to supply food to the workmen at the subsidized rates as it is a right to food, a basic human right.
In Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame[28], the Supreme Court held that basic needs of man have traditionally been accepted to be three-food, clothing and shelter.
In April 2001, a writ petition was filed in the Supreme Court of India by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties to seek legal enforcement of the right to food. This case, popularly known as the Right to Food Case[29], has since become a rallying point for trade unions, activists, grassroots organizations and NGOs to make the right to food a justiciable right. In the Right to Food Case, a primary problem was maladministration: the Court found that about half of the food subsidy was being spent on holding excess stocks; reducing stocks would free up large resources to distribute food and provide hot midday meals for school children. The interim orders in this case have become critical. This case is perhaps the longest continuing mandamus in the world on this issue. It is also one of the largest and most complex litigations involving a wide range of state and civil society actors in India
In an interim order on November 28, 2001 , the Supreme Court converted most food and employment-related schemes into “legal entitlements”. This implies that the Government of India and state governments cannot change these schemes without the permission of the Supreme Court. The interim orders reflect the growing complexity of the case and the diverse issues being covered. The orders on universalizing access to food, especially for children—related to mid-day meals and the ICDS—have been landmarks. On November 28, 2001 , the Supreme Court directed state and central governments to universalize the mid-day meals and provide hot, cooked meals to all primary school children in India
- Each child up to 6 years of age to get 300 calories and 8-10 grams of protein
- Each adolescent girl to get 500 calories and 20-25 grams of protein
- Each pregnant woman and each nursing mother to get 500 calories and 20-25 grams of protein
- Each malnourished child to get 600 calories and 16-20 grams of protein
- Have a disbursement centre in every settlement. ”
When the state and central governments did not comply, the Supreme Court was compelled to pass further orders on October 7, 2004 , directing the Government of India to increase the number of ICDS centres to cover 14 lakh habitations. The same order recommended the increase of the allocation of “rupees one per child per day” to “rupees two per child per day”, with the central and state governments contributing one rupee each.
The same interim order also directed the government to make “earnest effort to cover the slums under ICDS” and ensure that all SC/ST habitations got an anganwadi “as early as possible”. The Supreme Court also categorically banned the use of contractors for providing supplementary nutrition and directed the Government of India and all states and union territories to use local women’s self-help groups to supply the supplementary food distributed in anganwadi centres.
The scope of judicial intervention on the right to food has thus been considerably enhanced through the interventions of the Supreme Court. In an interim order of October 29, 2002 , the Supreme Court had directed that the “Chief Secretaries” of the concerned states would be held responsible for any persistent default in compliance with orders. This had led to some ambiguity, with the Delhi
This brought seriousness to all the interim orders passed by it and in an interim order of May 8, 2002, the Supreme Court also put in place an independent mechanism—the Commissioners of the Supreme Court—to ensure compliance by the state and central government with the orders of the court. The Commissioners were asked to submit bi-annual reports to the Supreme Court.
The Commissioners are also empowered to move contempt of court charges against chief secretaries and other senior state/ central government officials when the non-compliance is wilful and deliberate. The Commissioners have appointed Joint Commissions of Enquiry (JCEs) with representatives nominated both by the Commissioners and the government, to enquire into charges of malfeasance by government officials in food schemes. JCEs have been commissioned in Chhattisgarh , Assam West Bengal and Madhya Pradesh. These enquiries have led to the dismissal of a few officials, departmental enquiries against some, and suspension from service for others. They have also led to grievances about the implementation of food schemes being addressed.
The Commissioners operate through a network of honorary state and national advisers to monitor the progress of the food schemes, suggest reforms in the laws, policies and programmes pertaining to the Right to Food, and, wherever necessary, get directions from the Supreme Court and have action taken against erring state/ central government officials. Six reports highlighting non-compliance, structural issues regarding hunger and the hurdles in implementation have been submitted to the Supreme Court so far. The Supreme Court then asked the state and central governments to respond to the issues raised by the Commissioners.
The Right to Food Case has achieved many milestones. For example, the interim orders have resulted in the Government of India sanctioning 1.88 lakh additional ICDS centres so far. At the macro level the budget of the ICDS has gone up nearly three times from Rs 1,500 crore in 2003-04 to almost Rs 4,000 crore for 2006-07. Many state governments have been galvanised into action and the ICDS has been the focus of discussions for the National Advisory Committee of the present government.
Problems created by International Trade Agreements in Realization of this Right
Even though the Right to Food case has reaffirmed the limited role that legal action on its own can play in securing rights and has also established the ways in which the law can be a facilitator and a catalyst, there are many other problems for which judiciary may not have any easy solution and say. Many agreements – bilateral, multilateral etc. are being entered into resulting in policies that promote poverty and encourage hunger. As rightly pointed out by Jonathan Carlson that “hunger exists today not because the earth lacks sufficient food to feed all of its inhabitants, but because economic, political and socio-cultural policies promote poverty and encourage hunger.”[30]
The free trade agreements executed by governments and international institutions like WTO are not taking human rights and particularly right to food into account. Many NGOs have criticized the WTO Agreement on Agriculture for commodifying the right to food, and leaving people at the mercy of the market, reinforcing industrial agriculture at the expense of sustainable agriculture and also not taking into account different levels of development for countries.[31] And this ignorance is proving very costly to some nations. Mexican experiences in this regard is worth mentioning here.
The Mexican Experience
The Mexican government under NAFTA[32] rescinded many protections afforded to Mexican farmers. In 1992, the Mexican Government amended article 27 of its Constitution ending the ejido system, the governments’ constitutional obligation to “redistribute land to the peasantry”.[33] The government responded to pressure from a leading politician who was also the head of an agricultural company and eager to move into southern Mexico
Many small farmers went out of business as they lost subsidies and as the government pressed the people of Mexico Mexico
Another reduction in government protection occurred in 1993 when the Mexican government significantly reduced the aid programmes to farmers. Farmers who had relied on the support of these programmes were left to the mercy of the market. In addition to losing aid and ejidos, Mexican farmers faced the huge growth of U.S. Mexico
Where is India
The state governments in India
The total spending, both plan and non-plan, under the heads agriculture, irrigation and rural development in the central budget was cut from 1.99% of GDP in 1989-90 to 1.46% in 1995-96. in 1996-97 this was placed at 1.45% but the actual spending under these heads in 1996-97 was only 1.32% of GDP according to the revised figures. For 1997-98 this was budgeted at only 1.29% of GDP.[40] Therefore we have witnessed lowest rate of growth of rural employment since 1947 — 0.67 %.[41] Public investment in agriculture – the pivot to increase the gross area under cultivation, enhancing productivity and bringing about shifts in cropping pattern - is the responsibility of the States, but many States have neglected investment in infrastructure for agriculture. The corporatisation of agriculture advocated under pressure from business organization, agri-business corporations is giving rise to a process of exclusion and marginalization of rural India India
The rural poor, especially landless labourers are hit five ways, at least. A fall in income is obvious. For many, the period from about August to October is anyway critical. Those are the hungry days, the period between sowing and harvest — even when there is a normal monsoon. That's when work is hardest to find and survival games sharpen. Where the sowing hasn't happened or where it fails, or is much less than usual, employment dips further. So even the wages that would have eased a part of the hungry days are missing. A reduced harvest makes things bleaker. Farmers lose out on production. As food prices rise, so also hunger in rural households. Even last year, adivasi homes in Rajasthan were rotating hunger amongst family members. Each day, one of them would go without anything to eat at all. Those who did get to eat — a single meal — would go out and look for work that day.[42]
The pressure on women in rural households is huge. The time and energy they spend in fetching water, firewood and fodder shoots up. But their food intake goes down. The women eat last, after feeding the rest of the family. They then have to worry about feeding the livestock. That mix of rising exertion and falling nutrition devastate many.[43]
Add to problems of food, here right to water is being threatened by governments acting under the directions of renowned world institutions. Privatization of water is now the next reality show that will hit poor farmers and other rural population of this country. . Oddly, those selling out India
Added to privatization problem, there is lethargy and indifference shown by various state governments by not utilizing unused and extra food stocks lying idle for drought relief purposes, violating the right to food. Jean Dreze has identified - political, financial and structural constraints in his paper – which prevent the extra food stocks from reaching in the hands of poor starving population in times of drought and famine. [46]
Lessons learnt
From both Mexico India
Trade affects human life. This simple point has to be worked into future trade agreements. The development of humans including their right to food must be just as important in the international trading regime as economic development.[47]
Even though in independent India Bengal famine of 1943). Yet they were unable to substantively address the problem of chronic hunger. This is not only because of gaps in implementation, but also because they do not provide for sustainable and lasting livelihood options. But post liberalization phase – India has witnessed an unprecedented alienation of indigenous people and other marginalised communities from their land and other natural resources; displacement due to industrial projects and large dams in rural areas; and fundamental changes in the nature of poverty with unbridled urbanisation and the disenfranchisement of large sections of urban populations.
The judiciary needs to afford to the hungry and poor the right to food in this macro-context. The supervening importance of food and therefore of the right to food is such that primary concern cannot be what are the international law requirements for a claimed human right to have legal recognition ad whether the right to food has acquired this status. Neither the existence of nor work toward the realization of the right to food can be determined solely by lawyers or international law. Four factors – (i) biological necessity [if food is not provided people would starve to death and to save themselves from this death they may broke legal norms taking them to the door steps of courts]; (ii) technological competence [nations have progressed and scientific advancements in food production techniques has produced surplus for all – so that no stomach goes hungry to sleep]; (iii) the fact of food surplus and (iv) consideration of human decency – militate towards the conclusion that the right to food is a primordial right and judiciary therefore must start any inquiry with the recognition of the right to food.
The courts must remember experiences of other countries – that privatized land, water and agriculture before taking any decision in any conflict involving / demanding from it right to food. For instance, in Bolivia Cochabamba Peru Chile Uruguay
The Mexican experience of falling in line to trade agreements to deny citizens their right to food also has to be kept in mind.
The courts need to recognize the existence of the legal right to food according to the principle of jus cogens.[48] “All nations, states, governments and sovereignties regardless of whether they endorse the UN Charter, declarations or covenants, remain obligated to honour the right to food. It matters not whether a nation accepts the philosophical, social or moral imperatives of any one particular religious or cultural group, the right to food exists according to the principle of jus cogens.”[49]
[3] Goler Teal Butcher, “The Relationship of Law to the Hunger Problem”, 30 Howard L.J. 193 (1987) observed that “Law is relevant to the problem of hunger and securing food for hungry people with respect to both the short and long term approaches to the problem because it is through law that we structure both the various mechanisms to respond to hunger in a crisis and the means to assist people with pursuit of a development policy aimed at achieving food self-sufficiency. Moreover it is through law that we implement our convictions: on the right of hungry people to food and on the duty of the well-endowed to assist in the alleviation of hunger.”
[5] Michael Chossudvsky, The Causes of Global Famine 50th Anniversary of the FAO, available at http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/28/039.html [Jan 26, 1998 ]
[6] Anthony Paul Kearns, “The Right to Food exists via Customary International Law”, 22 Suffolk
[9] World Food Summit Rome
[10] Amartya Sen, Poverty and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation 1-2 (Oxford Univ. Press, 1981)
[11] Philip Alston and Katarina Tomasevski eds., The Right to Food: Guide Through Applicable International Law (Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1984)
[14] Jean Dreze, “Democracy and Right to Food”, Economic and Political Weekly, p. 1723, April 24, 2004 .
[16] Government representatives from countries of Latin America and the Caribbean and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) from the region met in the Cuban capital for the second Regional Consultation of Non- governmental Organizations, drawing up their own proposals for constitutional guarantees for food security and promoting international solidarity in favor of food sovereignty. The FAO conference's final report
[17] Included official delegations of 159 countries as well as a considerable number of scientists and representatives of non-governmental organizations
[18] All together, representatives from 187 Member States of the United Nations attended this summit.
[19] See UN Doc.E/CN.4/RES 2002.25 (2002); UN GAOR, 57th Session, Agenda Item 111(b), UN Doc A/57/356 (2002); CESCR, 20th Session, Art 11, UN Doc E/C.12/1999/5 (1999)
[20] World Food Summit Rome
[31] Sophia Murphy, WTO Agreement on Agriculture: Suitable Model for a Global Food System?, 7 Foreign Policy in Focus, para 7 at http://www.fpif.org/briefs/vol7/v7n08ag.html (June 2002)
[32] Is the trade bloc in North America created by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and its two supplements, the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC) and The North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC), whose members are Canada Mexico United States
[33] Ejidos were guaranteed land rights, which began after the Mexican Revolution. Mexicans considered the land grants and land distribution one of the most important accomplishment of the Revolution. The ejidos could only be passed down in family and could not be sold. The prohibition on the same of ejidos was meant to prevent land concentration in the hands of few, as had been the case before the Revolution. With the amendment of article 27, ejidatarios could sell/rent their land to outsiders.
[36] UN Secretary General Note at para 2 states – “people have the right to have regular, permanent and free acess, either directly or by means of financial purchases, to quantitatively and qualitatively adequate and sufficient food corresponding to the cultural traditions of the people to which the consumer belongs.” Available as UN GAOR, 57th SESSION, AGENDA ITEM 111(b), UN Doc A/57/356 (2002)
[37] P. Sainath, “Clouds of despair: The poor and the permanent 'drought'”, THE HINDU, Sunday, August 11, 2002
[41] Clouds of despair: The poor and the permanent 'drought' , Date:11/08/2002 URL: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2002/08/11/stories/2002081100500100.htm
[47] Caitlin Firer, “Free Trade Area of the Americas
[48] A peremptory norm (also called jus cogens, Latin for "compelling law") is a undamental principle of international law considered to have acceptance among the international community of states as a whole. Unlike ordinary customary lawthat has traditionally required consent and allows the alteration of its obligations between states through treaties, peremptory norms cannot be violated by any state "through international treaties or local or special customs or even general customary rules not endowed with the same normative force". Under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties any treaty in violation of a peremptory norm is null and void. The treaty allows for the emergence of new peremptory norms, but does not itself specify any peremptory norms (see Art. 53 of the Vienna Convention).
