4.

Rhinopterra violated Anthozoa’s right to adequate standard of living under the

ICESCR

The right to adequate standard of living is a right enshrined under Article 11 of the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The

aforesaid provision specifically obliges State Parties to the ICESCR to recognize the right

of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including

adequate food.1 The right to adequate standard of living under the ICESCR is a reiteration

of Article 25 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which recognizes

everyone’s right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself

and of his family.2

In implementing the DSBM project, Rhinopterra violated the Anthozoan’s right to

adequate standard of living, particularly the right to adequate food.

4.1. It violated Anthozoa’s right to adequate food under Article 11 (1) of the

ICESCR

According to the first Special Rapporteur on the right to food, in order for the States

to fully comply with its obligations on the right to food under the ICESCR, they must

also respect, protect and support the fulfillment of the right to food of people living in

other territories. This implies that States need to ensure that their own citizens and other

third parties subject to their jurisdiction, such as private companies, do not violate the

1
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Dec. 16, 1966, art. 11, para. 1 U.N.T.S.
2
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Dec. 10, 1948, art. 25, para. 1
right to food in other countries.3

It is evident from the records that Rhinopterra violated its three-pronged obligation

on the right to food by implementing the DSBM project and by failing to take the

necessary measures to ensure that STI does not violate Anthozoa’s right to food.

4.1.1. Obligation to respect: Rhinopterra prevented Anthozoa’s existing access

to adequate food

The obligation to respect existing access to adequate food requires State parties

not to take any measures that result in preventing such access.4

Rhinopterra prevented Anthozoa’s existing access to adequate food when it

engaged in the DSBM project. Adequate food means a quantity and quality sufficient

to satisfy the dietary needs of individuals, free from adverse substances, and

acceptable within a given culture.5 The records reveal that ever since the DSBM

project was implemented, the quantity of the fish yield of Anthozoan fishermen

declined by 23-30% which is not an acceptable number for Anthozoa whose

economy is largely based on fishing industries. 6 Furthermore, it was not sufficient to

satisfy the dietary needs of the Anthozoans. A tribe in Anthozoa called the

Motonoans, who consume fish on a daily basis, 7 suffered from the dwindling number

3
Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights Fact Sheet No. 34, April 13, 2010
4
U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment No. 12, 1999, para. 15
5
Id.
6
R. 19
7
R. 1
 of the fish yield. In fact, forty (40) Motonoans died during the implementation of the

DSBM project.8

4.1.2. Obligation to protect: Rhinopterra failed to ensure that STI would not

deprive Anthozoa’s access to adequate food

The obligation to protect requires measures by the State to ensure that

enterprises or individuals do not deprive others of their access to adequate food.9 In

other words, States should prevent third parties from destroying sources of food.

Rhinopterra failed to ensure that STI would not deprive Anthozoa’s access to

adequate food. It failed to regulate STI’s activities particularly its use of suction-lift

mining equipment. This equipment is known among environmentalists to possibly

cause injury to the marine environment.10 Destruction to the marine environment,

particularly to the Eismic Ocean, means destruction to Anthozoa’s source of food and

a clear violation of the right to food under the ICESCR.

4.1.3. Obligation to fulfill: Rhinopterra undermined Anthozoa’s food security

when it engaged in the DSBM project

The obligation to fulfill means that States must be proactive in strengthening

people’s access to and use of resources and means of ensuring their livelihoods,

8
R. 19
9
supra, note 4
10
R. 16
 including food security.11

Rhinopterra undermined Anthozoa’s food security when it passed a law fully

implementing the DSBM project and entered into a contract with STI. 12 Instead of

strengthening people’s access to and use of resources, Rhinopterra engaged in an

activity that destroyed people’s source of food and killed the livelihood of many

fishermen in Anthozoa, including members of a fish-dependent minority group in the

islet of Motonui. Thus, Rhinopterra failed to perform its obligation to fulfill the right

to adequate food.

11
supra, note 4
12
R. 15