We know that human rights abuses often continue even when governments ratify . Now it seems that many nations ignore treaty obligations to improve health services too.
鈥淭he public is led to believe that when a state makes a big deal about ratifying, they will do what they are promising, but quite often they don鈥檛 do anything,鈥� says Edward Mills of the in Vancouver, Canada, and lead author of a global analysis exposing widespread neglect of treaty obligations to improve health. 鈥淲e鈥檙e the first to look at health outcomes,鈥� he adds.
鈥楨xpose failures鈥�
Mills found that signing international treaties made little difference to four key measures of health: mortality rates of mothers, infants and children under five, and general life expectancy. 鈥淭he only thing associated with progress was economic development,鈥� he and his colleagues conclude.
Advertisement
Although 65 per cent of the 170 countries he analysed had signed six treaties obligating them to improve health, it made no difference to their performance, and in many countries, nothing had improved even 10 years after ratification. 鈥淚t鈥檚 all window dressing,鈥� says Mills.
He says that the only way to force improvements is to oblige an independent monitoring body, such as the in Seattle, Washington, to track and expose progress, or lack of it.
Responding through its in Geneva, the UN said it was 鈥渦nrealistic鈥� to expect the situation to improve rapidly after ratification. 鈥淩atification is only one of several factors affecting the speed of action,鈥� said Maarit Kohonen, coordinator of the office鈥檚 Human Rights Economic and Social Issues Unit. Other political and economic factors can slow or speed up compliance, for example.
Treaties 鈥榗rucial鈥�
Kohonen agreed that a minority of countries ratify without following through, but she said that most do make efforts to meet their new obligations. She also defended the human rights treaty system overall. 鈥淭he value of international human rights treaties, including those for improving health, is crucial to providing a universal, legally recognised framework to improve situations, such as national health outcomes.鈥�
Moreover, Kohonen says that an independent monitoring system already exists within the UN in Geneva, with with each of the seven main human rights treaties.
These units produce regular reports on all ratifying countries, starting with a report two years after ratification, with updates once every three or four years. Additionally, she says, the reports include data from independent NGOs, human rights groups and institutions, which means the final drafts are not reliant solely on data from a government, and so there is a counterweight to false and misleading data from corrupt governments.
鈥淭he treaty body system is as independent as it can be,鈥� says Kohonen. Altogether, she says that the monitors now rely on about 30 indicators for health outcomes.
Journal reference: (pdf)
