Practice question
A State party claims that ICESCR Article 4 allows it to abolish a protected right whenever an executive memorandum uses the words 'general welfare.' The proposed restriction is neither established by law nor compatible with the right's nature. Which answer best evaluates the claim?
- Using the phrase is enough.
- Any executive preference is automatically a lawful limitation.
- Article 4 permits destruction of every Covenant right.
- The claim fails: Article 4 requires a limitation determined by law, compatible with the right's nature and solely directed to general welfare in a democratic society.
- Article 4 regulates only the State's name.
Legal references
- International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Articles 2–4, 7, 9, 12–14, https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/36/10829
- CESCR, General Comment No. 13 (1999), paragraphs 43–45, https://docstore.ohchr.org/SelfServices/FilesHandler.ashx?enc=NDHbUvPo0H0e6ReM%2BeoASfvbY3aH6JttLpsRvkmL87wD80W4xnAiRpmKA6ZLwTp9xzCLNUYwTBP35uH1Fw6yqQ%3D%3D
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.