US embassy cable - 03ROME5747

UNCLAS  ROME 005747 
 
SIPDIS 
 
 
STATE FOR IO/EDA, L/HRR, E, EB/TPP/ATP 
USAID FOR CUMMINGS 
USDA/FAS FOR REICH AND HUGHES 
 
FROM THE U.S. MISSION TO THE UN AGENCIES IN ROME 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
TAGS: AORC, PHUM, EAGR, EAID, EFIN, KUNR, FAO 
SUBJECT:  RIGHT TO FOOD: REPORT OF SECOND SESSION, 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL WORKING GROUP ON VOLUNTARY GUIDELINES, 
27-29 OCT 2003 
 
REFS:  (A) 03 ROME 4443,  (B) 03 ROME 1380 
 
This cable contains sensitive but unclassified sections 
that are intended strictly for internal USG use. 
 
1.  (SBU)  Summary:  The second session of the 
Intergovernmental Working Group (IGWG) for the 
Elaboration of Voluntary Guidelines to Support the 
Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in 
the Context of National Food Security met in Rome October 
27-29.  Delegations gave their initial reactions to the 
draft Voluntary Guidelines produced by the IGWG's Bureau. 
(See Ref. A.)   Comments and proposals raised by 
delegations and NGO representatives during the meeting 
indicated that, as more detailed, textual proposals are 
placed on the table in an upcoming February 2-5, 2004, 
negotiating round, the US delegation will confront 
problematic proposals on issues ranging from the 
characterization of an international right to "the 
progressive realization of the right to adequate food" to 
proposals from many developing countries and NGOs to use 
this exercise to reshape current international trade, 
finance, and development assistance regimes to expressly 
take into account a right to food and food security.  The 
US delegation believes, and Mission concurs, that an EB 
officer would be an important addition to the US 
Delegation in the February round.  End Summary. 
 
---------- 
BACKGROUND 
---------- 
 
2.  (SBU)  Operative paragraph 10 of the 2002 Declaration 
of the World Food Summit: five years later invited the 
FAO to establish an intergovernmental working group "to 
elaborate, in a period of two years a set of voluntary 
guidelines to support member states' efforts to achieve 
the progressive realization of the right to adequate food 
in the context of national food security."   An 
introductory IGWG session was convened in March 2003 (Ref 
B).  In the months following that session, a seven-member 
Bureau (based on FAO regions) working with the FAO 
Secretariat developed an opening text of the guidelines. 
 
SIPDIS 
(See Ref A and previous).  In an attempt to exercise more 
control over the text, the United States became the North 
American member of the bureau. 
 
3.  (SBU)  During the Bureau process over the summer of 
2003, the United States identified a series of problems 
with the FAO Secretariat's draft text and came to the 
Bureau sessions with detailed and extensive proposals, 
inter alia to:  (1) delete or correct problematic 
language that would mischaracterize the nature of a food- 
related right under international law or imply US 
concurrence with international obligations that it does 
not accept; (2) resist language, in the international 
arena, inconsistent with US policy in the area of the 
provision of international food aid, embargoes, and other 
international economic trade and monetary policies; and 
(3) otherwise keep the negotiations focused on the 
limitations of the IGWG's mandate by, inter alia, 
deleting language that was not voluntary, that would 
purport to apply to international armed conflict and 
foreign occupation, or that attempted to instruct 
international organizations (including the WTO and the 
World Bank) on how they should conduct their operations. 
 
4.  (SBU)  As noted in Ref. A, the USG was extremely 
successful in correcting these problems in the 
Secretariat's text at the final September 15-19 Bureau 
 
SIPDIS 
meeting.  As described in the paragraphs below, a 
significant element in the October IGWG was the desire 
and intention expressed by many developing countries, 
some developed countries (notably, Switzerland and 
Norway), and NGO participants to reinsert all of these 
problematic elements into the Voluntary Guidelines. 
 
------------------- 
THE OCTOBER MEETING 
------------------- 
 
5.  (U) Representatives from 89 governments, the United 
Nations and three UN specialized agencies, one 
intergovernmental organization (the ICRC), and 23 NGOs 
participated in the session.  Ambassador Mohammad Saeid 
 
Noori-Naeeni from Iran chaired the three-day meeting. 
As the draft opening text of the Voluntary Guidelines had 
only been circulated three weeks before the meeting, 
delegations at the session were invited to give comments 
and reactions to the text, without making specific 
textual proposals. 
 
6.  (SBU)  Status of the text.  As noted above, prior to 
the meeting, the Bureau held intensive discussions to 
develop the opening text.  As the final draft reflected 
many compromises among the regional group bureau members, 
it was agreed that all regions would support making the 
Bureau text the basis for the IGWG negotiations. 
Although this outcome ultimately prevailed, it became 
clear from the opening interventions of many developing 
countries (including Egypt, Venezuela, Syria, South 
Africa, and Jamaica) that many delegations would attempt 
to make extensive changes to that text. 
 
7.  (SBU)  Opening Remarks.  After a short introductory 
greeting from Chairman Noori, the FAO, as host of the 
session, was invited to give an opening statement of 
welcome.  Seizing the opportunity, Hartwig de Haen, 
Assistant Director-General, Economic and Social 
Department, expressly availed himself of the opportunity 
to give what he described as the FAO's policy views on 
how the Voluntary Guidelines should be drafted.  In this, 
he stated his opinion both that the IGWG should not take 
a "least common denominator approach" and that the 
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights' ("ESC 
Committee") General Comment 12 should be considered to be 
the authoritative interpretation of the right to adequate 
food (a position expressly at odds with USG views). 
 
------------------------------------------ 
SUBSTANTIVE REACTIONS TO THE INITIAL DRAFT 
------------------------------------------ 
 
8.  (U)  As noted above, comments by delegations and NGOs 
were kept at a fairly general level and textual proposals 
to amend the draft were not offered.  That said, it 
became clear that many developing countries, some 
developed countries (most notably Norway and 
Switzerland), and the food NGOs attending the conference 
will propose a series of changes to the text in the next 
negotiating round. 
 
Legal Issues 
------------ 
 
9.  (SBU)  Paragraph 2 of the Introduction currently 
contains problematic language that appears to be an 
attempt to describe the scope and content of the 
progressive realization of a right to adequate food. 
Although the United States delegation currently believes 
the language goes beyond the current legal scope of the 
Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights, Norway, 
Jamaica, Venezuela and Cuba, as well as representatives 
from the ESC Committee, the CHR's Special Rapporteur on 
the Right to Food, and various NGOs argued that this 
language was not sufficiently expansive, and thus 
reflected a "cutting back" of the right to adequate food. 
Second, this group of participants further argued that 
General Comment 12 should be expressly referenced in the 
Guidelines.  Third, the group further argued that the 
operative language in the guidelines should be made 
stronger to at a minimum use the word  "should" and, in 
some cases, use the word "shall."  Fourth, Jamaica, South 
Africa, Switzerland and representatives from the ESC 
Committee, the CHR's Special Rapporteur on the Right to 
Food, and various NGOs further argued for the addition of 
language favoring the justiciability (i.e., the ability 
for citizens to bring civil judicial enforcement actions 
in court) of the right to adequate food.  A smaller but 
still vocal group of participants (including Peru) 
further argued that the Guidelines should have provisions 
describing obligations of multinational corporations 
relating to the right to adequate food.  This proposal 
mirrors a highly objectionable section in this year's 
Special Rapporteur's report to the CHR, which, among its 
other failings, argued that corporations were competent 
to violate international law related to a right to food 
and that States had separate and independent 
international law obligations to prevent such violations. 
 
10.  (SBU)  The United States delegation expressed its 
opposition to these suggestions.  A copy of the US 
intervention appears after paragraph 20.  Canada somewhat 
vaguely expressed its general agreement with the US 
approach on legal issues.  The EU, which was internally 
divided on many of these issues, did not address many of 
the legal issues, but did make two helpful points: (1) 
that the Guidelines should not imply that corporations 
have obligations under international law; and (2) that 
the Guidelines should not contain language either stating 
of creating an impression that States' international 
legal obligations apply outside of their territory (e.g., 
that Country A could violate a right to food with respect 
to citizens in Country B by the way it conducted its 
international assistance policies.) 
 
International Framework 
----------------------- 
 
11.  (SBU) Apart from the two paragraphs in draft 
Guideline 14 on International Food Aid, language 
describing the "International Framework" related to the 
right to food and food security appear in Part V of the 
Guidelines.  (FYI:  Of the current twelve pages of the 
Guidelines, the current eleven paragraphs in Part V are 
under a page in length.)   As reported in paragraph 9 of 
Ref. B, the US Bureau member was able in the final Bureau 
meeting to have deleted a series of problematic proposals 
on this subject.  During the October IGWG session, it 
became evident that many developing country delegations, 
with support from the Special Rapporteur and NGOs, hope 
to add new guidelines on how the activities of 
international organizations and the operation of the 
international trade and financial systems should take 
into account the right to adequate food and food 
security. 
 
12.  (SBU)  Although the current draft of Part V with 
only one exception is not substantively problematic, the 
US delegation has from the beginning of the talks opposed 
having a section describing the international framework. 
Apart from taking a view that the mandate of the 
negotiations was limited to actions within a country's 
territory, the US delegation believed and believes that 
any international section would become a magnet for 
unacceptable proposals.  Although, at the first meeting 
of the IGWG, the EU and Japan opposed having provisions 
on the international framework, it became clear during 
the Bureau sessions that the EU would not continue to 
oppose having such language in the Guidelines.  At IGWG, 
the Japanese reiterated its "preference" for no 
international section, but quickly undercut that position 
by stating that it was more important that there not be 
language on international trade.  At the October IGWG 
session, Italy, speaking as President of the EU, reserved 
its position on whether the Guidelines should have an 
international section, but then gave substantive comments 
on what such a section should and should not contain. 
The United States was alone in taking a clear position 
against an international section, in part to give itself 
whatever leverage it could to resist extreme proposals. 
That said, virtually all other delegations -- including 
the spokespersons for the Asian, African, Latin American, 
and Near Eastern Groups -- spoke of the importance of 
there being an international section in the Voluntary 
Guidelines.  Brazil made the false but superficially 
attractive point that an international section focusing 
on the responsibilities of developed countries was 
important to balance the rest of the Guidelines' 
purported focus, at the domestic level, on the 
obligations of developing countries.  (FYI:  This 
representation is almost entirely false, as the 
guidelines apply to both developed and developing 
countries.) 
 
Trade and Investment Provisions 
------------------------------- 
 
13.  (SBU)  Many developing countries and representatives 
from the Special Rapporteur and NGOs spoke at length on 
the need to add directive language in the Guidelines that 
the international trade and financial systems should be 
operated in a manner to increase access to food.  (As 
specific proposals were not solicited, the precise 
content of these ideas, perhaps mercifully, was never 
 
made clear.)  Unless stated otherwise, the 
representatives of the Special Rapporteur and NGO's 
supported these developing country views.)  Mexico stated 
that there needed to be a guideline on what it described 
as "unfair trade practices."  Egypt, speaking for the 
Near East region, and Chile called for language ensuring 
developing country access to markets.  China, Bangladesh, 
South Africa, the Philippines, Jamaica, Egypt and Brazil 
stated that there needed to be additional language to 
express the importance of developed countries' increasing 
developing countries' access to their markets (the 
current text has a neutral reference to the Doha mandate 
in this regard).  The Philippines went a step further (or 
perhaps only a step more specific) to suggest that there 
should be differentiated responsibilities, where 
developed countries would assume greater obligations than 
developing countries.  With respect to the operation of 
the international finance system, the same group of 
countries indicated, without offering specifics, that the 
guidelines should further take into account the needs of 
developing countries.  Egypt and Venezuela suggested that 
there be a more specific provision on debt relief. 
Jamaica called for a provision to increase the commitment 
of developed countries to provide official development 
assistance. 
 
14.  (SBU)  In addition to the points made by the US 
delegation opposing these proposals (see generally, the 
opening statement after Para 20), Japan stated that it 
did not support any provisions on trade.  Italy, speaking 
on behalf of the EU, after reserving its position 
generally on whether there should be an international 
section, stated that it would be important that any 
language dealing with international trade be consistent 
with the work currently being done at the WTO.  Canada 
echoed this point.  Australia, which would normally be in 
strong agreement with points made by the United States on 
this and other issues, staffed this delegation from its 
FAO mission and made virtually no interventions during 
the meeting. 
 
International Food Aid 
---------------------- 
 
15.  (SBU)  Due in part to the efforts of the US Bureau 
members, the current draft guideline 14 contains two 
anodyne provisions on international food aid.  A few 
delegations -- most vocally Venezuela -- stated that they 
would like to see additional guidelines: (1) to instruct 
or otherwise encourage developed countries to increase 
international food aid; (2) to end practices of using 
such food aid to "dump" food surpluses.  Fian 
International, which spoke at length throughout the 
negotiations, stated that there should be a guideline 
calling for the renegotiation of the Food Aid Convention. 
 
Genetic Resources 
----------------- 
 
16.  (SBU)  Again due to changes by US Bureau members, 
current Guideline 7d contains an anodyne provision on 
genetic resources for food and agriculture.  Peru 
indicated that it would like to see new language calling 
for the protection of genetic resources in countries of 
origin.  Mexico and Iran stated that they would like more 
specific references in the Guidelines to the provisions 
in the Convention on Biological Diversity.  Bangladesh 
argued that agricultural genetic resources should be 
considered to be public goods and that the guidelines 
should recognize "farmers rights."  Although specific 
proposals were not offered, it seemed clear to the US 
delegation that problematic proposals will probably be 
put on the table in the February negotiating round. 
 
Law of War and Foreign Occupation 
--------------------------------- 
 
17.  (SBU)  As reported in Ref. A, Para 9, the US 
representative to the Bureau at the final Bureau meeting 
was able to delete a problematic Guideline from the 
Secretariat's draft titled "Armed Conflicts."  In its 
 
SIPDIS 
place, the current draft Guidelines contain in the 
preface the following language:  "These Guidelines do not 
address armed conflict and international humanitarian 
law.  It should be borne in mind, however, that states 
 
have assumed important obligations related to this 
subject matter under that body of law."  In the October 
IGWG meeting, Switzerland, Egypt, Syria, Iran, Cameroon, 
and the representative from the ICRC objected to the 
absence of substantive provisions on the right to food 
during armed conflict.  Switzerland, in the margins of 
the meeting, circulated a formal, and substantively 
unacceptable, proposal on the subject.  Iran (the 
delegation as opposed to Conference Chairman Noori) added 
to this its view that there should be a guideline 
condemning countries from starting wars. 
 
18.  (U)  Syria stated that there should be a guideline 
dealing with the right to adequate food and foreign 
occupation.  Although Syria did not speak to all of the 
specifics of its proposal, it suggested that such a 
guideline would condemn foreign occupations, provide that 
the occupying power must not interfere with the right to 
adequate food of the people in an occupied territory, 
that occupying powers should not use food to "punish" 
that population, and that the activities of an occupying 
power should be reviewed by the ICRC. 
 
19.  (U)  With respect to both law of war and foreign 
occupation, the US delegation explained that these issues 
were not within the mandate of this negotiation and that 
there is already a detailed and complex body of 
international law applicable to these situations.  Any 
attempt even to characterize this body of law would 
invariably be, at best, selective and incomplete and, at 
worst, inconsistent with this important body of law. 
 
------------------- 
GENERAL CONCLUSIONS 
------------------- 
 
20.  (SBU)  As reflected in the discussion above, the US 
delegation to the February 2-5 negotiating round will 
confront a series of unacceptable proposals on a wide 
range of issues.  While the delegation is currently well 
staffed to deal with the legal, human rights, and food- 
policy issues, it would greatly benefit from the addition 
of an EB officer to help the delegation deal with 
proposals on a wide range of international trade and 
finance issues. 
 
------------------------------ 
TEXT OF U.S. OPENING STATEMENT 
------------------------------ 
 
The United States is pleased to participate in this 
Intergovernmental Working Group.  The United States is 
deeply committed to international food security and our 
actions bear this out.  This statement is of a general 
nature, and we will present our thoughts on individual 
guidelines when we discuss each of these guidelines later 
in this session.  We will not attempt to address specific 
proposals by delegations. 
 
We believe the Voluntary Guidelines will be most useful 
if they focus on practical steps to achieve national food 
security and if they address ways that governments, non- 
governmental organizations, and the private sector can 
work together towards that end.  As reflected in the 
current structure of the guidelines, these practical 
steps include: increasing agricultural productivity; 
creating an enabling environment; promoting transparent 
and accountable government; boosting agricultural science 
and technology; developing domestic market and 
international trade opportunities; securing property 
rights and access to finance; enhancing human capital; 
protecting the vulnerable; advancing the status of women; 
and mainstreaming a gender perspective in national 
institutions, policies, and budgets around the world. It 
is also important that the guidelines address the 
fundamental role played by good governance, 
accountability, and the establishment or strengthening of 
democratic institutions as a means to achieving food 
security. 
 
We believe the draft document before us is an excellent 
starting point for our deliberations, and agree with 
other delegations that have supported your call to make 
this the basis of our work.  Through intensive work, the 
Bureau, representing all regions of the world and in 
 
consultation with civil society, produced this draft. Our 
Chairman has clarified that the Bureau believed the text 
to be a good basis for conducting our negotiations. While 
improvements to the text are necessary and appropriate, 
we do not believe that a restructuring of the guidelines 
is appropriate, nor do we think there is time for us to 
do so. Indeed we believe that an attempt to restructure 
the Guidelines, as well intentioned as it is, will run 
the risk of our not reaching a successful conclusion of 
our work. 
 
We have a few general observations regarding the draft 
document and the process for developing them that we 
would like to make: 
 
First, as a practical matter, we note that there is 
little time available for delegations to negotiate these 
Voluntary Guidelines.  Our experience in large 
negotiating sessions has proven time and again that 
delegations can typically reach agreement on practical 
measures that should be taken to address important 
problems.  In contrast, delegations typically cannot 
resolve questions involving competing characterizations 
of international law.  Not surprisingly, countries are 
not prepared to accept descriptions of international 
legal obligations with which they disagree.  Arguments 
over such issues are contentious and un-resolvable. The 
views of the United States on the legal issues 
of what is described in the Universal Declaration of 
Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, 
Social and Cultural rights as the progressive realization 
of the right to an adequate standard of living, including 
food, are well known to other delegations. [insert 
footnote]. Just as we would not insist that other 
delegations be asked to accept our interpretation, by 
memorializing such views in these Guidelines, we would 
expect that others to not expect us or other countries to 
be required to accept in this document descriptions of 
international law with which they do not agree.  In the 
context of the current negotiation, not only has the 
Inter-Governmental Working Group not been given a mandate 
to attempt to interpret existing legal instruments, but 
an attempt to do so would divert limited time 4d 
attention away from national actions that can help 
provide people with better access to food. 
 
Second, as we stated at the first meeting of the IGWG, we 
note that the Inter-Governmental Working Group is 
mandated to focus on national food security. 
Accordingly, we do not believe that Part V (International 
Framework) is within the mandate of the IGWG.  We would 
note that this is a long-held and crosscutting position 
of our government, and is not a criticism of the 
sentiments conveyed in Part V of the current draft.  As a 
practical matter, we would be concerned that widely 
divergent views of governments on international 
cooperation -- many of which we have heard this afternoon 
-- may present a stumbling block to completing our 
negotiations within the time available to us.  We would 
note our agreement with the delegation of Japan that we 
not attempt to deal with issues within the mandate of the 
World Trade Organization. 
 
Third, we agree fully with the decision taken by the 
Bureau not to attempt in these Guidelines to address 
armed conflict and international humanitarian law.  Even 
if it were somehow possible to deal with this 
extraordinarily complex issue within the limited time 
available to us, the law of armed conflict and 
international humanitarian law is dealt with by other 
international organizations and processes. These issues 
lie outside the remit of this negotiation. 
 
Fourth, we would not support adding to our mandate the 
recommendations suggested by the Special Rapporteur in 
its most recent report, nor do we agree with the 
descriptions of international law contained in that 
report. 
 
Finally, I wanted to reiterate that we are very happy to 
participate in this important process and we are fully 
committed to work with our colleagues in this room to 
help you, Mr. Chairman, make this process a success. 
 
Begin Footnote:  The Universal Declaration of Human 
 
Rights states: "Everyone has the right to a standard of 
living adequate for the health and well-being of himself 
and his family, including food, clothing, housing and 
medical care and necessary social services."  The United 
States believes that the attainment of the right to an 
adequate standard of living is a goal or aspiration to be 
realized progressively that does not give rise to 
international obligations or domestic legal entitlements; 
nor does it diminish the responsibilities of national 
governments toward their citizens. The United States 
 
understands the right of access to food to mean the 
opportunity to secure food, and not guaranteed 
entitlement.  End footnote. 
 
End of US Statement 
 
--------------------------------- 
U.S. INTERVENTION ON LEGAL ISSUES 
--------------------------------- 
 
Characterization of the "right" in the Voluntary 
Guidelines 
 
In our discussion of the legal issues, there are many 
general issues where there are common views and a few 
important issues of divergence.  Areas many delegations 
seem to agree: 
 
-- that the Voluntary Guidelines are, by definition, 
voluntary, 
 
-- that they do not create new obligation on States, and 
that their drafting should not contain words of legal 
obligation; 
 
-- that these negotiations of the Voluntary Guidelines 
are not a forum to create new international law, to 
renegotiate international agreements, or to attempt to 
forge consensus on differing interpretations of 
international treaties; 
 
-- that statements regarding the obligations of states 
parties to treaties need to be clearly expressed and 
should also be clear that such obligations apply with 
respect to such states parties; and 
 
-- that the Voluntary Guidelines should not appear to 
derogate from existing international treaty obligations. 
 
These points of convergence, however, contain the seeds 
of an area of disagreement.  That is the circumstance in 
which countries do not agree on the underlying scope and 
contours of their obligations under particular treaties. 
 
As the United States said in its opening comments, 
countries are unwilling to accept descriptions of 
international treaties and international law generally 
with which they disagree.  Nor, as a general matter, is 
it reasonable in a negotiation of a non-binding 
instrument such as this to expect a country to agree to a 
description of international law with which it disagrees. 
 
For this reason, political instruments typically do not 
attempt to characterize or describe the specific scope of 
obligations contained in international treaties, but 
simply take note of them or, where appropriate, quote 
word-for-word the actual language in the treaty. 
 
-- Attempts to characterize the obligations are 
inherently controversial and counterproductive. 
 
-- It is the job of the parties to treaties to determine 
the content of their obligations in good faith pursuant 
to international treaty law as set out, under customary 
international law, in the Vienna Convention on the Law of 
Treaties. 
 
Today, speakers have quoted language from General 12 of 
the Committee of Economic, Social and cultural Rights 
about what are described as obligations under the ESC 
Covenant to "respect, protect and fulfill" the right to 
adequate food. 
 
-- This language appears nowhere in the Covenant. 
 
-- Nor does the Covenant even provide for the existence 
of the Committee, much less give it a mandate to issue 
legally binding or legally authoritative interpretations 
of its terms. 
 
-- The United States has great respect for the Committee 
and similar Committees established under other human 
rights treaties.  States sometimes agree with 
interpretations offered by such committees. Sometimes 
states do not agree, and there is nothing in the ESC 
Covenant or elsewhere that provides that they are bound 
to. 
 
The problem with respect to paragraph 2 in the section 
The Right to Adequate Food and Food Security is that the 
United States, a signatory to the ESC Covenant, 
fundamentally disagrees that the characterization of the 
right in this paragraph and in General Comment 12 is an 
accurate description of the rights contained in the ESC 
Covenant. 
 
-- It is inconsistent with the interpretation the United 
States has consistently applied to the Covenant, which 
was described at length in treaty materials submitted by 
former President Jimmy Carter to the US Senate. 
 
-- In the interest of time, we will not engage in a 
substantive legal discussion of those differences of 
view. 
 
As a final matter, I would like to explain why my 
government cares to deeply about this issue, even though 
it has not ratified the ESC Covenant. 
 
-- First, the United States is a signatory, and 
signatories have certain responsibilities under 
international treaty law. 
 
-- Second, the precedent of citing non-binding General 
Comments as authoritative law could have applications in 
settings in which the United States is a party. 
 
What is the solution to the problem? 
 
-- Some delegations have expressed concerns that the 
characterizations of the right in the Guidelines 
exaggerate the right while others are concerned that the 
description might restrictively interpret the ESC 
Covenant. 
 
-- The way to avoid this problem is the way found in all 
such negotiations- to avoid characterizations and cite 
the actual language of the instrument in question. 
 
Justiciability of, and third party responsibilities 
relating to, the progressive realization of the right to 
adequate food. 
 
On the issues of justiciability, as described above we do 
not believe that the right to food is justiciable under 
the International Covenant on Economic, Social and 
Cultural Rights or other instruments of international 
law. 
 
-- Research circulated by the FAO Secretariat indicates 
that there is a very wide array of methods for countries 
under national laws to deal with providing access to 
food. 
 
-- Some countries may chose to create a right; some may 
not. 
 
-- Even among those that have a right under national law, 
many do not create a right for individuals to bring 
lawsuits against their government for enforcing such 
rights. 
 
-- It is this private right to bring lawsuits, which is 
what is typically meant by those arguing for the creation 
of a "justiciable" right. 
 
Regarding third parties, we do not agree there is a 
formal international legal obligation to "protect" the 
progressive realization of the right to adequate food. 
 
-- Thus, actions against private actors are not provided 
for in the ICESCR or otherwise in international law. 
 
-- We would not want to include language on this subject 
in the Guidelines. 
 
End of US Intervention on Legal Issues. 
 
HALL 
 
 
NNNN 
 2003ROME05747 - Classification: UNCLASSIFIED