Ebola’s Human Rights Implications
by
The current Ebola outbreak in West Africa is the largest in history. As of September 23, the disease has produced a total case count of 6,574 (which includes confirmed, probable, and suspected cases) and 3,091 deaths. The CDC estimates that “[w]ithout additional interventions or changes in community behavior … by January 20, 2015, there will be a total of approximately 550,000 Ebola cases in Liberia and Sierra Leone or 1.4 million if corrections for underreporting are made.” These are frightening numbers that raise the prospects of a global pandemic. The human rights implications are profound.
At its most basic level, the Ebola outbreak implicates the right to life, enshrined in various human rights instruments including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). It also threatens affected individuals’ right to “the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health,” found in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as well as the CRC. As the scale of the outbreak grows, and if it takes a toll on health care professionals, the ripple effect will be significant and likely implicate other rights.
Foremost, a rapid and effective response is needed to contain the outbreak and to ensure the survival and wellbeing of every individual affected by or at risk of Ebola.
Beyond this most pressing concern, Ebola highlights a critical—and undertheorized—question in human rights law. Health rights—like all economic, social, and cultural rights—are tied to a state’s obligation to use “the maximum of its available resources” (ICESCR article 2). The ICESCR requires states parties to take steps “individually and through international assistance and co-operation.” The international assistance language clearly means that if a country does not have sufficient resources to ensure the economic, social and cultural rights of all, it must pursue international assistance. The unanswered question is what response human rights law requires of wealthier nations. Reading the international assistance language to mean that wealthier nations are obligated to provide assistance suggests a potentially dramatic broadening of human rights law jurisdiction. States parties to human rights treaties agree to ensure rights to all individuals subject to their jurisdiction, not to individuals in other countries with limited resources. On the one hand, saying that wealthier nations have no obligation to give when asked would render the international assistance language meaningless.
Again, today, the immediate priority and obligation must be to ensure the survival of ill and at-risk individuals. However, the Ebola outbreak also challenges human rights scholars and advocates to more clearly articulate the meaning of the “international assistance” requirement of states’ obligations to ensure economic, social and cultural rights.