Neera Chandhoke takes issue with my conclusions in Chapter 9. Her argument is largely a handful of noncontroversial assertions. The only controversy in the chapter stems from Chandhoke's misreading of Human Rights Watch's policy on ESC rights and of my chapter.

According to Chandhoke's summary of her argument, she asserts that (1) economic and social rights cannot be reduced to civil and political rights, (2) economic and social rights enable people to access goods that are necessary for a worthwhile life, and (3) it is possible to enforce economic and social rights without asking for redistributive justice. I would not challenge any of these points.

However, Chandhoke goes on to critique my chapter based on a mischaracterization of Human Rights Watch's policy on ESC rights. She claims that INGOs in general “continue to supervene social and economic rights onto civil and political rights” and that Human Rights Watch “sees a violation of these [ESC] rights as worth investigating only if such a violation results from or will lead to a violation of civil rights” (emphasis in original). Those descriptions of Human Rights Watch's old policy have been, at the time of publication, inaccurate for three years. I have repeatedly pointed out to Chandhoke that her argument is built on a policy that is long out of date, but she persists as if the past is the present.