INTRODUCTION

Accountability is both an essential ingredient and the ultimate objective of all human rights. As Hunt (the former UN Special Rapporteur on the right to health) repeatedly emphasised, without effective system of ‘accountability human rights can become no more than window-dressing’. According to Hunt, in which ever socioeconomic and political context they are applied, accountability remains to be the core essence of the effective protection and realisation of human rights, or else, they would risk to be left to the unfettered discretion of national authorities contrary to the very object and purpose of international human rights norms. Accountability is an ubiquitous term especially in the academic writings focusing on public administration, political science, administrative, constitutional and international (human rights) law. However, there is no agreement on its specific meaning and implications nor will this Chapter engage in its conceptual debate. Consistent with the overall aim of this Part of the study, the purpose of this Chapter is to discuss how international human rights courts and monitoring bodies have dealt with the question of the State accountability for the realisation of ESC rights. For the reasons to be explained shortly, the realisation of the material conditions of life raises particularly complex issues with the accountability of the State. So, the specific concern of this Chapter is to discuss the justification and implications of the human rights accountability of the State. The cases discussed in this Chapter particularly distinguish between individual (subjective) and institutional (objective) form of accountability and establish the latter as the central aspect of international human rights monitoring system.

THE CONCEPTION OF ACCOUNTABILITY

But first it is important to introduce its general conceptual notion. Accountability is a broad normative concept with ‘ever-expanding’ meanings and implications. In fact, scanning through different academic writings seems to give the impression that its meaning and implications vary with the specific purpose and context in which it is raised or discussed. Sometimes it is used with the sense of (or as interchangeable with) responsibility, public explanation (transparency), liability, bureaucratic (administrative) control, transparency, (public, open, democratic) dialogue or deliberation, or bearing shame and blame in public for or in relation to a given act or omission.