Law

This article argues that in developing social rights to counterbalance economic freedoms, the EU has begun to reformulate traditional notions of rights. Instead of creating rights in their traditional individualised, negative, judicially enforceable, and faultbased form, a new proactive model is emerging, which aims at institutional change, based on the notion of the active citizen and the centrality of participation in both rule formation and enforcement. It is argued that while this model has important advantages, its weakness lies in its dependence on political will. The challenge is therefore to ensure that proactive strategies are firmly centred on fundamental rights rather than political discretion. Part I briefly sketches the development of social rights in the EU; Part II examines the applicability of Third Way ideology; Part III considers European employment strategy and gender mainstreaming, asking whether they represent a dynamic new manifestation of fundamental rights at work, or a betrayal. Part IV applies a similar evaluation to the EU Charter. The EU's genesis as a free trade zone has always threatened to privilege economic freedoms over social rights, endangering social law in Member States. It is thus of crucial significance that the EU has come to recognise its own role in the protection and promotion of social rights. Because of the unique powers of the EU to bind its members, this recognition gives the EU the potential to operate as a powerful engine buttressing social rights against the 'race to the bottom' created by competitive forces. However, the language used to assess national or international human rights law does not translate easily into the EU social space. Instead, the sui generis nature of the EU destabilises some of the basic assumptions behind social rights, exposing fault-lines and opening spaces for new conceptions. Social rights are reconceptualised, not as burdens on business, but as essential contributors to efficiency. Traditional conceptions of rights as individual, negative, judicially enforceable, and fault based are challenged by mainstreaming, positive duties, and other proactive initiatives. But does the reformulation of rights constitute a genuine transformation or an extravagant dilution? In this article, I argue that a new, proactive model of rights is emerging, aiming at institutional change and moving away from an individualised, complaints-based

Traditionally in the UK, distributive inequalities have been dealt with quite separately from inequality based on sex, race, or other ‗status'. While distributive inequalities are regarded as the domain of the political sphere, inequality on grounds of ‗status' is dealt with by anti-discrimination laws. It is thus of considerable importance that the Equality Act 2010 includes a positive duty on public bodies in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage. The paper argues that, while only a small step in the right direction, the new duty is nevertheless a significant one. Paying attention to socioeconomic disadvantage can only assist and strengthen the effectiveness of status-based antidiscrimination laws. At the same time, it needs to be recognised that there is a reciprocal interaction between socioeconomic disadvantage and status. This makes it essential to achieve close coordination between the new socioeconomic disadvantage duty and established status duties. It is, however, unfortunate that the duty is only one to ‗pay due regard' to the desirability of reducing inequalities related to socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than to take steps to achieve this end. Nevertheless, the ‗due regard' standard can perform an important function if public bodies are required to justify and explain their decisions openly. It is thus of great importance that politicians and civil society groups insist on transparency and accountability of decision-makers; and that judicial review proceedings be viewed as a means of enforcing such accountability.

Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures i Table of Contents Members of the European Network of Legal Experts in the Field of Gender Equality ii Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures Sandra Fredman Executive summary 1. The pure complaints-led model 2. Modified complaints-led models Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures 2.3 Monitoring 2.3.1 Confidentiality and data protection 2.4 Enforcement 2.4.1 Reporting to Parliament 2.4.2 Equality bodies 2.4.3 Individual complaints 2.4.4 Effectiveness V Conclusion Annex I: Questionnaire Annex II: Bibliography Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures iii

Despite the fact that the Millennium Development Goals promised to achieve gender equality and maternal health by 2015, equality remains elusive for too many women. Indeed, austerity, the rise of fundamentalism and the continuing gendered division of labour, especially when it comes to socially necessary but unremunerated care work, have contributed to the increase in gendered inequalities in many areas of social life and in most regions of the world. There is a plenitude of international, transnational and national equality instruments and strategies at the same time as gendered inequality is increasing both within and between nations. These equality instruments and strategies have also had an uneven impact: some women benefit more than others. Moreover, if interpreted in a formal manner, equality can be achieved as much through levelling down men's employment opportunities as by elevating women's life chances.

insight is matched by the challenges it raises. In addressing both status and socioeconomic disadvantage within the vehicle of substantive equality, how is each to be formulated, and how should they interact? This paper considers three specific problematic issues which arise from this interaction. The first is the role of dignity. An increasingly popular concept within substantive equality discourse, dignity has also at times had the effect of dislocating status from socioeconomic disadvantage. The paper asks what role dignity should play. The second problematic issue at the intersection of status and socioeconomic disadvantage is concerned with affirmative action. Affirmative action specifically attaches socioeconomic benefits to those disadvantaged by status, and therefore facilitates the achievement of substantive equality. However, there is a risk that this link perpetuates status inequality by freezing individuals into existing status groups, or by reinforcing stereotypes. This paper considers this problem particularly in relation to pregnancy and parenthood. Furthermore, as the status group begins to benefit from the affirmative action provisions, a gap opens up between status and disadvantage. The paper asks the question of whether the beneficiary group therefore needs to be narrowed to include only those who suffer both status and socioeconomic disadvantage. Indeed, if the aim is indeed to redress socioeconomic disadvantage, why link affirmative action to status at all? It is argued here that affirmative action performs more functions than simply to redress socioeconomic disadvantage, and therefore that the link with status should be maintained, even when accompanied by relative economic prosperity. This leads onto the third problematic issue at the intersection between status and socioeconomic disadvantage, namely the link between status and poverty. It is argued here that just as status brings with it socioeconomic disadvantage, so poverty brings with it status harm. This means that poverty should be a ground of discrimination. Another way of formulating the issue is to use the concepts of recognition and redistribution, fashioned by Fraser, Honneth and others. 1 Based on Hegel"s notion of 1

Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures i Table of Contents Members of the European Network of Legal Experts in the Field of Gender Equality ii Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures Sandra Fredman Executive summary 1. The pure complaints-led model 2. Modified complaints-led models Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures 2.3 Monitoring 2.3.1 Confidentiality and data protection 2.4 Enforcement 2.4.1 Reporting to Parliament 2.4.2 Equality bodies 2.4.3 Individual complaints 2.4.4 Effectiveness V Conclusion Annex I: Questionnaire Annex II: Bibliography Making Equality Effective: The role of proactive measures iii

Traditionally in the UK, distributive inequalities have been dealt with quite separately from inequality based on sex, race, or other ‗status'. While distributive inequalities are regarded as the domain of the political sphere, inequality on grounds of ‗status' is dealt with by anti-discrimination laws. It is thus of considerable importance that the Equality Act 2010 includes a positive duty on public bodies in relation to socioeconomic disadvantage. The paper argues that, while only a small step in the right direction, the new duty is nevertheless a significant one. Paying attention to socioeconomic disadvantage can only assist and strengthen the effectiveness of status-based antidiscrimination laws. At the same time, it needs to be recognised that there is a reciprocal interaction between socioeconomic disadvantage and status. This makes it essential to achieve close coordination between the new socioeconomic disadvantage duty and established status duties. It is, however, unfortunate that the duty is only one to ‗pay due regard' to the desirability of reducing inequalities related to socioeconomic disadvantage, rather than to take steps to achieve this end. Nevertheless, the ‗due regard' standard can perform an important function if public bodies are required to justify and explain their decisions openly. It is thus of great importance that politicians and civil society groups insist on transparency and accountability of decision-makers; and that judicial review proceedings be viewed as a means of enforcing such accountability.

The equality guarantee in Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms has often been regarded as an insipid right. However, recent jurisprudence indicates that the European Court of Human Rights has taken a more robust stand. This article assesses recent developments to determine whether we can now discern a coherent conception of the right to equality. The article draws on a four-dimensional conception of substantive equality, which assesses the case law according to whether it furthers the complementary aims of redressing disadvantage (distributive dimension), addressing stereotypes, prejudice, humiliation and violence (recognition dimension), facilitating participation (participative dimension); and accommodating difference, including through structural change (transformative dimension). The article concludes that the judgments have important resonances with this approach, particularly in relation to the distributive, recognition and participative dimensions. The Court remains cautious, however, in relation to transformation. It also has a worrying tendency to revert unexpectedly to formal equality, as in relation to racial violence.

The Public Sector Duty Objective set by New College in April 2012 focussed on promoting gender equality for both staff and students, by gathering statistical data and performing quantitative analysis to identify potential discrepancies and to put forward proposals to redress these. Between the publication of the objective in April 2012 and January 2013, the College gathered data in preparation for analysis and reports in 2016. This was published on the College website. Between January 2013 and January 2014 the College's Equality & Diversity Committee identified a need for a more statistically robust data set before beginning analysis, so we continued to gather data in preparation for this. This was published on the College website. We also began a two-year refurbishment project on the main college site, which included making access to the Dining Hall available to wheelchair users with the addition of a lift. A standing item called 'Equality and Diversity' was also added to all college committee agendas to encourage reflection and to assess the impact of all decisions on equality and diversity matters.

in particular for their support and insights during the seminar series which informed our developing thinking. Our thanks go to the authors of the seminar papers on whose analysis we draw and who are cited throughout the text, Professors Bob Hepple, John Grimley Evans and Tom Schuller, and Janice Robinson (The King's Fund), and to Matt Gill who organised the seminar series with great efficiency and good will. We are grateful to the respondents and participants who contributed to stimulating discussions, and Meghna Abraham for research assistance. Finally, our thanks to those members of the project Advisory Group who have not already been acknowledged-Patrick Grattan (Third Age Employment Network), Gerison Lansdown, Tessa Harding (Help the Aged), Dominic Johnson (then at the CBI), Colm O'Cinneide (University College London) and Peter Robinson (IPPR), for their thoughtful contributions throughout. Needless to say, those whom we consulted do not necessarily agree with all of our analysis and conclusions, responsibility for which is entirely our own.

Achieving Transformative Equality for Persons with Disabilities: Submission to the CRPD Committee for General Comment No.6 on Article 5 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication. Oxford Human Rights Hub. http://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/publications/sandra-fredman-meghancampbell-shreya-atrey-jason-brickhill-sanya-samtani-and-nomfundoramalenka-achieving-transformative-equality-for-persons-withdisabilities-submission-to-the-committee-o/ Peer reviewed version Link to publication record in Explore Bristol Research PDF-document