A/HRC/32/31 debating such rights than they once did. But there remains a fundamental paradox because, at the same time: (a) Many of the States whose Constitutions recognize economic and social rights have not translated that recognition into a human rights-based legislative framework; (b) The increasingly widespread constitutional acceptance of the justiciability of economic and social rights stands in direct contrast to the resistance of many of the relevant courts to acting on these rights; (c) Many of the States that enjoy the world’s highest living standards have specifically rejected proposals to recognize economic and social rights in legislative or constitutional form; (d) With few exceptions, the principal national-level institutional mechanisms for promoting human rights devote almost no attention to economic and social rights; (e) National economic and social rights accountability mechanisms are generally much rarer than mainstream accounts would suggest. 5. The paradox is deepened by the fact that, at the international level in particular, both intergovernmental bodies and civil society actors continue to generate detailed and lengthy interpretations of economic and social rights provisions (especially through general comments and general recommendations), as well as principles, guidelines, recommendations, handbooks, guiding principles, manuals and blueprints designed to help Governments and other actors to better understand the nature and scope of States’ economic and social rights obligations. While this impressive and enlightening output has greatly strengthened the ability of civil society actors to advocate more effectively for economic and social rights, the question is whether, in national contexts in which economic and social rights do not enjoy legislative recognition, where national institutions do not effectively monitor and promote such rights and where meaningful accountability and participation mechanisms have not been established, conditions are such that a meaningful governmental response is likely to be triggered. The anticipated response to this critique is that the main, or at least initial, targets of the new activism are civil society actors and that they can be aided, empowered and even mobilized despite governmental inaction. But this response would be disingenuous if it implies that civil society actors alone can bring about the deep societal change that is required if economic and social rights are to be taken seriously as human rights.5 6. At the end of the day, the most telling evidence of the extent to which economic and social rights remain unacknowledged as human rights is the frequency with which debates about them slide imperceptibly and almost naturally into broad discussions of development. States challenged to explain how they respect economic and social rights will describe general development or social welfare initiatives as though they are necessarily synonymous with such rights. And development cooperation budgets often assume that, as long as an equality or poverty alleviation dimension is included, a project can be considered as promoting economic and social rights. But, in fact, development initiatives might not be rights-promoting or even rights-protecting, and even when they are both, they may well end up promoting the special interests of a targeted group rather than economic and social rights as human rights. 7. The risk of eliding two potentially very different approaches also arises when the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and its Sustainable Development Goals is automatically equated with the promotion of respect for economic and social rights. While 5 Marc Verdussen, ed., Les droits culturels et sociaux des plus défavorisés (Bruxelles, Bruylant, 2009). 5