A/HRC/32/31 principle is that States shall, as required under international law, ensure that their domestic law is consistent with their international legal obligations by, inter alia, incorporating norms of international human rights law into their domestic law, or otherwise implementing them in their domestic legal system.12 The key element here is the recognition of the norm itself, not merely the adoption of measures that are pertinent to the subject-matter of the norm. B. Obligation to establish institutions 28. Human rights are often expressed with great brevity and little or no elaboration as to their content or corresponding obligations. The relevant treaties simply recognize that there is a right to life, a right to social security or a right to recognition as a person before the law. But the assumption underpinning this approach is that institutions will be created and will help to develop the normative content of the relevant right, promote its implementation and facilitate its realization. In Spanish, the term institucionalidad is sometimes used to denote the institutional arrangements that are needed to underpin the rule of law and human rights. Where no institutions are designated to take the lead in implementing a particular human right, the likelihood is that little will be done to treat it as a human right per se. This is especially the case in relation to economic and social rights. C. Obligation to promote accountability 29. The principle of accountability provides the overarching rationale for the establishment of an international human rights regime. It operates at two levels. One involves State accountability to the international community, which has been promoted through the creation of monitoring mechanisms such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the universal periodic review process, and through regional mechanisms. The other involves ensuring that governments are accountable to their citizens and other rights holders. The right to a remedy is recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and international human rights law has attached particular importance to developing an understanding of the right to adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparations. Remedies have also been highlighted in transitional justice contexts. In relation to economic, social and cultural rights, the Committee on those rights has stated in its general comment No. 9 that “appropriate means of redress, or remedies, must be available to any aggrieved individual or group, and appropriate means of ensuring governmental accountability must be put in place” (para. 2). IV. Applying these obligations to economic and social rights 30. In recent years, there has been great progress in the attention devoted, at both the national and international levels, to economic and social rights. In terms of scholarship, a “renaissance” of economic and social rights is said to have occurred, leading to a “burgeoning” literature.13 In terms of legal developments, a typical account noted as follows: ESC rights have gained increased acceptance in international law and comparative jurisprudence. This is evident in an array of new treaties and resolutions and the 12 13 See General Assembly resolution 60/147, annex, para. 2. Courtney Jung, Ran Hirschl and Evan Rosevear, “Economic and social rights in national constitutions”, American Journal of Comparative Law, vol. 62, No. 4 (December 2014), p. 1043. 11