A/HRC/28/65 Organization (FAO) by consensus. States cannot therefore claim to be unaware of or refuse to comply with the guidelines. Over the years, in many formal settings, the Governments have reiterated their commitment to and support for the guidelines. B. A new era: adoption of the Optional Protocol and access to justice 6. The interdependence and indivisibility of economic, social and cultural rights and civil and political rights have long been asserted within international law, yet in practice economic, social and cultural rights have typically been relegated to second place within the international framework, with civil and political rights taking centre stage, particularly when it comes to implementation. While the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights includes an explicit provision requiring States “to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy” (art. 2, para. 3 (b)), no such specific provision is explicitly mentioned in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It should be noted, however, that the Committee has clarified that the obligation under article 2, paragraph 1, of the Covenant to “take steps … by all appropriate means” includes the provision of judicial remedies.4 7. The reluctance of a number of States to recognize that economic, social and cultural rights are justiciable has done much to propagate unfounded misconceptions thereon. Those countries opposed to the justiciability of those rights argue that such a notion may interfere with State sovereignty5 claiming that it is inappropriate for courts to adjudicate on social and economic policy. There is also a perception that social and economic rights set forth political objectives and are too vague to be enforceable.6 The suggestion that these rights are resource-dependent and cannot be satisfied where there is a lack of capital, and the idea that these rights only impose positive obligations on States and civil and political rights give rise to negative ones, has also led to resistance from some States. 8. The justiciability debate continues to provoke controversy at the international level. However despite strong opposition from a number of States an Optional Protocol to the Covenant, establishing an individual complaints procedure, was finally adopted in 2008. Its subsequent entry into force in May 2013 was hailed as “potentially one of the most important developments in human rights protection at the UN level in a generation”.7 9. The Optional Protocol is intended to complement rather than replace national legal systems and should not be considered as the principal means of seeking justice. The Optional Protocol grants individuals, or groups of individuals under the jurisdiction of a State party, the right to submit communications about alleged violations of any economic, social or cultural right to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (art. 2).8 10. Article 2 of the Optional Protocol requires that authors of communications must be under the jurisdiction of the State party responsible for the violation, and that the State must have ratified both the Covenant and the Optional Protocol. However, the Covenant indicates no restriction to territorial jurisdiction and it will remain to be seen whether the 4 5 6 7 8 4 General comment No. 3 on the nature of States parties’ obligations, para. 5. George Kent, Freedom from Want: The Human Right to Adequate Food (Georgetown University Press, Washington, D.C., 2008). International NGO Coalition for an Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, “Celebration of the Entry into Force of the OP-ICESCR”, 2013. Ibid. The development of a communication process encompassing all economic, social and cultural rights represents an innovative approach to ensuring remedy for victims of violations.