A/HRC/14/25 measures” and “it is largely unclear which distinctions between migrants and the citizens are admissible and which are not”.63 73. However, the Special Rapporteur is convinced that the human right to education for migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers should not be contentious. Nevertheless, this right is sometimes disputed. The dispute centres upon the nature of the right itself. Despite being an “enabling right”, the right to education has become a de facto derivative right; just as, for instance, the right to development, economic security and the right to life per se are subordinated to the primary rights of private property and the profit rate.64 This situation highlights the two conflicting (and irreconcilable) legal regimes for education: on the one hand, international human rights law defines education as a human right, while on the other hand, international trade law views education as a service, i.e. a commodity.65 The latter regime offers little scope for advancing mechanisms for realizing the objectives of a human rights responsive education system. 74. The Special Rapporteur recognizes that governmental compliance with the obligations involved in guaranteeing the right to education depends on political will.66 Resource scarcity, debt servicing or “consecutive economic crises” — generally stated as reasons for non-compliance of Governments with their responsibility to realize the right to education67 — are unsatisfactory and unacceptable excuses. 75. The Special Rapporteur recalls that adaptability and acceptability are a fundamental component of the human right to education. For this reason, it is essential that all States advance the implementation of intercultural and inclusive education models that make possible the establishment of pedagogical practices which encourage respect for diversity. It is also crucial that learners understand, validate and respect diversity in culture and, in this way, form the basis for substantive change in the struggle against discrimination. 76. Fundamental also is the need for all States to foster the view in all learning settings, whether formal or non-formal, that cultural and linguistic diversity is a resource from which individuals and groups can build strong and supportive sustainable communities. 77. The mechanisms for the enforcement of the right to education are still at an embryonic and fragile stage of development. Absent in this early phase are opportunities for migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers to represent their issues and concerns in ways that might lead to changes in teaching practices and curricula content. 78. The right to education should transcend primary and/or compulsory education, especially if systematic discrimination can be measured between particular social groups in society, as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) suggests, with respect to migrants. 79. The exercise by migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers of their human rights (i.e. to work, housing, and education) “is significantly limited or made impossible if the State, through its laws or administrative practices, disadvantages them in these 63 64 65 66 67 18 Walter Kälin, “Human rights and the integration of migrants”, in Migration and international legal norms, p. 282. David Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005), p. 182. See “Children, migration and international norms”, pp. 56–57. See for example, “Independent children, inconsistent adults”. See “Children, migration and international norms”, pp. 15–16, 42. GE.10-12879