Common use of CRC Clause in Contracts

CRC. Indeed, the issue of resource constraints is expressly factored into the obligation of conduct in Article 27(3) which obliges states to act ‘in accordance with national conditions and within their means’. As such, resource constraints operate as a functional limitation on the right of the child to an adequate standard of living. In this context, the question arises as to the permissible limits of the limitation, or, in other words, the minimum absolute obligation. Recalling that the minimum obligation corresponds with the duty to take steps towards the full realisation of the right, it can be observed that Article 27(3) envisages two steps: 1) to take appropriate measures to assist parents to implement the right; and 2) to provide in case of need material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing. As regards the first, the term ‘appropriate’ leaves a large measure of discretion to States Parties about which measures they take to assist parents. Nevertheless, demonstrable measures must be taken. As regards the second, there is no leeway (c.f. ‘shall in case of need provide’). Consequently States Parties are under an obligation to provide for basic human needs. Any erosion of the right beyond this level would be incompatible with human dignity. This is consistent with the approach of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states in General Comment No. 3: […] [a] minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights is incumbent upon every State Party. Thus for example, a State Party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential foodstuffs, of essential primary health care, of basic shelter and housing, or of the most basic forms of education is, prima facie, failing to dis- charge its obligations under the Covenant [emphasis added].64 This is also consistent with the approach of the ECtHR in two recent cases in which the Court found a violation of Article 3 ECHR because the respondent state failed to ensure the most basic standard of living for the applicant asylum seekers with the result that there were homeless and destitute. In M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece, the Court revised its earlier case-law that Article 3 ECHR does not entail any general obligation to give refugees financial assistance to