The Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights represents a milestone in efforts to redress the imbalance in justiciability mechanisms for economic, social, and cultural rights at the international level. Six years after the Optional Protocol entered into force, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has an opportunity to develop the foundations of both its admissibility and merits jurisprudence. This article analyzes its evolving jurisprudence in light of the imperative to build the normative legitimacy of the Committee’s work under the Optional Protocol. The challenge of navigating the tensions between respecting the sovereignty of states in the realm of domestic budgetary and social policy decisions and intervening to require accountability for economic, social, and cultural rights violations lies at the heart of the normative legitimacy of the Committee’s jurisprudence. Based on a close analysis of its emerging jurisprudence, it is argued that the Committee has developed sound Sandra Liebenberg is Distinguished Professor and H.F.Oppenheimer Chair in Human Rights Law at the University of Stellenbosch Law Faculty. She has been a member of the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights since 1 January 2017. This article is written in her academic capacity, and the views expressed herein should not be attributed to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Special acknowledgments are due to Aoife Nolan for her insightful comments, and to Bruce Porter, Rodrigo Uprimny, and Olivier De Schutter for many debates on the themes of this article. 2020 Between Sovereignty and Accountability 49 admissibility criteria, and a solid model of review to guide it in applying the reasonableness standard in Article 8(4) of the Optional Protocol. This jurisprudential approach has enabled the Committee to chart a skillful course thus far between sovereignty and accountability. This bodes well for strengthening the normative legitimacy of the Optional Protocol and advancing the broader project of the justiciability of economic, social, and

中文翻译：

---

主权与问责之间：联合国经济、社会和文化权利委员会在任择议定书下的新兴判例

《经济、社会、文化权利国际公约任择议定书》是在国际层面纠正经济、社会和文化权利可诉机制失衡的努力的一个里程碑。《任择议定书》生效六年后，经济、社会和文化权利委员会有机会发展其可受理性和案情判例的基础。本文根据在《任择议定书》下建立委员会工作的规范合法性的必要性，分析了其不断演变的判例。在国内预算和社会政策决策领域尊重国家主权与干预以要求对经济、社会、侵犯文化权利是委员会判例规范合法性的核心。根据对其新兴判例的仔细分析，有人认为委员会已经发展出健全的 Sandra Liebenberg 是斯泰伦博斯大学法学院人权法的杰出教授和 HFOppenheimer 主席。她自 2017 年 1 月 1 日起成为联合国经济、社会和文化权利委员会的成员。 本文以她的学术身份撰写，本文表达的观点不应归于联合国经济、社会和文化权利委员会. 特别感谢 Aoife Nolan 富有洞察力的评论，感谢 Bruce Porter、Rodrigo Uprimny 和 Olivier De Schutter 就本文主题进行的许多辩论。2020 年主权与问责之间 49 项可受理标准，以及指导其适用《任择议定书》第 8 条第 4 款中的合理性标准的可靠审查模型。迄今为止，这种判例方法使委员会能够在主权和问责制之间制定一条巧妙的路线。这预示着加强《任择议定书》的规范合法性和推进更广泛的经济、社会和