One of the most serious consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic has been the disruption of children's education worldwide with the closure of schools for public health reasons. Projections from UNESCO Institute for Statistics show that nearly 100 million children across eight age cohorts would move below the minimum proficiency threshold in reading in 2020 due to the pandemic (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2021). Both current studies and experience of school closures due to previous similar crises, such as the Ebola epidemic, show that COVID-19 closures risk exacerbating vulnerabilities for those who are already disadvantaged (Azevedo et al., 2021). This includes lack of access to the vital nutrition provided by school nutrition programs (Borkowski et al., 2021); exposure to violence at home; early marriages and pregnancies for girl children (De Paz et al., 2020); lack of social interaction (Larsen et al., 2021); and deepening inequalities for those without access to the Internet (United Nations Children’s Fund & International Telecommunication Union, 2020).

While the serious consequences of these disruptions are well recorded, less attention has been paid to the human rights breaches entailed. Governments throughout the world have ratified international human rights treaties which enshrine the right to education, together with the rights to equality and non-discrimination, privacy, life, food, personal security, and housing. These are not just political promises as in the Sustainable Development Goals, but create legally binding obligations on States. This paper examines and elaborates the legally binding human rights obligations in relation to the right to education and non-discrimination, which should provide the basis for governments to determine their priorities and allocate their already strained resources for emerging from the pandemic. A human rights-based approach is essential to ensure that measures taken to mitigate the effects of the pandemic both now and in the future do not exacerbate inequalities in access to the right to education, and fully comply with States’ legally binding commitments in international human rights law.

The right to education is found in three international human rights treaties, the Convention on the Rights of the Child ("CRC," 1989), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ("ICESCR," 1966), and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("CRPD," 2006). The CRC has been ratified by 196 out of 197 States, excluding only the United States; ICESCR has 171 ratifications; and CRPD has 182. Ratifying States are obliged to ensure that their domestic law complies with the treaty's provisions: States which fail to comply will be in breach of international law. While the United States has signed all three Covenants, it has not ratified them. Signing without ratifying a treaty does not establish consent to be bound. However, it creates an obligation on the signatory State to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purposes of the treaty ("Vienna Convention," 1969), Art, 18. The United States cannot, therefore ignore its obligations under the three Conventions.

The COVID-19 pandemic has not extinguished States’ binding obligations under the Covenants. Three key aspects should be highlighted. First, the obligation to fulfill the right to education comes with a duty to do so without discrimination on a range of grounds, including race, gender, disability, language, national or social origin, birth, or “other status” (CRC, 1989, Art. 2; CRPD, 2006, Art. 4; ICESCR, 1966, Art. 2), such as economic and social situation (Committee on economic social and cultural rights, 2009). This duty is particularly salient during the current pandemic, when deep pre-existing inequalities have been magnified and intensified. While States have instituted mitigating measures, such as online teaching, these have also exacerbated inequalities in access to the key infrastructure for such learning, including access to Internet, computers, housing, and parental support. UNESCO has reported that half of all learners who could not go to school due to the pandemic had no access to a household computer and as many as 43% have no Internet at home, a figure which reaches as much as 82% for sub-Saharan Africa (UNESCO, 2020). Girls’ are often allowed less access to technologies than boys, and children with visual and hearing impairments are frequently excluded. In addition, parents, teachers, and learners may not have the skills to use these technologies (Education International, 2020).

In emerging from the pandemic, the non-discrimination duty will not be fulfilled merely by mitigating the extra burden falling on disadvantaged groups due to the pandemic itself. States are also required to redress the structural deficits in education which made it inevitable that a pandemic would exacerbate inequality. The UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education (UNSR) in her report on the impact of COVID on the right to education, emphasizes that the numerous innovative measures adopted by governments could not compensate for “past failures to build strong and resilient education systems and to fight entrenched inequalities” (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2020). A human rights compliant framework requires States to ensure that they understand and address the factors contributing to the increased discrimination in the enjoyment of the right to education during the crisis, including the consequences of poorly funding educational institutions.

The second key element concerns States’ duty to devote the “maximum of their available resources, individually or through international assistance and co-operation” to the fulfillment of the right to education (CRC, 1989, Art 4; CRPD, 2006, Art 4(2); ICESCR, 1966 Art 2(1)). Conversely, if any deliberately retrogressive measures are taken, the State Party must prove that this is only after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and in the context of the full use of the State Party's maximum available resources (Committee on economic social and cultural rights, 1999). Until recently, treaty bodies responsible for monitoring compliance with the Conventions (treaty bodies) tended to assess available resources only by reference to States’ chosen budgets and international assistance (Balakrishnan et al., 2011). In the last decade, however, treaty bodies have indicated that States also have an obligation to mobilize resources, including by investment in employment, education, and health. Importantly, investment in accessible and quality education is regarded as a measure that both protects individual rights and increases a state's assets and therefore the resources available to support human rights in the long-term (Independent Expert on the effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of human rights, 2016). Nor is this an obligation States are required to carry out single-handedly. Wealthier States have a duty of co-operation and assistance, and treaty bodies have endorsed the UN recommended target of the expenditure 0.7% GNI on Overseas Development Aid (Committee on economic social & cultural rights, 2017). This is, however, only a weakly developed obligation in international human rights law. Given that governments, such as the United Kingdom, are now using the pandemic as a pretext for swingeing cuts to Overseas Development Aid, there is an urgent need for this obligation to be clarified and strengthened in treaty bodies’ compliance efforts.

As well as requiring a wider mobilization of resources to fulfill human rights, States are obliged to use their resources efficiently and to distribute them fairly. There has been a strong presumption in recent decades that efficiency is enhanced by the privatization of education, and especially through low-fee and for-profit private schools. The World Bank, the largest external funder of education in poor countries, has a policy of actively advising countries to expand private education provision through public–private partnerships (PPP) and for-profit schools, including making loans and other funding conditional on expanding funding for PPP. An Oxfam study found that 22% of World Bank funding to governments for primary and secondary education between 2013 and 2018 included direct support for private provision (Bous, 2019). However, the evidence shows that low-fee and commercial private schools do not provide a path to quality education for all, as required by the right to education. School fees, even those considered low, restrict girls’ access to schooling, running counter to the huge increases in girls’ entry to school with the widespread elimination of user fees at public schools since 2000 (United Nations, 2015). Research in Pakistan and Uganda found that World-Bank supported PPP schools were not affordable to the poorest children, especially girls and pupils with disabilities, and that the quality of education was poor (Bous, 2019). Moreover, low fee private schools cut costs by paying very low salaries to teachers and using poorly qualified teachers, the majority of whom are women. Particularly worryingly, these initiatives allow States to abdicate responsibility for public education and deplete State funding. While the ICESCR requires States to respect the liberty of parents to choose private schools, States must ensure that such schools conform to minimum educational standards (ICESCR, 1966, Art 13(3)), and are not required to fund them (Fredman, 2021). This liberty to establish private schools should not interfere in any way with the duty on States to provide free compulsory, non-discriminatory primary education.

The UNSR has expressed particular concern at the situation in private schools during and after COVID. Since the economic model of such institutions is heavily reliant on the payment of fees, many have imposed pay cuts or compulsory leave without pay on their staff, even though they continue to work from home (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2020). Particularly worrying are reports suggesting a collapse of low-fee private schools in Pakistan and other countries, resulting in increased pressure on the public system to enroll such children when they re-open. As the UNSR concludes, this is a clear demonstration of the limitations of education models based on privatization and commercialization and re-emphasizes States’ central human rights obligation to “prioritize the funding and provision of free, quality, public education” (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2020). Also of concern is the need for proper control and regulation of the many private actors who have entered the educational field through digital technologies. Such private actors should not be permitted to capture limited public resources required to be spent on education, and other options such as public online learning platforms should be enhanced (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2020).

The third key element concerns the nature of States’ duties. Although the full realization of the right to education might not be possible immediately, States have a “specific and continuing obligation to move as expeditiously as possible towards the full realization” of the right (Committee on economic social and cultural rights, 1999). Importantly, non-discrimination is an immediate duty, which cannot be delayed. The closure of schools during the COVID-19 pandemic magnified States’ obligations to provide access to schools. However, States’ obligations extend beyond access. States are also required to ensure the provision of functioning educational institutions with sanitation, safe drinking water, trained teachers, IT, and computer facilities. Schools must also be accessible, physically, and economically; acceptable in form and substance; and adaptable to changing needs (Committee on economic social and cultural rights, 1999). Ultimately, States must ensure education is directed to the overriding aims expressed in the Covenants, which include both the development of the child's personality and abilities to their fullest potential, and their preparation to participate effectively in society “in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples …”. (CRC, 1989, Art. 13; CRPD, 2006, Art 24; ICESCR, 1966, Art. 29(1)(a) and (d)). Online teaching only very partially achieves these objectives, and then only for a minority of learners. The use of digital tools, while bringing important benefits, also needs to be managed in a human-rights compliant way. In particular, children's right to privacy requires States to protect their education data, especially in relation to the collection, retention, or sharing of such data (Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, 2020), for commercial, immigration, or security purposes.

For our youngest generations, the loss of education during the pandemic has been a heavy burden, and its consequences will linger in years to come. Moreover, the pandemic exposed the deep underlying inequalities and weaknesses in the system, as well as triggering further potential human rights breaches. The promise of “building back better” once we emerge from this pandemic should have the right to education as a central pillar. This is not just a good policy choice for both individuals and societies. It is a binding obligation in international human rights law.

COVID-19 大流行最严重的后果之一是，由于公共卫生原因学校停课，全球儿童教育中断。联合国教科文组织统计研究所的预测显示，由于大流行，8 个年龄段的近 1 亿儿童将在 2020 年低于最低阅读能力阈值（联合国教科文组织统计研究所，2021 年）。当前的研究和因之前类似危机（例如埃博拉疫情）而关闭学校的经验表明，COVID-19 关闭可能会加剧那些已经处于不利地位的人的脆弱性（Azevedo 等人，2021 年）。这包括无法获得学校营养计划提供的重要营养（Borkowski 等，2021); 在家中遭受暴力；女童早婚和怀孕（De Paz 等人，2020 年）；缺乏社交互动（Larsen 等人，2021 年）；并加深无法访问互联网的人的不平等（联合国儿童基金会和国际电信联盟，2020 年）。

虽然这些破坏的严重后果有据可查，但对所导致的侵犯人权行为却很少关注。世界各国政府都批准了国际人权条约，其中包含受教育权以及平等和不受歧视、隐私、生命、食物、人身安全和住房权。这些不仅仅是可持续发展目标中的政治承诺，而是对各国产生具有法律约束力的义务。本文审查并阐述了与受教育权和不受歧视有关的具有法律约束力的人权义务，这应为政府确定优先事项和分配本已紧张的资源以摆脱大流行提供依据。

受教育权见于三项国际人权条约，即《儿童权利公约》（“CRC”，1989 年）、《经济、社会和文化权利国际公约》（“ICESCR，” 1966 年）和《公约》残疾人权利（“CRPD”，2006 年））。CRC 已得到 197 个国家中的 196 个国家的批准，仅美国除外；ICESCR 有 171 个批准国；CRPD 有 182 个。批准国有义务确保其国内法符合条约的规定：不遵守的国家将违反国际法。尽管美国已签署了所有三项公约，但尚未批准它们。签署而不批准条约并不表示同意接受约束。然而，它规定签署国有义务避免采取有损条约目的和宗旨的行为（“维也纳公约”，1969 年），第 18 条。因此，美国不能忽视其在三项公约下的义务.

COVID-19 大流行并未消除各国根据公约承担的具有约束力的义务。应突出三个关键方面。首先，实现受教育权的义务伴随着不因种族、性别、残疾、语言、国籍或社会出身、出生或“其他身份”等原因而受到歧视的义务（CRC，1989 , Art. 2; CRPD, 2006 , Art. 4; ICESCR, 1966 , Art. 2)，如经济和社会状况（经济社会和文化权利委员会，2009）。在当前的大流行期间，这一职责尤为突出，因为先前存在的深层不平等被放大和加剧。虽然各国制定了缓解措施，例如在线教学，但这些措施也加剧了在获取此类学习的关键基础设施（包括互联网、计算机、住房和父母支持）方面的不平等。联合国教科文组织报告说，在所有因大流行而无法上学的学习者中，有一半无法使用家用电脑，多达 43% 的人在家中没有互联网，这一数字在撒哈拉以南地区高达 82%非洲（联合国教科文组织，2020）。与男孩相比，女孩获得技术的机会通常较少，视力和听力障碍儿童经常被排除在外。此外，父母、教师和学习者可能不具备使用这些技术的技能（国际教育，2020 年）。

走出疫情后，仅仅通过减轻疫情本身给弱势群体带来的额外负担，是无法履行非歧视义务的。还要求各国纠正教育的结构性缺陷，这使得大流行不可避免地加剧不平等。联合国受教育权问题特别报告员 (UNSR) 在其关于 COVID 对受教育权的影响的报告中强调，政府采取的众多创新措施无法弥补“过去未能建立强大和有弹性的教育系统和与根深蒂固的不平等作斗争”（教育权问题特别报告员，2020 年）。符合人权的框架要求各国确保它们了解并解决导致危机期间在享受教育权方面歧视加剧的因素，包括教育机构资金不足的后果。

第二个关键要素涉及国家有义务“单独或通过国际援助与合作”将其可用资源的最大程度用于实现受教育权（CRC，1989，第 4 条；CRPD，2006，第 4 条） (2)；ICESCR，1966 年第2(1) 条)。相反，如果采取任何故意倒退的措施，缔约国必须证明这只是在对所有替代方案进行了最仔细的考虑并在充分利用缔约国最大可用资源的情况下（经济社会和文化权利委员会） , 1999）。直到最近，负责监督公约遵守情况的条约机构（条约机构）倾向于仅参考各国选择的预算和国际援助来评估可用资源（Balakrishnan 等，2011 年）。然而，在过去十年中，条约机构表示，各国也有义务调动资源，包括投资于就业、教育和健康。重要的是，对无障碍和优质教育的投资被视为一种措施，既可以保护个人权利，又可以增加国家资产，从而增加可用于长期支持人权的资源（外债和其他相关国际影响的独立专家）各国在充分享受人权方面的财政义务，2016 年）。这也不是要求各国单独履行的义务。较富裕的国家有合作和援助的义务，条约机构已批准联合国建议的海外发展援助支出占国民总收入 0.7% 的目标（经济社会和文化权利委员会，2017 年）。然而，这只是国际人权法中一项薄弱的义务。鉴于英国等政府现在正在利用大流行病作为大幅削减海外发展援助的借口，迫切需要在条约机构的合规工作中澄清和加强这一义务。

除了需要更广泛地调动资源来实现人权之外，国家还有义务有效地使用其资源并公平分配它们。近几十年来，人们普遍认为教育私有化会提高效率，尤其是通过低收费和营利性私立学校。世界银行是贫穷国家最大的教育外部资助者，其政策是积极建议各国通过公私合作伙伴关系 (PPP) 和营利性学校扩大私立教育的提供，包括以扩大资助为条件提供贷款和其他资助为 PPP。乐施会的一项研究发现，世界银行在 2013 年至 2018 年间向政府提供的中小学教育资金中有 22% 包括对私人提供的直接支持（Bous，2019）。然而，证据表明，低收费和商业私立学校并没有按照受教育权的要求为所有人提供优质教育的途径。学费，即使是那些被认为很低的费用，也会限制女孩上学的机会，这与自 2000 年以来公立学校普遍取消使用费而使女孩入学人数大幅增加背道而驰（联合国，2015 年）。在巴基斯坦和乌干达的研究发现，世界银行支持的 PPP 学校对于最贫困的儿童，尤其是残疾女孩和学生来说负担不起，而且教育质量很差（Bous，2019）。此外，收费低的私立学校通过向教师支付极低的工资和使用不合格的教师（其中大多数是女性）来削减成本。尤其令人担忧的是，这些举措使国家能够放弃公共教育的责任并耗尽国家资金。虽然 ICESCR 要求各国尊重父母选择私立学校的自由，但各国必须确保此类学校符合最低教育标准（ICESCR，1966 年，第 13(3) 条），并且不需要为其提供资金（Fredman，2021 年））。建立私立学校的这种自由不应以任何方式干扰国家提供免费义务、非歧视性初等教育的义务。

UNSR 对 COVID 期间和之后私立学校的情况表示特别关注。由于此类机构的经济模式严重依赖于支付费用，因此许多机构对员工实行减薪或强制无薪休假，即使他们继续在家工作（受教育权问题特别报告员，2020 年））。尤其令人担忧的是，有报道称巴基斯坦和其他国家的低收费私立学校倒闭，导致公共系统在重新开放时招收此类儿童的压力越来越大。正如 UNSR 得出的结论，这清楚地表明了基于私有化和商业化的教育模式的局限性，并再次强调了国家的核心人权义务，即“优先资助和提供免费、优质、公共教育”（问题特别报告员2020 年受教育权）。同样令人担忧的是，需要对通过数字技术进入教育领域的许多私营部门进行适当的控制和监管。不应允许此类私人行为者获取用于教育所需的有限公共资源，应加强其他选择，例如公共在线学习平台（受教育权问题特别报告员，2020 年）。

第三个关键要素涉及国家义务的性质。尽管可能无法立即充分实现受教育权，但各国“有具体和持续的义务尽可能迅速地全面实现”该权利（经济社会和文化权利委员会，1999）。重要的是，不歧视是一项迫在眉睫的义务，不能拖延。在 COVID-19 大流行期间关闭学校加剧了各国提供入学机会的义务。然而，国家的义务超出了获取的范围。还要求各州确保为运转良好的教育机构提供卫生设施、安全饮用水、训练有素的教师、IT 和计算机设施。学校还必须在物理上和经济上易于访问；形式和实质可接受；并适应不断变化的需求（经济社会和文化权利委员会，1999）。最终，各国必须确保教育针对《公约》中表达的首要目标，其中包括发展儿童的个性和能力，以最大限度地发挥他们的潜力，以及他们准备“本着理解、和平、宽容、男女平等和各国人民之间的友谊……”。(CRC, 1989 , Art. 13; CRPD, 2006 , Art 24; ICESCR, 1966， 艺术。29（1）（a）和（d））。在线教学仅能部分实现这些目标，而且仅适用于少数学习者。数字工具的使用在带来重要好处的同时，也需要以符合人权的方式进行管理。特别是，儿童的隐私权要求各国保护他们的教育数据，尤其是在收集、保留或共享此类数据（受教育权问题特别报告员，2020 年）方面，用于商业、移民或安全目的。

对于我们最年轻的一代来说，大流行期间失去教育是一个沉重的负担，其后果将在未来几年挥之不去。此外，大流行暴露了系统中深层的潜在不平等和弱点，并引发了进一步的潜在侵犯人权行为。一旦我们摆脱这种流行病，“重建得更好”的承诺应该将受教育权作为核心支柱。这不仅对个人和社会都是一个很好的政策选择。这是国际人权法中具有约束力的义务。