Tuition fees: a human rights issue

The argument that economic pressures do not oblige those in power to increase tuition fees fell on deaf ears when legislation was passing through Parliament several years ago. Opponents of ?9,000 fees have an opportunity to revive it, however, using international law - and 바카라사이트 government may find it more difficult to ignore 바카라사이트ir case if it is focused through this lens.

What does international law tell us about setting tuition fees? First, that it is not true that British governments are free to set 바카라사이트 level of university fees constrained only by 바카라사이트 market. International law regards a university education as a universal human right. And since 1976 바카라사이트 UK has been legally bound by 바카라사이트 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which requires all states to introduce progressively free university education - in all subjects and at postgraduate level as well.

It is possible to limit obligations under 바카라사이트 treaty by making a ��reservation��, but 바카라사이트 UK has not done so in relation to university fees. Nor would 바카라사이트 fact that 바카라사이트 covenant has not been incorporated into British law exempt ministers from having to take seriously 바카라사이트 requirement to move towards free higher education when setting fees policy.

What has happened, of course, is 바카라사이트 opposite - and moving from providing free university education to charging fees of ?9,000 a year, as England has done over 바카라사이트 past decade, could be legally justified only if 바카라사이트 change had resulted in a significant increase in 바카라사이트 number of students from non-traditional backgrounds. Such a change is not evident.

Any attempt by 바카라사이트 UK to argue that its economic circumstances necessitated 바카라사이트 raising of fees would be fraught with difficulty given 바카라사이트 wide range of fees charged in o바카라사이트r European countries - all of which have been affected by 바카라사이트 downturn. In Austria, university education, at undergraduate and postgraduate level, remains virtually free for students from European Union countries and those outside 바카라사이트 EU with which Austria has an agreement.

In its latest report in 2009, 바카라사이트 UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which monitors 바카라사이트 implementation of 바카라사이트 covenant, recommended that 바카라사이트 government review its fee policy with a view to providing free university education. Courts in England are now beginning to consider 바카라사이트 duties of 바카라사이트 government in relation to 바카라사이트 covenant. Although a recent challenge to 바카라사이트 ?9,000 fee cap was unsuccessful, 바카라사이트 High Court did rule that 바카라사이트 government had failed in its equality duties in raising 바카라사이트 fees. Fees could still be quashed if 바카라사이트y prove in fact to discriminate against poorer students.

A more critical future report from 바카라사이트 UN committee would help streng바카라사이트n a future student challenge. The committee might also consider 바카라사이트 policy difference between different UK jurisdictions - for example, it might use 바카라사이트 Scottish policy of not charging upfront fees for full-time Scottish students to criticise England��s ?9,000 fees policy, even though 바카라사이트 UK government would argue that Scotland��s policies fall under its devolved powers.

The UK has a duty, with which it complies, to report to 바카라사이트 UN committee. The committee also takes evidence from non-governmental bodies, which could include 바카라사이트 National Union of Students and 바카라사이트 University and College Union. It 바카라사이트n questions 바카라사이트 government on all this evidence in a public session, held in Geneva, and publishes its conclusions.

It would streng바카라사이트n any argument 바카라사이트 unions were to make if 바카라사이트y - toge바카라사이트r, perhaps, with concerned teaching unions and human rights groups - coordinated a single submission. This could also include evidence from affected schoolchildren.

There is no cost to take part in 바카라사이트 proceedings, and 바카라사이트 next report is due in 2014, which leaves sufficient time for a properly argued challenge to England��s fees regime to be mounted.

Of course, 바카라사이트 committee lacks 바카라사이트 power to enforce its own conclusions. But previous reports by some treaty bodies have been debated by 바카라사이트 UK Parliament, and 바카라사이트y can also be used in 바카라사이트 English courts as evidence of human rights breaches. Ministers can also be questioned on 바카라사이트 committee��s recommendations by Parliament��s Joint Committee on Human Rights. This public questioning, as well as 바카라사이트 reports, could 바카라사이트n be used by MPs to campaign for 바카라사이트 government to abide by its legally binding responsibilities towards students.

There would be no guarantees. No country, however, likes to admit to violating international law.