Public international law norms are relevant to a wide range of the sustainable development goals. Yet there is a frequent failure to connect the two spheres and there is very limited literature on the interaction between public international law, and the policy and political frameworks that underpin development.

This disconnect between public international law and development frameworks could be viewed as an example of the fragmentation of international law and as exemplifying the challenge of international policy coherence, not least as states frequently engage in development activities without a systematic assessment of which international law applies, even in sectors where international law clearly governs the issue, such as human rights and humanitarian law. Similarly, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are often viewed in isolation and in a normative and legal vacuum and yet they will be implemented and pursued in the operational contexts that are governed by international law. The SDGs are typically discussed in terms of goals, targets, and indicators, without any overt engagement with international law.

These issues gave rise to a fascinating panel who considered the linkages between the SDGs and international law. The panel explored how these linkages arise in various contexts and also considered how they might operate in practice. The panel consisted of:

• • Laurence Boisson de Chazournes, Professor of international law at the University of Geneva School of Law, who spoke about the SDGs and the Right to Water;

• • Sandra Fredman, Professor of the Laws of the British Commonwealth and the United States at the University of Oxford, who spoke about Gender Equality and the SDGs; and

• • Victor Bundi Mosoti, Chief Counsel of the International and Environmental Law Unit within the Legal Vice Presidency of the World Bank, who spoke about international law in the development work of the World Bank.

Unfortunately, Rajat Khosla of the World Health Organisation was, at the last minute, unable to attend.

Professor Boisson de Chazournes has provided an excellent summary of her talk, which is below. The other panelists were unable to do so, therefore we will summarize them here.

Professor Fredman considered that, while, the concept of discrimination is widespread in international law, its meaning is still contested. She argued that the meaning of the right to substantive equality should be viewed as including four, mutually supportive dimensions in relation to outgroups: (1) redressing disadvantage; (2) addressing stigma, stereotyping, prejudice, and violence; (3) facilitating voice and participation; and (4) accommodating difference and achieving structural change. These need to be achieved simultaneously, so far as possible.

She looked at this four-dimensional understanding of substantive equality, and how the SDGs present a huge opportunity for advancing gender equality. SDG 5 on gender equality, states expressly that the world promises to achieve gender equality and the empowerment of all women and girls by 2030. In a particularly important breakthrough, SDG 5 promises to recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work. This is a crucial step toward addressing both the second dimension, redressing stereotyping, and the first dimension redressing disadvantage. SDG 5 also addresses the need for structural change. It promises to recognize and value unpaid care and domestic work through the provision of public services and infrastructure, social protection policies, and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household. It also addresses the third dimension with its commitment to increase participation of women in decision-making bodies. The promise of SDG 5 is further augmented by other aspects of the SDGs, including SDG 8, which promises decent work and equal pay for work of equal value, therefore rewarding paid as well as unpaid work, and SDG 6 on clean water and sanitation, which should reduce the drudgery of many women's domestic work.

Yet, she noted that when we look at the measurement framework, we see a very different picture, draining the ideals of some of their energy. For example, the progress toward the promise to recognize and value unpaid care work is measured only by collecting data on the time spent by men and women on unpaid work. This leaves out of account all the other elements of this target, namely, to achieve gender equality “through the provision of public services and infrastructure, social protection policies and the promotion of shared responsibility within the household and the family as nationally appropriate.” So, the quest for substantive gender equality in the SDGs, while opening up many possibilities, still remains elusive.

Dr. Mosoti provided insights as to the relevance of international law to the development activities of the World Bank. He used the World Bank's Environmental and Social Framework to highlight the symbiotic relationship between the Bank's work as an international organization and the evolving international legal order.

He noted the breadth of the interaction of development and international law in the work of the World Bank. For example, he outlined the role of the International Finance Corporation (the private sector arm of the World Bank Group) in the development of the Equator Principles, which are essential in project finance. They constitute a risk management framework, adopted by financial institutions, for determining, assessing, and managing environmental and social risk, and they require human rights and environmental considerations as part of development funding. Another example was the importance of respecting cultural sites, such as UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization World Heritage sites, in development financing decisions.

There were valuable questions from those who participated, and the panelists provided an interesting and engaging discussion.

At the conclusion it was clear that we had learned from this panel that a more systematic and coherent approach could be adopted in development policy and practice. This is not limited to the SDGs. Indeed, it is not clear how the SDGs can be and are being embedded in the international law framework, especially in the area of human rights, and overcome the different focus of the SDGs on aggregate outcomes and human rights on the individual or groups. These issues were even more evident during the COVID-19 pandemic and the responses to it. It seemed that a new approach should promote the respect of international law in development activities, mitigate human rights risks explicitly, and ensure a more cohesive and less fragmented approach to international law in development.