controversial, because they involve decisions on allocation of resources.166 It is seen as inappropriate for unelected courts to interfere with social and economic policy. Therefore in practice, the justiciability of unincorporated international instruments to date, even in monist jurisdictions, has largely been limited to those instances where state parties do not satisfy their negative duty not to discriminate in education.167 However, this is a false dichotomy. All rights are indivisible.168 The adoption of a rigid classification of economic, social and cultural rights as so-called unenforceable positive rights puts them beyond the reach of the courts. This rationale is arbitrary and is incompatible with the principle that all human rights are indivisible and interdependent.169 There is no foundation for a categorical distinction between positive rights (economic, social and cultural) on the one hand and negative rights (civil and political) on the other.170 Often decisions made by judges are based on a negative right but in fact the decision results in a positive obligation on the government which involves significant expenditure.171 For instance, a judge may order the improvement of prison conditions or make orders regarding legal aid.172 These orders may be intended to protect the rights of prisoners and defendants but actually entail a positive obligation on the government requiring significant expenditure.173 Therefore many decisions made by judges have implications on the spending of public money.174 166 Goldstone, “A South African Perspective on Social and Economic Rights” http://www.wcl.america n.edu/hrbrief/13/2goldstone.pdf?rd=1 (last accessed 7 March 2007) former Justice of the South African Supreme Court at 4 167 Beiter, The Protection of the Right to Education by International Law at 400. 168 United Nations Workshop for Judges on the Justiciability of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in South Asia, New Delhi 17 - 18 November 2001, Statement of Conclusions, http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/(Symbol)/OHCHR.STM.01.77.En?OpenDocument (last accessed 25 March 2007) at para 10. 169 UNESCO CESCR General Comment no. 9 The domestic application of the Covenant, 19th session, 3 December 1998 E/C.12/1998/24 http://www.hri.ca/forthereCord1998/documentation/tbodies/e-c121998-24.htm (last accessed 27 March 2007) at para 10. 170 Draft Conclusions and Recommendations of the Colloquium and Workshop for Judges and Lawyers on the Justiciability of Economic Social and Cultural Rights in the Pacific Region, Suva, Fiji, 1 - 3 June 2006 http://www.interights.org/page.php?dir=News#Pacificcolloquium%20headline (last accessed 26 March 2007) at para 8. 171 Goldstone, “A South African Perspective on Social and Economic Rights” http://www.wcl.american .edu/hrbrief/13/2goldstone.pdf?rd=1 (last accessed 7 March 2007) former Justice of the South African Supreme Court, at 4. 172 Langford, “Judging social rights” Human Rights Tribune des droits humains 11(3) http://www.hri.c a/tribune/onlineissue/V11-3-2005/Social_Rights.html (last accessed 1 April 2007). 173 Goldstone, “A South African Perspective on Social and Economic Rights” http://www.wcl.american .edu/hrbrief/13/2goldstone.pdf?rd=1 (last accessed 7 March 2007) former Justice of the South African Supreme Court, at 4. 174 Goldstone, “A South African Perspective on Social and Economic Rights” http://www.wcl.american .edu/hrbrief/13/2goldstone.pdf?rd=1 (last accessed 7 March 2007) former justice of the South African Supreme Court, at 4. UNESCO CESCR General Comment no. 9 The domestic application of the Coven 75