The statement that the continuation of widespread global hunger is unacceptable and that individuals have a right not to suffer from hunger and malnutrition has been accepted and proclaimed in many international instruments and by several intergovernmental institutions, among them the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) and the World Food Programme (WFP). While global efforts since the Second World War targeted eradicating hunger and guaranteeing world food security, these activities were not taken within the framework of human rights principles. The 1996 World Food Summit and its follow up changed this profoundly.

The content of the right to food was clarified through the work of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) and FAO. Better ways of implementing the right were developed, notably through the Voluntary Guidelines to Support the Progressive Realization of the Right to Adequate Food in the Context of National Food Security (Right to Food Guidelines). Today, striving to ensure that every person enjoys adequate food is seen not only as a moral imperative and an investment with enormous economic returns, but also as the realization of a basic human right.

The right to food is legally binding on the 160 states parties to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and entered into force in 1976. As with all human rights, the greatest challenge with respect to the right to food is finding the most effective ways of implementing it – that is, how this right can be given concrete effect at the national level and how public authorities can be held accountable for their action or inaction.

According to Article 2.1 of the ICESCR, each state party is obliged to "take steps, individually and through international assistance and co-operation, especially economic and technical, to the maximum of its available resources, with a view to achieving progressively the full realization of the rights recognized in the present Covenant by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures" (emphasis added). International human rights law does not formally oblige state parties to incorporate the Covenant's provisions literally in domestic law. Ultimately, it is for the each state party to the ICESCR to determine the legal status which will be given to its provisions – in this case the right to food – within that legal system.

Depending on a country’s legal and constitutional system, the international treaty’s provisions can become domestic law either by "automatic incorporation", whereby they have the force of law directly and immediately, or by "legislative incorporation", whereby the treaty provisions must be implemented by national legislation to have binding effect. In some other states, domestic implementation of a ratified international treaty occurs through the method of transformation – that is, by amending relevant domestic laws to make them consistent with treaty obligations. Some countries also follow a mixed dualist/monist approach (e.g. Germany). In its General Comment (GC) 3, the CESCR considered that in many instances legislation is highly desirable and "may be even indispensable" in order to give effect to the rights guaranteed in the ICESCR (paragraph 3).

Indeed, regarding relevant international treaty provisions on the right to food, most obligations under this right are non-self-executing - that is, they cannot be given effect without the aid of legislation. In addition, the cross-cutting and complex nature of the right to food and its interrelationship with other human rights calls for legislative action, even where the ICESCR and other relevant human rights treaties are directly applicable within the national legal order. This is because the incorporation of the right to food in a domestic legal system by means of legislative action can provide a high level of protection for this human right. Thus any person considering that his or her right to food has been violated – in its accessibility, availability or adequacy component - can rely on such a legal provision and claim an appropriate remedy or redress before the competent administrative or judicial authorities.

At the national level, the choice of adequate legal strategy for implementing the right to food will depend on the particular mix of policies, institutions and legal frameworks at play in each country. In some countries, current constitutional provisions combined with existing sectoral legislation pertaining to various dimensions of the right to food may suffice to ensure the effective enjoyment of this human right for all persons under their jurisdiction. In other countries, it may be necessary to develop a special framework law on the right to food before incorporating the right to food into the most relevant laws affecting the enjoyment of the right. In other countries - where ratified human rights treaties automatically have the force of law - the right to food will be applicable directly at the national level and binding on state authorities and national courts. However, directly arguing a case on the basis of the text of the ICESCR before domestic courts that have little or no knowledge about international human rights law is highly uncertain.

While some form of legislative action is thus essential to implement the right to food (and all human rights) at the national level, legal solutions alone are not sufficient to achieving its full realization. Effective enjoyment of an economic and social right - even if constitutionally or statutorily recognized - is not possible without effective policy and programme follow-up. Therefore, other means will also be necessary, which may include a wide range of social, economic and political measures. However, an analysis of other "appropriate means" (ICESCR, art. 2.1) for the implementation of the right to food at the national level is beyond the purpose of the present guide, which focuses on legislative means only.