International Human Rights

Lesson 8: Group Considerations

This Lesson shall consider the right to development as well as minority rights - two issues that touch upon group aspects of human rights.

Session 8.1 – Right to Development

There are essentially three different stages to international human rights. The first stage (or generation) is the civil and political, whereby these rights were created and considered during the 18th Century. The next generation was economic and social rights during the 19th Century. In the previous century, we come to the third generation of rights relating to solidarity that also incorporates the right to development (as well as the right to the environment).

In 1986, the General Assembly passed a Declaration on the Right to Development. It is located in your documents book and is worth a look simply to get a handle on what form of right we are addressing in this session.

The key problem for the right to development is the difficulty in its application, given that it requires an inter-governmental application. That is, it is not a matter of an individual asserting various rights, but more a matter of developing procedural mechanisms and guidelines for the states as a viable framework to implement the right to development in states that are in need. In truth, there has been little UN activity since the 1986 Declaration.

The Declaration and the assertion of the right to development emerged from the numerically dominant group of developing countries following decolonization in the post World War Two era. The negative colonial experiences and the lack of the former colonial powers’ recognition regarding their responsibilities and liabilities to their former colonies raised the ire of many developing nations. The notion therefore developed that a greater emphasis must be placed on the economic and social rights, with colonialism being equated as a breach of Public International Law. Furthermore, the approach was at least according to the developing countries, that co-operation with development was an entitlement and not a charity. There was some support from Eastern Europe for this idea. Due to their socialist tendencies, these countries were never involved particularly with colonialism, and the political benefits they received from supporting the cause of developing nations was worth making the assertion for this form of right.

As for the Western states, they desired to co-operate in developing the Third World, particularly upon accounting for the political and economic benefits that could derive there from.

Issues regarding the right to development related to equity and distribution of resources. For example, in the 1990’s a “basic needs” approach was attempted by the dominant states regarding what are the basic needs of the developing countries. The problem is that such needs did not always correspond to the third world problems confronting many nations. Hence developing an industrial infrastructure did not necessarily mean a higher education rate. Furthermore, a link was attempted with civil and political rights that did not always work.

The approaches to implementing the right to development have been collective – sum total of individual rights plus a collective right, or understanding the right as an economic dimension of the right to self-determination. Some have called for stabilizing commodity prices as a means of improving the lot of the third world, while others focused on the change to the distribution of labor to provide a greater opportunity for industrialization to less developed economies, with a greater stress on international trade. Finally, calls have been made for proper transfer of technology and more compatible flow of capital and funds.

The goal was to re-calibrate the economy (like shoring up public aid) with a political-normative aim of increasing bargaining power of the third world, for example asserting its sovereignty over its natural resources.

The problem is that many policies simply were not viable economically; they were still linked to the West for implementation and hence to their desires and interests; there was no idea of self-reliance and the distribution was still inequitable.

Yet the right to development was asserted based on an equitable share to economic and social well being, natural foundations of the right (like natural law) on the basis of the right to life flow from the right to self determination. The argument was that there was no value to self-determination if there was not a concomitant right to development (hence the understanding of the right as a collective notion).

Additionally, the foundation for the right to development emanated from the emergence of globalization and economic inter-dependence. As a result, a universal duty was imposed on all states to develop the world economy and preserve the human species.

Politically, the notion of sovereign equality further provided groundwork for the right to development. If all states really are equal, then all states are entitled to equal shares.

The point was that the right to development was to be understood not as a charity, but a request for what was due to various third world states. For the price of using their natural resources for example, a fair market price must be instituted.

Contentions against the right to development have been that the right to self-determination is a right to be pursued. Its achievement implies the end of the right per se. The right to development does not mean the right to live in a developed society. The latter is result oriented and not process oriented as in the rest of the UN human rights system. Furthermore, the right to development is not an individual right, contrary to the overall focus of the human rights system. As a result, the social aspect of the right tends to deviate from individual rights and possibly weakens the focus on the rights of the individual as being over and above those of society. Others noted that the right o development is a misguided right since it does not create an automatic entitlement just because a state has a natural resource. Are we all then entitled to receive support based on discovering oil? Implementation of the right emanates from the state, the very entity that creates problems within the human rights system and therefore merits greater caution. Indeed, it is possible the right to development provides the excuse to suspend human rights. Finally, the inter-dependence of rights – civil and political with social and economic - also is not clarified in the context of the right to development. Possible answers have been that rights are interconnected, as noted when analyzing civil and political with social and economic. There is no real conflict with human rights but rather a positive impact on development within society provides the opportunity to create a viable infrastructure. For example, it is possible to eliminate famine that generally strikes less developed economies via a developed system of civil and political rights – such as fair elections and free press as a means of warning the population and allowing for overall change.

The question is, what are the obligations of the wealthier countries vis-à-vis the assistance to be accorded to less developed countries?

It is worth looking at the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights for some insight. Article 2(1) notes that rights are to uphold via international assistance, Article 11(1) provides for an adequate standard of living, one key being international consent and Article 11(2) calls for no hunger, via individual and international cooperation. Granted that these aforementioned examples could be understood as promotional rather than obligatory and it is not clear if they are actually binding upon the states, but they provide the possibility for having the right to development as a process.

Obligations nevertheless emanate from the inter-dependence of states and movements for reparations for colonialism. In light of that, what of a world tax on wealthy countries? The World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) also assist, with the general problem that the provided aid is linked to promoting exports of the donor nations, promoting their incorporated capital production and strengthening the local governments’ armed forces. As a result, the system must be de-politicized with a focus on poorest states based on the size of population and degree of poverty. Additionally, the IMF must push a market oriented economy via proper government planning, fiscal austerity via proper taxation, and lower governmental subsidies and spending

Note too the ICESCR Article 22 General Comment that notes the role of the Committee is understood as assisting the United Nations to focus on areas of need based on state reports. The UN bodies are to then uphold various human rights, for example not supporting a project that utilizes forced labor or discriminatory practices. Further, one must link civil and political rights with the economic and social and provide for proper debt restructuring among states.

As for globalization, it too can promote human rights via entrepreneurship that promotes rights for all, better choices, lower state power, and greater links to human rights. Thus, the right to development is not wholly unattainable; it is more a matter of perspective and overall desire of the states.

OPTIONAL READING: Steiner and Alston, 1112-1139