He elaborates on the same theme through some convincing thought examples of Aland and Bland. Another way to explain this is as follows.

In any development approach desirable outcomes are achieved through selected processes. In a human rights-based approach to development, human rights standards define benchmarks for desirable outcomes, while human rights principles represent conditions for the process. The Millennium Development goals are typical examples of such desirable outcomes. Most people see the achievement of these goals as the required results. Process criteria include all human rights principles, including equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, and accountability and the rule of law. They all specify a required minimum conduct. A Human Rights-Based Approach requires equal attention to outcome and process. The process in Aland were much better from a human rights perspective than the processes in Bland

He elaborates on the same theme through some convincing thought examples of Aland and Bland. Another way to explain this is as follows.

In any development approach desirable outcomes are achieved through selected processes. In a human rights-based approach to development, human rights standards define benchmarks for desirable outcomes, while human rights principles represent conditions for the process. The Millennium Development goals are typical examples of such desirable outcomes. Most people see the achievement of these goals as the required results. Process criteria include all human rights principles, including equality and non-discrimination, participation and inclusion, and accountability and the rule of law. They all specify a required minimum conduct. A Human Rights-Based Approach requires equal attention to outcome and process. The process in Aland were much better from a human rights perspective than the processes in Bland

I am working on implementing a HRBA to Water Governance at UNDP in the Europe and CIS region. A month or so ago, I came back from scoping missions in Bosnia and Herzegovina and Tajikistan, in which I met with key stakeholders in the water sector of each respective country. What my analysis highlighted time and time again, was that civil society was overwhelmingly unaware that they had a ‘right to water’, and moreover, had no idea of the redress mechanisms or other methods available to them to hold duty-bearers to account when their rights were not met.

Lack of civil society awareness of their right to water is an obstacle to improving the situation. And so one of UNDP’s forthcoming interventions is likely to be a water rights and responsibilities awareness raising campaign. It is hoped this will empower rights-holders to become actively engaged in their own development, and hold the state and other duty-bearers to account when they do not fulfil their responsibilities.

I wanted to react to one point which I realise I probably expressed badly, and which I often wonder how best to put across.

I suggest in the article that just because there are fewer children going to school does not mean that the realisation of the right to education has fallen. What I am seeking to challenge here is a reductive understanding of human rights - for example, that the right to food is the same as being well-fed. My concern is that such understandings, which many of our colleagues in development, let alone elsewhere, still seem to hold, remove the political force of human rights.

What I was trying to communicate is that the rights based approach is at its root a way of looking at the world that sees not people’s situation but rather their power relationships and the inter-connected claims, duties and obligations that bind them to others. It’s about seeing through how things look at a superficial level and understanding the societal dynamics that make them how they are - and then going on to seek to adjust these.

Human rights is a social construct. It is meaningless without at least one other person to provide the duty bearer/ rights
holder relationship. If I am stranded on a desert island and the wind blows my remaining coconuts into the sea so I starve, my rights have not been violated. Similarly, if my farm is flooded my rights are not violated by the flood - they are violated by the people whose actions and inaction left me vulnerable and are potentially violated if I don’t receive timely and appropriate assistance. So a deteriotation in my circumstances does not necessarily imply any change in the level of respect of my rights if it is the consequence of an event which did not arise from the action or inaction of another person or group of people.

My point in the context of the article is that while one could (perhaps should) argue that increased poverty levels are the consequence of deliberate policy actions, and so reflect violations of rights, that is a politico-economic statement, not a statement based solely on human rights.

If it helps, let’s consider a hypothetical that explains what I mean, and why I think that this has implications for where we should be focusing our attention.

Aland and Bland are two developing countries affected by the economic crisis. Up until the crisis both Aland and Bland see about 80% of five year old children enrolling in school. Then the economic crisis hits. Aland, with its dependence on exports to the US suffers a drop in government budget of 50%. Bland, on the other hand, gets lucky since its primary national exports of face masks and hand sanitizer experience a massive increase in demand due to a swine flu panic, causing the government’s budget to increase 50%.

The government of Aland decides to do its best to protect its children’s right to education and, by cutting military expenditure and imposing a tax on luxury goods that is earmarked for education expenditure, manages to reduce the decrease in the education budget to a minimum, and school enrollment drops to 75% rather than the much worse drops some had feared.

The government of Bland takes its extra revenue, puts a tiny slice into the education budget, but spends the majority on buying a large number of new fighter planes. School enrollment goes up to 85%.

So my point is that in this circumstance, from a human rights point of view we need to focus our actions on changing behaviour and policy choices in Bland, not Aland, even though Aland saw a drop in school enrollment and Bland an increase.

I think, incidentally, that this is something people frequently get caught up on when addressing the convergence of a human rights framework with the MDGs.

So this is what I was trying to say. I’m sure there are much clearer and definintely much more concise ways to say it than I’ve managed above. Any suggestions welcome.

The whole ‘moral imperative’ behinds UNICEF’s advocacy in the 1990s for “Structural Adjustment with a Human Face” reflected the same ethical position. As a matter of fact there are extremely few countries in the world that cannot ‘afford’ to avoid a retrogression of the realization of children’s rights for example.

2. I agree very much with the statement that “the concentration of wealth and economic power in the hands of a relatively few has arguably disempowered people to a greater extent”. The proposed policy responses are all relevant and important. However, in addition to ‘responding’ to the crises, there is an equally important need to address the underlying and basic causes of the global economic crisis. For example, a total restructuring of the global financial system is required, including the IMF and the World Bank.

3. I agree with the idea “…that significant investment in fiscal stimulus through the establishment of guaranteed, long-term social protection systems offers greater human rights benefits”. This, I believe means that the public sector must be made much stronger in most developing countries. From the point of view of human rights, I believe that Reaganism, Thatcherism, and any other uncontrolled capitalist free-market approaches need to be replaced by more democratic, transparent and disparity-reducing economic policies. I believe that this needs to be said loud and clear.

4. “This does not mean to say that the human rights advocate is compelled to seek massive redistribution of wealth, perhaps to fund vastly increased social service expenditure among other things”. In my mind, this is exactly what a human rights approach demands. In order to explain my position, it is important to appreciate the difference between poverty reduction and disparity reduction. They both aim at reducing in-equality.

Poverty reduction means that people who are poor are assisted to become less poor. The people who are poor are the target. Disparity reduction, on the other hand, means that people who are poor are made less poor partly as a result of transferring resources from people who are rich. Both people who are poor and people who are rich are targets in such strategies. In my mind a human rights strategy implies the latter. This principle is part of the basis of a welfare state.

5. As mentioned above, both poverty reduction and disparity reduction aim at reducing in-equality. The human rights principle of equality, however, can mean two different things (1) equality of opportunities, and (2) equality of results. The achievement of the second implies the achievement of the first. Human rights realization requires the achievement of equality of opportunities as a minimum. Increasingly, however, human rights arguments are being used for demanding equality of results, including affirmative action in relation to the realisation of women’s human rights; equal learning achievement of school children, etc. While there is no ‘rights to be healthy’, as yet, children already have a right to be well-nourished (not just having a right to access to ‘nutritious foods’).

I remember from early 2002 when many governments were about to respond to the terrorist threat with developing anti-terrorist laws /measures etc, that I many times wondered why not the UN (possibly UNDP - with the scrutiny of OHCHR and other specialist agencies) didn’t regionally give out some sort of advice/paper to the Member States stating what should be avoided to include in such laws in order to adhere to international human rights standards – had this been done, most anti-terrorist laws might have been much more in accordance with international human rights standards. Instead, the Member States were not sure about the standards, and just hastily issued new anti-terrorist laws without really knowing if they were OK human right wise. So what happened next was that many of the governments received criticism of their new ant-terrorist laws, and demands that they had to be changed etc in order to not violate international human rights standards / norms.

So maybe this time around, the process could move a step up, and rather provide the Member States with (what they need) the necessary advice up-front, before all their responses/measures to the credit crunch are adopted: ‘From a human rights perspective, how should Member States be responding to the economic crises and at the same time ensure that international human rights standards are upheld/respected’

It is of course correct, necessary, and great that this is dealt with at the GA, but wouldn’t it also help the Member States if there were to be a coherent and systematic follow-up with advice and assistance for implementation at the regional and country level - as for instance to Ministries of Justices, and to the relevant parliament committees?

I guess I am just a believer in ‘better to be preventive - than having to cure’…

This was just some immediate thoughts coming to my mind when reading this great initiative from the HURITALK-team – thanks to Emilie/Nav!