1 Development

8/3/2019 1 Development

1/16

INTERNATIONALHUMAN RIGHTS

LEXICONSUSAN MARKS

ANDANDREW CLAPHAM


2/16

DevelopmentIn recent years human rights have become an important part of debates,policy-making and activism in the field of development. 'Rights-based'approaches to development, premised on the idea that strategies andprogrammes should be informed by attention to human rights, are nowwidely endorsed. And just as human rights have entered the arena ofdevelopment, so too development has become a key issue in discussions,activities and norm-making within the field ofhuman rights.One manifestation of this is the emergence of the 'right to development',embodying the notion that development is the basis of a human rightin itself.

At first sight the marriage of development and human rights seemslike the most auspicious possible union: two beneficent ideas andpractices dedicated to making the world a better place comingtogether and strengthening each o t ~ e r in the process. On closerinspection, however, a more nuanced assessment is called for, whichtakes into account the limitations on both sides and in their combination. We discuss various limitations of the human rights approachthroughout this book.As to development, it is striking that the effortto establish links with human rights coincides with a time when thecontradictory and frequendy counter-productive character of thedevelopment enterprise could scarcely be plainer. Mter more thanfive decades of development activity, improved conditions in someplaces and at some levels coexist with an increasing gap betweenthe world's richest and poorest, declining per capita incomes in abouta third of all countries, and the impoverishment of millions whopreviously had viable livelihoods. Arturo Escobar speaks to a widelyshared experience when he observes that '[u]nderdevelopmentbecame the subject of political technologies that sought to erase it


3/16

92 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEX ICONfrom the face of the Earth, but that ended up multiplying it toinfinity' .1

Can human rights help to reorient development in ways that mighthave better prospects of realising the promise of a more equal world? Ordo rights-based approaches to development simply prop up a venturethat is failing and, as some argue, was misconceived from the outset?Andwhat of the recognition of development as a human right? Can thatenhance the capacity of human rights to contribute to the more equaldistribution of resources and opportunities? Or does the idea of a rightto development serve only to weaken long-established rights andresponsibilities? Does it indeed point up shortcomings of human rightslaw more generally? To some analysts of development, a major part ofthe problem is that approaches to development have treated the issuesinvolved as technical questions for experts in economics, urban plan-ning, public services, engineering and government, rather than as con-testable political questions for those affected. Finally, then, can humanrights help to refocus attention on the political stakes of developmentstrategies and programmes? Or do they simply reinforce the depoliticisation of issues, and add yet another layer of technocratic power? Inwhat follows we take up these and related questions.

DevelopmentThe project of


4/16

DEVELOPMENT 932long with capital investment, were to be the means for bringing to'underdeveloped' regions the advantages enjoyed by 'developed'i..Jcieties. In this regard,Truman was quite candid, and indeed emphatic,;oout the fact that a major aim of his 'program for development' was:0 establish or consolidate United States influence, and discourage:he underdeveloped regions from turning to communism. Truman'sprogramme was later taken up by the United Nations, and, as decoloni-5ation unfolded, a development agenda was embraced by the govern-ments ofmost newly independent states.Thus was set in train a processwhich over the course of the succeeding years would lead (rather likehuman rights) to an extraordinary proliferation of institutions, initiatives~ n experts, as well as to a new object of academic study and activist~ n g a g e m e n t .

By the last decades of the 20th century, the tenor of much of thissmdy and activism was sharply critical. In one of the harshest assess-ments, published in 1992,Wolfgang Sachs denounces development as adangerous illusion or comforting myth, now best abandoned. 'Delusionmd disappointment, failures and crimes have been the steady compan-ions ofdevelopment,' he writes, 'and they tell a common story: it did notwork,.3 More than that, he contends, the premises on which i t is basedno longer make sense. In the first place, Truman's idea of progressthrough limitless growth based on the application of science and tech-nology has been called into question.We have become aware that indus-trialisation, the technicalisation of agriculture and consumer capitalismi:arry high environmental costs and risks. Far, then, from holding up theUnited States and other industrialised countries as models which othernations should seek to emulate, we should be working to transformthese 'developed' societies. Secondly, the ColdWar context which gaverise to development no longer exists. At the same time, developmentassistance remains difficult to separate from the efforts of key donorsto build strategic and economic relationships, shape international trade,and strengthen particular elites within target countries. The lack ofaccountability to ordinary citizens, and especially the poorest amongthem, continues to mean that development activities might benefitsome, but do little for many more. Indeed, and this is Sachs's third

3 W. Sachs, 'Introduction' inW. Sachs (ed.), TIIC Development Dictionary (London: ZedBooks, 1995), I.


5/16

94 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICONpoint, experience has shown that in many contexts modernisation hasmade conditions oflife significantly worse.As he writes,The old ways have been smashed, the new ways are not viable. People are caughtin the deadlock ofdevelopment: the peasant who is dependent on buying seeds,yet finds no cash to do so; the mother who benefits neither from the care ofher fellow women in the community nor from the assistance ofa hospital; theclerk who had made it in the city, but is now laid off as a result ofcost-cuttinglneasures ...4Finally, Sachs, in common with many others, highlights the way development portrays people in underdeveloped regions as having only problemsand needs, but no agency and few resources. From this perspective, development is problematic because it fosters an image (and, on the part ofthoseconcerned, a self-image) ofdeficiency. Instead of focusing only on what islacking, and destroying what is there, we should be paying more attentionto the possibilities, energies, processes and ideas within communities.Moreconcretely,we should stop treating poor people as consumers of initiativesdeveloped elsewhere, and start attending to the strategies through whichthey are managing to improve their own circumstances.These concerns are very widely shared. For most analysts, however, theyare reasons not to jettison the development concept, but rather to rethinkit and reorient the practices it has spawned. As Maggie Black explains,despite the poor record of development, or indeed because of that record,'this is not the moment to abandon the vision of a fairer wodd' whichdevelopment may serve to project. For '[ilf machinery exists to address"world poverty", optimism insists that it be put to better use'.s In fact, ofcourse, approaches to development have been subject to critique and revision from the very beginning.What has changed in recent decades is theneed to confront challenges which affect not only the means of development, but also its ends, and not only its prescriptions, but also its premises.

Efforts to reorient development to meet these challenges are reflectedin a series of qualifiers which have come to be attached to the word'development'. Thus, 'human development' seeks to shift the emphasisfrOIn economic growth to social conditions, and hence from assessments

4 W Sachs, 'Introduction' inW Sachs (ed.), The Development Dictionary (London: ZedBooks, 1995),3.

5 M. Black, The No-Nonsense Guide to Intemational Development (London: Verso,


6/16

DEVELOPMENT 95based exclusively on gross national product per capita to assessments basedalsu 011 social indicators (life expectancy; infant mortality, literacy, access toservices, etc.). 'Sustainable development' directs attention to the need toavoid- environmental harms, husband natural resources, and considerprecautionary approaches to risk. 'Social development' calls for moves toenhance the extent to which development activities benefit marginalisedand vulnerable groups. And 'participatory development' highlights theimportance of involving those affected (and in the case of 'women-indevelopment', women in particular) in the framing, implementation andevaluation of development schemes. Human development has beenrefined and linked to sustainable, social and participatory development insuccessive issues of the Human Development Report, an annual publicationof the United Nations Development Programme since 1990. In 2000 thetitle of the UNDP's Human Development Report was 'Human Rights andHuman Development'. This points to a further dimension of recentefforts to reorient development, to which we now turn.

Development and human rightsWhat is the relationship between development and human rights? Onone account, respect for human rights can be an obstacle to develop-ment.This account has been elaborated in connection with argumentsabout the significance for human rights of'Asian values '. 6 According toone proponent of these arguments, Bilahari Kausikan, 'experience seesorder and stability as preconditions for economic growth, and growth asthe necessary foundation of any political order that claims to advancehuman dignity'.7 I t follows for him that developing societies may needto postpone human rights to some extent, to provide a secure, reliableand unified context within which economic development can be pursued.While Kausikan proposes that this applies especially to civil and politi-cal rights, such as the right to free speech, the right to free assembly andconstraints on preventive detention, many commentators have pointedout that economic and social rights are, i f anything, more commonlyand comprehensively put to one side, as governments concentrate onboosting economic growth. At any rate, the general point, as expressed

6 Regarding 'Asian values', see Culture*.7 B. Kausikan, 'Asia's Different Standard' 92 Foreign Policy (1993),24,35.


7/16

96 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICONalso by another exponent of the Asian values thesis, Kishore Mahhuhani,is that human rights advocates have got things the wrongway around.Weneed to start putting ' the horse before the cart', he writes, by 'promotingeconomic development through good government before promotingdemocracy' and human rights.8

In an influential book published in 1999Amartya Sen argues that thisway of approaching the relationship between development and humanrights proceeds from a fundamental misconception about the nature ofdevelopment.9To consider whether respect for human rights is or is notconducive to development is to presuppose that development meansonly economic growth. As we have seen, however, many argue thatdevelopment must rather be understood in terms ofhuman developmentand related concepts. More specifically, Sen proposes that developmentmust be understood as a 'process of expanding the real freedoms thatpeople enjoy'.10 To ask whether respect for hunlaIl rights is or is notconducive to development is thus to miss the point that human rights arethemselves constituent components of development.As he contends, therelevance of substantive freedoms, such as the right to politicalparticipation or to basic education,does not have to be fresWy established through their indirect contribution tothe growth of GNP or to the promotion of industrialization.As it happens,these freedoms and rights are also very effective in contributing to economicprogress ...But while the causal relation is indeed significant, the vindicationof freedoms and rights provided by this causal linkage is over and above thedirectly constitutive role of these freedoms in development. l1On Sen's account, growth of gross national product remains an impor-tant means of promoting development, but it cannot be regarded as anend in itselRather, as indicated, the end ofdevelopment is, for him, toexpand the real freedoms that people enjoy. This is linked to the ideathat poverty is a matter not just of low incomes but rather ofwhat hecalls 'capability deprivation', understood as deprivation with respect tothe substantive freedoms a person 'enjoys to lead the kind of life he orshe has reason to value' .12 If the goal of development is to redress capa-bility deprivation by expanding freedoms, then it calls for the removal

" K. Mahbubani, 'TheWest and the Rest' 28 The National Illterest (1992),3, I I .9 A. Sen, Development as Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

10 Ibid., 3. 11 Ibid., 5. 12 Ibid., 87.


8/16

DEVELOPMENT 97of all the 'major sources of unfreedom: poverty as well as tyranny, pooreconomic opportunities as well as systematic social deprivation, neglectof public facilities as well as intolerance of overactivity of repressivestates,.13 .

Continuing in the line of Sen's conception of development as freedom, the UNDP's Human Development Report for ~ o o o proposes viewing human development and human rights in a. more integratedmanner. The Report highlights a number of benefits which humanrights can bring to approaches to human development. First, humanrights connect human development with the idea that others have dutiesto facilitate and enhance development.As observed in the Report, rightsimply claims on others that they should ensure, or co-operate in ensuring, access to some social good. In turn, this insistence on justified claimsand correlative duties implies such concepts as accountability, culpability and responsibility. Human rights thus broaden the focus of development analysis, to encompass a consideration of the 'actions, strategiesand efforts that different duty bearers undertake to contribute to the ful.,-filment of specified human rights' and hence to the advancement ofcorresponding facets of human development.14 They also broaden thefocus to encompass a consideration of the responsibilities of differentactors when those rights go unfulfilled. Secondly, human rights connecthuman development with norms that require attention to the consequences of development strategies for diverse individuals and groups.Among other things, this entails setting limits on the extent to whichgovernments and others may rely upon utilitarian logics. In the wordsof the Report, ' individual rights express the limits on the losses thatindividuals can permissibly be allowed to bear, even in the promotion ofnoble soci41 goals' .15 Finally, human rights connect human developmentwith a tradition in which protection is key. With human rights comesreminder that norms and institutions must be put in place to providesecurity for hUlllan devel0plllent achievements. In thiS way humanrights amplify the 'factual concentration' of development thinking,encouraging scrutiny of the 'extent to which the gains are sociallyprotected against potential threats' .16

13 Ibid., 3. See further chap. 6.14 UNDp, Human Development Report 2.000: Human Rights and Human Development

(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000) . 21 . 15 Ibid., 22-16 Ibid., .22-3_


9/16

98 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICONContinuing somewhat further along the line of these elaborations orc ;

the concept of human development, the UN High Commissioner foriHuman Rights has issued a number of statements detailing the f e a t u r ~ ........and benefits of 'rights-based' approaches to development. 17 Among thebenefits highlighted is again the point that rights-based approaches canenhance the degree to which there exists an authoritative basis for advocacy and for claims on resources.The UNHCHR also stresses the valueof the explicit linkage provided with all human rights.As the Committeeon Economic, Social and Cultural Rights pointed out in 1990, development cooperation activities by no means 'automatically contribute to thepromotion of respect for economic, social and cultural rights'. To avoidharm, rights have to be taken into account at every stage.18 Rights-basedapproaches create 'integrated safeguards against unintentional harm bydevelopment projects', by requiring that measures ofprotection be incorporated into development plans, policies and projects. Alongside theseadvantages, rights-based approaches are said to be distinctive in attachingparticular importance to four issues and their interrelation: participation,accountability, non-discrimination and empowerment. Participation callsfor the involvement of beneficiaries in ways that go beyond formal con-sultation and enable them instead to direct development processes.Accountability is concerned with identifying specific duties and dutybearers and thus moving development cooperation from the domain ofcharity to that of obligation. Non-discrimination highlights the need toguard against reinforcing pre-existing asymmetries of power andresources, by giving express consideration to the implications of development plans for disadvantaged groups. And empowerment refers to theidea that development activities should be oriented to facilitating andassisting the efforts ofcommunities to improve their own conditions oflife.

We have so far been focusing on the introduction of human rightsconsiderations into the equation of development.The other side of theintegration of human development and human rights is, of course, theintroduction of development issues into the equation of human rights.

17 See, e.g., UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, 'How do rights-basedapproaches differ and what is the value added?' , available at www.unhchr.ch/development/approaches-07.html. See further P. Alston. 'Revitalising United NationsWork onHuman Rights andDevelopment' 18 Me/bourne University LawReview (1991) 216.

18 Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment 2(International technical assistance measures: art. 22), 2 February 1990, para. 7.


10/16

DEVELOPMENT 99

The right to developmentThe recognition of development as a -human right predates the recentembrace of rights-based approaches to development by quite sometime.The right to development emerged in connection with the effortsof newly independent states in the 1960s and 1970S to establish fairereconomic and trade relations between the global North and the globalSouth. 19 In its current form the right was first recognised by the UNCommission on Human Rights in 1977.20 I t is protected in the AfricanCharter on Human and Peoples' Rights, opened for signature in 198r.Article 22 of the Charter declares: '(1) All peoples shall have the right totheir economic, social and cultural development . . . (2) States shall havethe duty, individually or collectively, to ensure the exercise of the rightto development'.The right to development is affirmed and elaboratedin the UN Declaration on the Right to Development, adopted by theGeneral Assembly in 1986.21 It is reaffirmed as 'a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights' in theVienna Declaration and Programme ofAction, adopted at the WorldConference on Human Rights in 1993.22 In 1998 the UN Commissionon Human Rights appointedAljun Sengupta as independent expert onthe right to development. In a series of reports Sengupta has elaborateda conception of the right to development as the 'right to a process', andhas examined ways in which the implementation of that right may beenhanced.23

If the right to development emerged in connection with effortsto establish fairer economic and trade relations, its subsequent history

19 See G. Abi-Saab, 'The Legal Formulation of a Right to Development ' inR. Dupuy (ed.), The Right to Development at the international Level (Alphen aan den Rijn:Sijthoff and Noodhoff, 1981), 163.

20 UN Commission on Human Rights Res. 4 (XXXIII) of 21 February 1977. Seealso, earlier, the UN Declaration on Social Progress and Development, UN GeneralAssembly Res. 2542 (XXIV), II December 1969 (elaborating on the human rightsimplications of'social progress and development', but not recognising a 'right to development ' in the manner oflater instruments).

21 UN GeneralAssembly Res. 41/128, 4 December 1986.22 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, UN Doc. AlCONEI57123,

12 July 1993, Part I, para. 10.23 For discussion of the independent expert's first four reports, see Franciscans

International (eds.), TI,e Right to Development (Geneva: Franciscans International, 2003)(where the reports themselves are also reproduced).


11/16

100 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICON,-: -:.:'-::! .

indicates that for some it (also) has another significance. Thus, the n : : ~ ~ ihas been championed by some governments from the global South z : / . ~way ofjustifying repressive policies by reference to the goal of d e v e k ~ tment. (To this extent it may have affinities with the arguments, d i s c u s ~ 2 ~above, that have been advanced in conjunction with claims about c2'bearing for human rights ofAsian values.) Concurrently, the r i g h t ~ } ,development has been resisted by some governments from the g l o t , ~North, anxious to avoid constraints that might impede trade and i n v e : i : ~ "ment or cause them to lose control over development assistance. A O " ~Orford observes that both sets ofgovernments have found it c o n v e n i e r . . . ~to adopt a narrow interpretation of the right, according to which thikright to development is essentially a right of states to prioritise a c e r t a : i . : : : ~economic model ofdevelopment over human rights.24 This supports thi.effort to justifY repression, while at the same time making the right eas:ito discredit.Yet, as Orford also observes, the UN Declaration on tht-Right to Development additionally, and perhaps more readily, s u g g e s t ~ 'other, far more progressive interpretations.

Let us begin by considering the subject of the right.According to article 2(1) of the UN Declaration, the 'human person is the central subject ...of development and should be the active participant and beneficiary of .the right to development'. Under article 2(3), 'States have the right andduty to formulate appropriate national development policies that aim atthe constant improvement of the well-being of the entire populationand of all individuals'. And pursuant to article 22(1) of the AfricanCharter, quoted above, '[a]ll peoples shall have the right to their eco - 'nomic, social and cultural development'.While debates about the subjectof the right to development often proceed by privileging one or anotherof these various formulations, read together they can be understood asestablishing a right that has both individual and collective dimensions.The 'human person' is the central subject. 'All peoples' have the right, buton the basis that what is in issue is the well-being of the'entire population and of all individuals' within it. 'States' are entided to formulatedevelopment policies for enhancing the well-being of the entire population and all individuals, in the sense that others may not prevent orobstruct this goal.

24 A. Orford, 'Globalization and the Right to Development' in P. Alston (ed.),Peoples' Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001) ,127 , 133.


12/16

DEVELOPMENT 101

What then of the entidement itself? In the UN Declaration three" ~ p e c t s assume particular prominence. One, echoed also in the rightsGased approaches to development we considered earlier, concerns theparticipation of those affected. Thus, the Declaration asserts that development policies should be formulated 'on the basis of [the] active, freemd meaningful participation in development' of all individuals.25Highlighted in particular is the need for effective measures to ensure andctive role for women,26 upon whom improvements in social circum-stances often disproportionately depend, yet who are all too frequendymarginalised, or inadequately involved, in decision-making about development. Once again, these provisions make clear that consultation aboutpolicies, projects or programmes already decided upon does not suffice.Participation must include the capacity to take part in setting development priorities and directing development processes. A second aspectrelates to the distribution of social goods and opportunities. This isobviously connected with the first aspect, inasmuch as marginalisationin decision-making is conducive to disadvantageous outcomes. TheDeclaration asserts that development policies should also be formulatedwith a view to the 'fair distribution of the benefits resulting' from developmentY At the same time, it refers to the obligation to ensure 'equal-ity of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education,health services, food, housing, employment, and the fair distribution ofincome' .28These provisions lay a basis for claims about inequity in thedistribution of social goods and opportunities, and about inadequacy inthe provision ofbasic services and in the means ofa livelihood. Followingon from this, a third aspect of the right to development has to do withthe relationship between it and other human rights. In a number of itsarticles, as well as in its preamble, the Declaration indicates that efforts topromote the right to development must remain consistent with respectfor other human rights, and indeed should include efforts to promoterespect for the full range of human rights.Thus, for instance, article 6(3)declares that 'States should take steps to eliminate obstacles to development resulting from failure to observe civil and political rights, as wellas economic, social and cultural rights'. In contrast to the assumption,mentioned earlier, that the right to development can justifY repressivepolicies by reference to the goal of economic development, this may be

25 Art. 2(3). 26 Art. 8(1). 27 Art. 2(3). 28 Art. 8(1).


13/16

I02 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICONtaken to reflect a rights-based approach to development, according towhich development is inseparable from the goa] of enhancing respectfor the full range of human rights.

Finally, upon whom are imposed the obligations associated with thisentitlement? Under the African Charter, 'States shall have the duty, individually or collectively, to ensure the exercise of the right to development'.29 Likewise, under the UN Declaration 'States have the primaryresponsibility for the creation of national and international conditionsfavourable to the realization of the right to development'.30 Morespecifically, 'States have the duty to take steps, individually and collectively, to formulate development policies .. .' ,31 and 'to co-operate witheach other in ensuring development and eliminating obstacles to development' .32 In this regard, the Declaration emphasises that, '[a]s a complement to the efforts of developing countries, effective internationalco-operation is essential in providing these countries with appropriatemeans and facilities to foster their comprehensive development'.33 Atthe same time, it is declared that '[a]ll human beings have a responsibili ty for development, individually and collectively .. . ' .34 As in the case ofthe subject of the right to development, debates about responsibility forensuring the right often proceed by privileging one or another of thesevarious formulations. In this way we are encouraged either to focus oninternational accountability and absolve from responsibility the government of the state concerned, or to focus on national accountability andabsolve from responsibility other governments, international institutionsand others. Once again, however, the idea that we must make such achoice can be readily refuted.When read as a whole, the UN Declarationcan be understood to express a multidimensional approach to accountability, such that responsibility rests with the government of the stateconcerned, but also other governments, international institutions andindeed everyone.That responsibility, moreover, is not Inerely a negativeduty not to impede development, but also a positive duty to act in waysthat help to eliminate obstacles to development and create favourableconditions for it. Anne Orford notes that in conditions of intensifYingglobalisation, the role of multinational corporations is particularly significant. In the absence ofadequate forms of accountability with regard

29 Art. 22(2).33 Art. 4(2).

JArt. 3(1).34 Art. 2(2).


14/16

I,

DEVELOPMENT 103to multinational corporations, the duties of international institutions,especially international economic institutions, and of states as membersof those institutions, also assume a special salience. Analysing the workof the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and the WorldTrade Organization, however, she shows that these duties have yet to beregistered fully, or even in some contexts at all.While the right to development has a central place in the agenda of the United Nations, Orford'sassessment is that it has had little impact on the work of the institutionsmostly closely linked to the international economic system.35

To some analysts this is not a cause for disquiet, but for relief.Certainly, the emergence of the right to development has by no meansbeen universally welcomed, and from one perspective, it is an unhelpful,even dangerous, departure, best pulled back. We have mentioned theinvocation of the right to development in connection with efforts to jus-tifY repression.We have also alluded to the way it has been used to deflectattention from the responsibility of the governments of poor countriesfor improving conditions within their own countries, or alternatively todeter concentration on the obligations of governments of richer stateswith respect to development elsewhere. Another concern is that theright to development risks submerging long established human rightsprotections in a right ofwhich the basic features remain indistinct, or atany rate contested. InYash Ghai's words, the 'fortunes of the disadvantaged are better served by the claims to specific rights like food, shelter,and literacy than an amorphous portmanteau right .. :.36 This is especially the case given that it seems hard to imagine the right ever beingenforced through national courts. Viewed from this angle, the right todevelopment politicises issues which could otherwise be approached onmore objective, formal and legal tenns.

On the other hand, a further concern is that the right to developmentprecisely depoliticises issues which should rather be recognised asinescapably political struggles over public projects, resource allocationsand social arrangements. Here the worry is that the right engages officials,activists and scholars in endless debates about right-holders, duty-bearers,

35 A. Orford., 'Globalization and the Right to Development' in P. Alston (ed.),Peoples'Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 127, passim.

36 Y. Ghai, T/f/hose Human Right to Development?, Commonwealth Secretariat Series of:Jccasional Papers on the Right to Development (London: Commonwealth Secretariat,=989),15


15/16

104 INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS LEXICONenforcement mechanisms and other formal and procedural questions,diverting attention from the policy choices being made. In this way, itdemobilises those who have reason to contest these choices. It also takesup too much imaginative space, and thus debilitates our capacity forenvisioning and formulating alternative frameworks. Let us mentionone final concern.This is an anxiety that the r ight to development mayentrench a concept-development-which is itself a key part of theproblem.We highlighted earlier some of the challenges to which theconcept of development has given rise, as well as some of the reorientations initiated to meet those challenges.The concern is that, even afterso many reorientations, little has really changed.An evolutionary modelcontinues to hold sway; deficiency endures as the defining characteristicof ,developing' societies; and economic growth remains the overridingconcern, with distributive considerations coming well behind.

While there may be answers to some of these points, not all themisgivings can be fully allayed. From this it does not follow, however, thatthe right to development should be dismissed. For i f the right to development has important limitations, it also has the potential to make valuablecontributions.As in the case of rights-based approaches to development, itstrengthens in some respects the basis for advocacy and resistance, movingclaims from the domain of welfare and voluntary assistance to that ofentidement and obligation. In this regard, it also fosters a presumptionof responsibility,and prompts consideration of the detailed implications ofthe responsibilities ofparticular actors in particular contexts.As a syntheticright, the right to development helps to bring out the links betweendifferent human rights and the need for an integrated or, as it is sometimes termed, 'holistic' approach to respect for human rights. As AtjunSengupta explains, the right to development is not 'merely the sum total'of existing human rights. That is to say, it is not merely a call for 'therealization of those rights individually, but [for] the realization of themtogether in a manner that takes into account their effects on each other,both at a particular time and over a period of time'.37 With its emphasis on participation, the right to development helps to ensure that consideration of these effects in turn takes into account the diverseperspectives of those affected.The r ight to development also highlights

37 Third report of the independent expert on the right to development, AJjunSengupta. UN Doc. E/CN.41200I/WG.I812, 2 January 2001, para. II.


16/16

DEVELOPMENT IOS:he need for a holistic and structural approach to human rights abuse. Bydirecting our attention to economic and social issues, it helps us to see~ ~ v h a t is making abuse possible. Finally, the right to development encour

" " ~ i > : ' / ' ~ ' : > ..' 1ges us to attend to the interconnectedness of life in the contemporary-"vorld, the ways in which social conditions in different places (within

"',......:,,,.,.. : o u n t r i ( ~ s and across them) are linked in patterns of exploitation and:':0-operation, interdependence and dependency. I t thus heightens percep:ions of the global dimensions of the struggle to ensure respect for human

". :rights, enriching understanding not only of the problems confronted, butzlso of the solidarities that might be mobilised for change.

Documents

1 Development