PHA-Exchange> Food for a thought whose time has come

[Claudio]

Human Rights Reader 141




IT IS NOT AN EXAGGERATION TO SAY THAT THE HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED APPROACH IS IN A DIFFERENT LEAGUE THAN OTHER APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT: IT IS THE 'MAKE OR BREAK' ISSUE OF OUR TIME.




1. The human rights-based approach (HRBA) signals a 'new deal' in the annals of development work. It shifts the focus from technocratic to political solutions and to the empowerment of claim holders (CHs) or, as they have also been called, 'problem owners'. The HRBA is antithetical with an 'investment in' health or nutrition or education approach.



2. The HRBA also adds new dimensions by going beyond the question 'Are the needed factors in place?' (i.e., policies and programs) by asking 'Are the duty bearers (DBs) taking action to ensure that such factors are present?' and also asking 'Can the DBs take such action?'  This focus highlights accountability, a centerpiece of the HRBA. 

 

3. Further, the HRBA strongly denounces and debunks such fallacies of neoliberalism as the ones that purports that poverty-should-be-accepted-for-some-time-to-maximize-investment-and-economic-growth; or that initially, economic-growth-will-create-inequalities-that-should-be-accepted; or that civil-and-political-rights-must-be-temporarily-suspended-to-allow-for-economic-growth.

 

4. The HRBA forces program staff and policy makers to reflect upon the why, the how and the who-for of their actions beyond the questions of what should be done.



5. As has been discussed in this Reader previously, five components/stages can be identified in the strategy to implement the HRBA:

-Causal analysis and capacity analysis;

-Assessment of the existing legislative and policy framework;

-Screening that government policies are not leading to violations and that the government is progressively engaging in the realization of human rights; 

-Setting up of effective monitoring mechanisms to assess progress (includes shadow reports of NGOs to UN HR monitoring bodies). (See Addendum below); and 

-Setting up of effective recourse procedures that allow victims to claim.

 

6. Despite these suggested steps in implementing the HRBA, the same will not only change what we do, but rather how and why we do it. (U. Jonsson)

 

7. The HRBA provides a framework for equity and non-discrimination that, when applied, ensures the benefits of human development do indeed reach even the most disadvantaged and the excluded. (Be reminded here that it is only the systematic disaggregation of data that allows the detection of the situations of exclusion. When applying the HRBA, one simply cannot leave pockets of exclusion). 



8. A key value added by the HRBA lies in the justiciability of HR, i.e., their violation can be invoked in court. Human rights work that just concentrates on advocacy work is ultimately weak. There is enough useful language in the international rights instruments to warrant doing rights work aiming for justiciability through the courts system --at least to secure and make their progressive realization operational and a measurable reality. This said, let us be clear though that as much as legal tools are essential, they are not the only requirement for success. 

 

9. Governments may perceive the HRBA as an alien imposition on their cultural identity and system of governance. This should in no way deter us from engaging them; they are wrong, and will have to be convinced otherwise in time. 

 

10. The more firmly the HRBA gets incorporated into plans of action, the more success will crown the efforts of the international donor community and their partner governments. This is what we have to convince them of. 

 

11. But it has proven difficult to make international organizations and corporations bona-fide duty bearers (DBs) so as to hold them accountable for not respecting human rights. For this, voluntary guidelines for their behavior are useful, but only as an intermediate step on the way to juticiability. (e.g., FAO Voluntary Guidelines for the Right to Adequate Food and Nutrition, 2005) Being able to hold them legally accountable will be useful, because the HRBA specifically zeros-in on the actions or inactions of bona-fide DBs. (S. Maxwell) This then gives us the recourse to demand these DBs rectify their shortcomings and come up with the needed remedies for HR violations and with the needed reparations for its victims. But so far, we have had little political success in our efforts to get the HRBA accepted and applied by these organizations and corporations. A challenge here. 

 

Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City

claudio at hcmc.netnam.vn 

______

Addendum:

Core UN treaties:

United Nations Charter, 1946.

 

Universal Declaration of HR, 1948 (does not require ratification)

 

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (Ratified by 149 states). Has 2 optional protocols; monitored by the new UN HR Council.

 

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (Ratified by 147 states); monitored by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

 

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, 1963 (Ratified by 168 states); monitored y the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

 

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, 1979 (Ratified by 173 states); one optional protocol; monitored b the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women.

 

Convention Against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (Ratified by 133 states); monitored by the Committee Against Torture.

 

Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989 (Ratified by 192 states); two optional protocols; monitored by he Committee on the Rights of the Child.

 

Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, 1990.

 

To date, 80% of states have ratified at least four of the seven major HR conventions; all countries have ratified at least one of them. 

We emphasize that States have become parties to the international HR instruments above on a voluntary basis, and thereby obligate themselves to comply and to report periodically to the existing independent monitoring bodies on their implementation. 

(A conventoin on the rights of the people with disabilities has just been added this year).

Mostly adapted from D+C, Vol 33, No.5, May 2006; F+D (IMF), Vol 42, No.4, Dec. 2005; SCN News (UN Standing Committee on Nutrition), No.30, mid 2005; HR Practice Note, P. van Weerelt and T. Palmlund, UNDP draft 26/4/2004; and U. Jonsson: Changing Approaches to the Problem of Child Malnutrition, 2006, forthcoming.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20060916/10e2d3cd/attachment-0001.html>