The human right to development

The human right to development

This is a right possessed by all individuals whether they form a state of sovereignty or not, thus sounding as vital for whole progress of humanity. The whole international community has therefore given the right a dense promotion, affirmation and observance. The urgency accorded to this right is driven by the need to development felt ar4ound the world, moiré so to developing world, where there is high pronunciation of affront towards civilization and human dignity. It is a right to guard against injustices such as inequality, imbalances in development between constituent parts of the world and degree of participation in cultural and modern civilization aspects. The right to development is a move to end the divisions of the world based on poverty, abundance and levels of prosperity. It is a tool used to aid attaining of Charter of the United Nations by promoting standards of living, social progress and ensuring larger freedom.

Being of such vitality to the global community and global economies, the right to development has highly been curtailed by elements winch as racism, colonialism, war, exploitation and inequality (Nowak, 2007, 381).

The above social evils have turned achievement of the right to remain an inspirational quotation in the minds of several nations and individual around the world. The above social evils limit the scope and profitability of the right because it is essentially perceived as a tool of ensuring social justice at international and national levels. It is also made to ensure better distribution of wealth, social services and income, as well as improving living standards and eliminating poverty to the larger global population. For the greater social justice to be achieved, national product should be expanded coupled with adoption of economic and social policies towards fair wealth and income distribution (Gibson, 1991, 10).

The world population feels that realization of the right to development is a place they would wish to be, not a place they have ever been. The biggest challenge that has ever brought unequal development is the redistribution of resources within many states and the world in general. Distribution of income is a major determinant of the level of equality in a society for it directly impacts on the living standard and the level of economic power of citizens. The way national and international resources have been distributed eon recent years have had severe repercussions on employment, wages, investment, social welfare, fiscal policy and democratization of wealth. To the disgrace of this right attainment, ownership of means of production have been owned and assigned to individuals and nations illegally, dismissing the belief that it is a legal right. This has promoted the disparity between the rich and the poor, making the issue on development never sound human again (Fitzpatrick, 1994, 21).

Because the legal framework accompanying this right has been corrupted by nations at international level and individuals at national levels, it has thus been viewed as reminiscent of pre enlightenment theology with incoherent and pedantic fine tuning of unsupported and crazy central hypothesis. The poor cream of society all over the world has not been helped by the documentation of the clause on the right to development as legal. The UN’s 1986 Declaration of Human Right to Development has no evidence of an entitlement to welfare increment or advancement. The efforts made towards this right achievement are only excruciatingly dull intellectual machinations operating within and outside the human rights clergy (Arriaza, 1995, 34).

Lack of commitment to enforcement of this right started long ago after it was documented by the United Nations after going through many conferences. Legal deviance from the provisions of the right has been experienced from the developed world, challenging actualization of the same by the developing world. The world therefore has viewed and interpreted this law to simply sound as a norm of customar4y international law but not necessarily a legal concern. As in regards of enforcement of the right, America completely voted against it in 1987 whereas several nations classified themselves as abstains. This was the worst way of suffocating the legal applicability of the enforcement because abstention is not a negative vote, and thus these were nations bound on tacit consent and acquiescence grounds. This view is evidenced by numerous resolutions and declarations that developed nations accepted repeatedly soft law principles in the attempts of promoting the right of development within the third world nations (Tolley, 1994, 45).

Developed world is said to behave in a manner suggesting that they are under customary obligation and not a legal contact to in providing development to the least developed world. In this regard, the need for international cooperation and undertaking legal obligation to realize the right to development has been underlined by the taxation of the international acceptance of well off countries to grant differential and special treatment to the developing world. In a bid to realize the right to development, international financial institutions such as World Bank and international monetary fund have been providing concessional aid to developing world. The concessional terms do not promote the living standards of living gin these nations but only suffocate them, contrasting the right to development (Conde, 1999, 56).

 For developing countries to get legal assistance and ensure corporation, international resolutions and declarations should be read in light of the obligations that are contained in the general comment No. 3 of the ICESCR charter. This comment recognizes and emphasizes the need for parties of the state to fully account for all principles there in and at the same time highlights the importance of the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the General Assembly. The comment identifies categorically that, if able countries fail to initiate an active program to foster International Corporation and assistance, the realization of social, cultural and economic rights remains unfulfilled aspirations in many areas of the world. This clearly portrays that the inspirational ideology about the right to development has originated by the desire of the developed world to accumulate resources in their own nations. It has ahs been attributed to by their exploitation of the third world economic and social resources for their advantage (Brown, 2002, 43).

The acquiry or exploitation of these resources has not been accompanied by any legal framework or provision since the right to development is very highly rejected by resources abundance countries. If the exploitation was accorded any legal justice, respective rewards for resources exploited would have helped to greater heights in the efforts of developing the low resourced countries. It is for this reason majority of the world feels that the right to development is not a legal right but a mere aspiration.

There is evidence that the right to development forms part of international customary law but it is not accepted by all states. It refers to the state obligations to its people. On the other hand, it refers to the benefits the national and global populations should enjoy from their respective leaderships (Clark, 2001, 54).

            The lack of normative content on issues of the right to development were noted back in 1986 and quoted in the Article 10 of the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development. It said that it was a time of essentiality for measures to be taken in ensuring progressive enhancement and full exercise of the right to development. It illustrated clearly that the right to development was more an inspiration but not something that needed an immediate effect and therefore necessitated states to take measures towards attaining it (Howard, 1987, 67).

            Attempts to realize the efforts of attaining this right have repeatedly been made at both national and international levels. Eradication of poverty was an example of a key component of the right to development which was advocated by 20000 IUCN International Covenant. Article 9 of this document provided that poverty eradication in particular necessitated global partnership and it was an indispensable requirement for sustainable development to be attained. Similarly, Principle 5 of 1992 Rio Declaration gave a suggestion that all people and states should ensure corporation during the essential task of eradicating poverty. Such task was believed to make sure that the disparities in the standards of living would decrease and needs of majority of the worlds people will be met easily and in a greater margin. Agenda 21 viewed poverty as a component which requires a shared responsibility between the various nations around the world, with each applying full capacity and good will (Mack, 1996, 78).

            To add on, a Report of Social Summit and the Millennium Declaration gave an option in which all nations committed themselves towards poverty eradication, through international cooperation and decisive national actions. The 1992 Climate Change Convention, the 1994 Desertification Convention and the 1992 Biodiversity Convention have recognized poverty eradication as a priority in developing nations.  These conventions saw poverty eradication as the major weapon to reinstate and support the right to development. They suggested that no development however little it may be can be realized in zones where poverty is highly pronounced. Despite this diverse recognition and emphasis, the legal structure that accompanies these declarations has been weakened by racism and the promotion of skewed distribution of world resources, limiting the achievement of the right to development (Harris, 1995, 90).

            The reason as to why the right to development has lacked a major recognition in any universal binding agreement is because the right is not formed of a fundamentally norm creating character. According to 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to Development, development is seen as comprehensive political, cultural, social and economic process, targeting constant improvement of entire populations well being. The well being is based on free, meaningful and active participation in development activities and fair distribution of the benefits that are arising from such activities. The right to development is therefore an inalienable human right by virtue in which all people should contribute to, participate in, and enjoy political, cultural, social and economic development in the process of realizing human rights and fundamental freedoms. It is therefore challenging to judge out how the right to development is legally abiding rule conferring obligations on states (Craven, 1998, 98).

             According to several declarations, development is described as a common goal of the entire international community but not a necessarily legal entitlement, a denial which is blamed for causing persistent breach of international obligation. The breach has been seen in cases where there have been reluctances in accepting the right to development as legally abiding under international law. Failure to encompass it into a binding agreement has served as another factor fuelling deviance against exercise of the right to development. It was on several occasions where the United States of America declared that development is not a right, but a goal, that relies on protection of human rights set out and its realization and promotion in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The understanding of US according to principle 3 of this declaration is that, development is pursued as a goal to better the lives of both the present and future generation. The state does not agree and completely dissociates itself from any other form of interpretation that goes beyond their understanding. This ideology and actions indicate that the move from advocacy towards a framework of implementation for universal human rights can be linked extricably to issues of indicators identification and devising and development of monitoring methodologies which reflect principles, standards and human right norms (Gastil, 1987, 87).

               The real purpose of the right to development since the time it was proposed and put into writings and documentations is to secure the process of inspirational harmonization towards material improvement of human condition putting in mind the aspiration of dignity and freedom. Controversies have however risen because of the purpose, rendering the above argument obviously false and pretentious. The purpose is thus perceived to be promoting development. Whatever development it may be, it does not involve inspirational harmonization. The disparities in the understanding of the purposes of the right to development have made the actualization process the hardest process to undertake not only at national level, but also at international levels (Valler, 2002, 76).

               The belief in a right can only exist even in scenarios where no one has a corresponding obligation. Arjun Sengupta claims that the human right to development can be described as a vector that encompasses variables such as the level of improvement of the right in a specified period of time, the right’s consistency with the level of economic growth within that stipulated time period and the progressive of improvement of rights based well being. Other writers have found this ideology less than illuminating, but as a mere formalization of nonsense. Marjory, this claim extends to say that the right to development can only be improved at levels where at least one of the constituent rights improves and at the same time if none is violated. States that have stuck to this kind of argument believe that development itself or the right to it is a nothing affair but not an all affair. This means that countries which have faced systematic violation of civil rights can achieve no development. If this is not the case, development itself can improve, but the right to develop remains stagnant or abused. The differences in interpreting and exercising the right to development have caused implausibility, heaping into incoherence and then failure of the real actualization of the anticipated results (Wood, 1995, 9).

               Legal concerns on the right to development could only be achieved if at all the concerned countries and individual could adhere to the original provisions and clauses accompanying the strategy. The reason as to why it has been viewed as an inspiration is because the infrastructural facilities that were made to support the strategy have fallen terribly. To start with, the authority of the world’s super power country by then declined. Again, private global capitalists displaced development assistance serving as a source of external finance. The profitability criterion of markets has been diverted towards egalitarian socialists who distribute public goods upon their will, directly affecting the well being of the global population (Gardener, 2002, 20).

                Escalations of international inequalities have been experienced. In many countries, domestic disparities have widened. Financial privileges have been bested upon specified countries who own major capital elements, giving them the full potential to control human, social and economic aspects around the world. All adjustments in the global economic operations are controlled by these people, frequently damaging financial sector and causing economic crises. All these are development based activities, of which any interference directly affects the world population at large. Adjustments in these variables should be supported and allowed by the rule of law only, and therefore safeguard the living standards of entire population. This means that on top of the above explanations, the drive by major capitalistic nations has led to great ignorance of the right to development (Madison, 1998, 40).

               The right to development was a legally supported declaration during the time it was formed. A law is however not a law if it is frequently violated without any follow measures or using any criterion to curb the deviance. The reason as to why people see the right to development an inspiration is because it was a law that was not enforced. If it was enforced, economically and politically able countries declined repeatedly and ultimately turned the law down. As population perceived difficulties in the application of the law, the legal ideology was converted into an inspirational perspective.

One area in which development can be achieved is through promoting fairness in the primary production market. On the contrary, primary commodity exporters have been forced to understand it is a risk taking business that has no legal protection or coverage. Industrial nations continuously impose pro cyclical policies, forcing exporters to adjust to these business cycles (Nowak, 2007, 381).

               Considering the above scenario of events and situations, there is a crying need for creative thinking. There is also a need to safeguard devastation of development gains from financial hurricanes. These financial institutions behind the hurricanes burning the world economy include IMF, BIS, G7 AND G 20. They override interests concerned with protecting global financial investment value ignoring shattered collateral damage on lives of people and soiling the hopes of millions of people. The only avenue towards actualization of the right to development is through economic benefits balancing. Due to the disparity in resources endowment, there exist dictatorial economic actions that suppress economies of the developing world and promote the developed economies, further suppressing the well being of global population. The documentation of the legal processes for ensuring the right to development exists; it has died because of the failure to act accordingly. To safe the lives of majority poor population of the world, there is a peculiar need of the concerned authorities and administrations, whether national or international to reintroduce and enforce the legal framework accompanying the right to development (Gibson, 1991, 12).


Arriaza Naomi, 1995. Impunity and Human Rights in International Law and Practice. Oxford; Oxford University Press, pp.34.

Brown Anne, 2002. The Promotion of Human Rights in International Politics. Manchester; Manchester University Press, pp.43.

Clark Marie, 2001. Diplomacy of Conscience: Amnesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton; Princeton University Press, pp. 54.

Coned Victor, 1999. A Handbook of International Human Rights Terminology. Nebraska; University of Nebraska Press, pp.56.

Craven Matthew, 1998. The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. London; Clarendon Press, pp.98.

Fitzpatrick Joan, 1994. Human Rights in Crisis: The International System for Protecting Rights during States of Emergency. Pennsylvania: University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.21.

Gardener Michael, 2002. Harry Truman and Civil Rights: Moral Courage and Political Risks. Illinois; Southern Illinois University Press, pp.20.

Gastil Raymond, 1987. Freedom in the World: Political Rights and Civil Liberties, 1986-1987. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press, pp.87.

Gibson John, 1991. International Organizations, Constitutional Law and Human Rights. West Port, CT, Praeger Publishers, pp. 10,12.

Harris David, 1995. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and United Kingdom Law. London; Clarendon Press, pp.90.

Howard Rhoda, 1987. International Handbook of Human Rights. London; Greenwood Press, pp.67.

Mack Timothy, 1996. International Rights and Responsibilities for the Future. Westport, CT, Praeger Publishers, pp.78.

Madison Gabriel, 1998. The Political Economy of Civil Society and Human Rights. London; Rutledge, pp.40.

Nowak Manfred, 2007. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). United States, Long Horn Publishers Limited, pp.380,381.

Tolley Howard, 1994. The International Commission of Jurist: Global Advocates for Human Rights. Pennsylvania; University of Pennsylvania Press, pp.45.

Vallar Linda, 2002. Students Guide to Landmark Congressional Laws on Civil Rights. Westport, CT; Greenwood Press, pp.76.

Wood Alan, 1995. Limits to Autocracy: From Sung Neo-Confucianism to a Doctrine of Political Rights. Hawaii; University of Hawaii Press, pp.9