I stood and watched. The entire village was surrounded by machine gun toting men in the national military uniform. The mayor indicated which residents were to be marched with a few possessions to a waiting bus, and then loaded on an aircraft. They were transported for some hours to a 'development project' where, within a few years, they would be more desperate, destitute, hungry, and without infrastructural support, than they ever were in the home their families had known for hundreds of years.

This 'international aid' programme was euphemistically called 'transmigration'. Donors were complicit in forced removals that transgressed fundamental rights "to liberty of movement and of freedom to choose (his) residency".

Where was I? Java. Where were they going? East Timor this group, and when I ransacked the FAO files in Jakarta I found that agency complicit in forced removals to Aceh and Irian Jaya as well. The Asian Development Bank was the other lead multi lateral, and individual nation state donors, JICA principally among them, would fund different elements of the scheme - the agricultural extension training, or the new school, or the women's income generating projects.

I listened to their story: The young women and girls had been recruited for training in a bilateral textile venture. The development project specified that they would spend three months (unpaid) in training and then be offered permanent positions. After two years the only permanent positions were those of the male tailors, cutters, marketeers, and the boss. Every three months another group of women and girls were recruited, the trainees discharged, and the production continued its rounds of "servitude" and exploitation. The mid-term monitoring and review team didn't even question the Bangladeshi women workers, and reported that the scheme was proving to be a great success, as the enterprise was beginning to compete successfully for international contracts.

Many of you sitting here have these pictures to share. Evelyn Balais-Serano, Director of the Philippines Alliance of Human Rights Advocates, paints one typical of the last decade of structural adjustment policies.

"Calarbazon is a case in point. Conceptualized and planned by the Japanese in 1989, the Calarbazon project, funded mainly by the World Bank and the Japanese JICA and their overseas Economic Co-operation Fund, covers one tenth of the country's land area.

As a policy in this area as well as in other free trade zones and regional industrial sites, the workers are being systematically deprived of their jobs and their right to strike and to form trade unions. Under the practice of labour only contracting, workers have no job security. As casual employees they are paid as low as between $2.50 and $4.00 per day. In another area the wage is $3.35 for a 12 -hour shift with only one 15 minute break. This is now the common practice and it is seen by the government as an added incentive to foreign investors".

What's going on here? In these cases the recipient states are an active agent in fundamental breaches of Articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), the International Convention on the Rights of the child (ICRC) and a raft of breaches of CEDAW, and every donor facilitates, accommodates, tolerates, justifies and excuses these breaches.

The donors, many of them signatories to the ICCPR Optional Protocol, do not find such breaches sufficiently egregious to discontinue their support of such conditions, even though slavery, servitude and forced removals are considered serious violations. Multi laterals protest that they are not bound by human rights obligations, and that these situations are not horrendous enough to be in the realm of 'norms'.

We are here to consider responsible leadership and strategies to promote equality and justice, and to consider how we can be more effective. It seems to me that there are opportunities to pursue in international law where we all can play a part, and the challenge begins for some of us within our own countries if they are donors.

There is an intriguing question of sovereignty that must arise in respect of donors. When countries are signatories to major international legal Covenants, and in particular, to the ICCPR Protocol, and they vote development assistance from their domestic revenue which is diverted offshore to projects, is there any point at which the dollars thus voted are no longer subject to the human rights obligations of the donor? Does it matter if the recipient country is a signatory of Covenants, or does the international jurisprudence of prevailing human rights 'norms' apply regardless of the legal obligations of the recipient? Is the donor freed of all obligations as the tele transfer exits the cyber space at the 200 mile economic zone?

If the obligations do apply, then who has standing to contest breaches of Covenants where the projects themselves breach fundamental human rights, or in terms of international jurisprudence, accommodate, tolerate, facilitate, justify or excuse breaches of rights? Who is culpable, and what strategies can we adopt to provoke answers to these questions?

We need to be appraised of the tired academic debate about whether or not there is a right to development. Male scholars of international law (there are few women in the field and to date I have found only one who could be considered a major commentator on development assistance and human rights) have long addressed the question of whether or not the international legal system has generated rules of customary international law surrounding the provision of development assistance to developing countries. Analysis has focused on both the repeated patterns of development assistance that stem from formal arrangements (bilateral and multi lateral arrangements through treaties or international contracts) and pronouncements of international agencies (UN resolutions, including the NIEO resolutions).

Different characterizations of customary norms have been proposed, although each of these relates to a general notion of an emerging international obligation to provide development aid;

(i) "capability, an obligation to contribute to development"1

(ii) "international entitlement to aid"

(iii) "the right to development;" 2 and

(iv) "The emergence of a norm of customary law which makes it obligatory for the affluent to assist the poor nations in their development is not only sensible, but is also inevitable." 3

Conservatives argue that most donor countries reject the notion that an obligation of development assistance has gradually arisen under customary international law. As Professor Oscar Schachter has observed, in the view of donor countries: "They have full discretion to determine in what circumstances and in what extent and in what way they would render assistance. Their continued and even predictable behavior in extending aid does not, as they see it, give rise to an obligation of a legal character since it is clearly understood by all that their actions are voluntary." 4

Others, (for example Steiner and Alston)5 argue that the right to development is emerging from the process of custom formation through the cumulative effect of policy measures, legal instruments and underlying principles reasserted at Conferences at Rio, Cairo, Vienna, Copenhagen and Beijing, and in daily practice.

Traditionally, Steiner and Alston explain, customary law:

"refers to conduct, or the conscious abstention from certain conduct, of states that becomes in some measure a part of international legal order. By virtue of a developing custom, particular conduct may be considered to be permitted or obligatory in legal terms, or abstention from particular conduct may come to be considered a legal duty".

This may be:

"(1) 'concordant practice' by a number of states relating to a particular situation (2) continuation of that practice 'over a considerable period of time'(3) a conception that the practice is required by or consistent with international law; and (4) general acquiescence in that practice by other states .... State practice includes diplomatic acts and instructions, public measures, and official statements, whether unilateral or in combination with other states in international organizations". They conclude that "today many authorities would contend that custom has long been a less rigid, more flexible and dynamic force in law making".

Mohammed Bedjaoui outlines the elements of the right to development as follows: (1) The right to development is a fundamental right, the precondition of liberty, progress, justice and creativity. (2) The right to development flows from this right to self determination and has the same nature. There is little sense in recognizing self determination as a superior and inviolable principle if one does not recognize at the same time a ' right to development' for the peoples that have achieved self determination. This right to development can only be an 'inherent' and 'built in' right forming an inseparable part of the right to self determination. (3) The right to development includes the right to an equitable share in the economic and social well being of the world.6 Bedjaoui concludes that this makes the right to development much more a right of the state or of the people, than a right of the individual, and it seems to him that it is better that way.

Contrasting with this view is that of Jack Donnelly: "Suppose, though, that Article 28 of the Universal Declaration were to be taken to imply a human right to development. What would that right look like? It would be an individual right and only an individual right; a right for persons, not peoples, and certainly not states. It would be a right to the enjoyment of traditional human rights not a substantively new right. It would be as much a civil and political as an economic and social right- Article 28 refers to all human rights - and would be held equally against one's national government and the international community....7

In holding this point of view Donnelly reflects the protections that have been offered in international law for individuals, and those who battled for the provision for a 'class action' possibility in respect of CEDAW will be familiar with the objections of nation states to the suggestion that groups of people might have protection.

I would contend that even in the conservative sense, there is now established as customary law, a right to development. But is there an obligation to assist? The same tests of customary law apply, but they are supplemented by some key texts. And the debate is also an effort at separation and confusion. The attempt is made politically and legally to differentiate the rights and obligations of donors and recipients from each other. This avoids the fact that there are obligations applying uniformly to all states parties to Conventions, donors and recipients. For example there are obligations under the ICESCR which are not subject to notions of progressive realization and resource availability. These obligations apply uniformly around the world to all states parties whatever their state of development. These include, to take just one example, the principle of non- discrimination. According to Article 2(2) of the Covenant, States parties must not discriminate on the basis of sex, race and other prohibited grounds. Thus, if a state party excludes girls from any state school, it breaches the Covenant. If a donor contributes to an education project which concerns a state school where there are no girls and there is no equal equivalent institution for girls, the donor breaches the covenant. In these too frequent contexts, notions of progressive realization and resource availability are irrelevant. Both donor and recipient are in breach of fundamental Covenant Articles.

There are Covenant obligations in respect of development assistance in the ICESCR. The first is the phrase "individually and through international assistance and co -operation, especially economic and technical", which appears in Article 2(1) of the ICESCR. The second is the provision in Article 11(1) according to which states parties agree to ' take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of the right to an adequate standard of living, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. Similarly in Article 11(2) states parties agree to take, individually through international co-operation, relevant measures concerning the right to be free from hunger.8

Article 4 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child is also explicit:

"States Parties shall undertake all appropriate legislative, administrative, and other measures for the implementation of the rights recognized in the present Convention. With regard to economic, social and cultural rights, States Parties shall undertake such measures to the maximum extent of their available resources and, where needed, within the framework of international co-operation."

UNICEF Staff who service the ICRoC tell me that the Committee members systematically ask how Article 4 is taken into account in respect of the other rights in the convention. Apparently donors are surprised by the question, for the connections are not transparent and obvious. Donors illustrate a lack of information, giving a few illustrations or handing over a political policy document. Their responses are fragmented and illustrative, and have no consistency. There are almost no answers from development agencies of governments - the exceptions are the Swedes, Norwegians, Belgians - the French couldn't give a single example.9

The interpretation by the nation states is that Article 4 is indicative not mandatory: this is not the interpretation of the Committee. In the absence of a General Comment on Article 4 ( the membership of the Committee is such that UNICEF have dissuaded them from making any General Comments) there are divergent views, even in theoretical discussions, so the interpretation is not systematic. However, the question is in evidence.

This is in contrast with the Committee hearings on the ICESCR. The most that any of the international human rights body has done in linking respect for human rights to the roles of international co-operation is a General Comment on International Technical Assistance Measures10 adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It offers no benchmarks or criteria for governments. In this respect the Committee saw its role as one of encouragement - not an obligation but a means. Since Article 22 is directed toward organs of the United Nations, nation states are not required to report on it anyway.

The previous chairman of the committee explained it to me as follows: 'The general approach on the Committee would be 'don't ask if you don't know. The question of development assistance would generally come at the point where governments might say that they needed it. This was rare, because it was all part of the diplomatic game, and they'd be next door telling the World Bank or the IMF that they were doing very well. Questions of donors usually invited gratuitous comparison of the % donations of aid compared with the nation state of the Committee Member asking the question.

I asked about the effects of the Maastricht Guidelines on Violations of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and in particular paragraph 22: Access to remedies. "Any person or group who is a victim of a violation of an economic, social or cultural right should have access to effective judicial or other appropriate remedies at both national and international levels". What were the remedies available for the girls not admitted to the secondary schools built under projects funded by donors who had ratified all the key human rights Covenants and Conventions? He replied that, 'rights and procedures were drafted so narrowly to ensure that victims had no redress'.11

So what does respecting human rights mean? If donors have obligations, are they to respect, protect and promote, or do they extend to result?

If the donor is Canada, or Australia, or New Zealand, or Finland, or Sweden or another of the countries that is a signatory to the ICCPR Protocol, does the 'immediate enforceability' of the ICCPR invoke conditionality on the donor's aid? Does it mean free to impose conditionality, or obliged to impose conditionality?

I am not talking about the punitive conditionality that we are now most familiar with in the context of the structural adjustment policies of the IMF and the World Bank. There is really nothing new about conditionality, and some nations impose it as a matter of 'norm; but in reverse to what I am suggesting. For example, every time Denmark tries to move resolutions on human rights violations against China , China threatens trade reprisals, i.e. you can threaten human rights sanctions with economics, but not vice versa in practice.

I should also make it clear I'm not talking about the conditionalities implicit in the current game of finding alternate terminologies to avoid using the term 'human rights' The planet is rife with programmes on 'good governance', 'human dignity', 'human security' and other such terms. There are those who are not concerned with the terms provided the initiatives are taken. Feminists know that language is vital. The alternate words will lead to a dilution of human rights standards, and undermine the validity of the international consensus reflected in the language of the Covenants. We want to use human rights terminology in development explicitly, deliberately, and in a way that is meaningful.

It is most certainly my contention that if a donor who is a Covenant signatory could not countenance particular project outcomes in their own country, they cannot be party to them, with their own nationals' revenue, in another country. Certain fundamental human rights requirements should be identified, and if they cannot be met, then it should be accepted that a particular project or country programme cannot be maintained. If a situation is sufficiently hostile in terms of the general human rights background, then it will not be economically viable either.

I would also argue that the international human rights obligations of states extend to their participation in international organisations, including the World Bank and the IMF, and the regional development banks. States parties to the various international human rights treaties must be obliged to take steps to ensure that the activities of the WorldBank IMF are consistent with the international human rights treaty obligations of those states. In this way, international human rights obligations extend to the World Bank IMF indirectly, or derivatively, through their member states. This is recognised by paragraph 19 of the Maastricht guidelines.

"The obligations of States to protect economic, social and cultural rights extend also to their participation in international organizations, where they act collectively. It is particularly important for States to use their influence to ensure that violations do not result from the programmes and policies of the organizations of which they are members. It is crucial for the elimination of violations of economic, social and cultural rights for international organizations, including international financial institutions, to correct their policies and practices so that they do not result in deprivation of economic, social and cultural rights. Member States of such organizations, individually or through the governing bodies, as well as the secretariat and non-governmental organizations should encourage and generalize the trend of several such organizations to revise their policies and programmes to take into account issues of economic, social and cultural rights, especially when these policies and programmes are implemented in countries that lack the resources to resist the pressure brought by international institutions on their decision-making affecting economic, social and cultural rights".

A recent UN Division for the Advancement of Women report on ESCR remarks upon "the importance of further research" in relation to human rights and international financial institutions "and in particular regarding the degree to which international human rights obligations are binding directly, and not only derivatively through States, upon the financial institutions".

To me its quite clear in respect of my own country: if New Zealand collects revenue from me, my country collects it and disperses it in accordance with all the human rights obligations it has entered into, whether that dispersal concerns programmes in New Zealand or elsewhere, and whether they are in partnership with local government in New Zealand or another government elsewhere, or whether such assistance is channeled through multi laterals. As long as the money remains the traceable revenue of New Zealand citizens the New Zealand government must comply!

So where does that lead us?:

Back to another story.

Picture the single largest development project in a nation, expected to run for 25 years in the agricultural sector. Every major multilateral donor in the region, and every bilateral with an ongoing country programme was involved. I had the opportunity in 1993 to observe this one at close quarters when I spent some months working in Nepal.

The Agriculture Perspective Plan (APP) had a beginning in a paper entitled 'Nepal in 25 Years : The Agriculture Perspective Plan - An Optimistic Vision and Guide' authored by John Mellor. An academic at Cornell University with significant development project experience, Mellor had been described to me as 'the man behind the Green Revolution in Asia'. I had thought that the bent bodies of women planting, weeding, harvesting and storing were the human forces behind that particular change, but I suppose that too depends on your perspective.

I had been informed by the Minister for Agriculture, the National Planning Commission (NPC) head of agriculture, and by the major donors, that they consider this plan the key for the agricultural development of Nepal, and the guide for change in the next twenty five years. It ought to be stating the obvious to expect that such a plan would highlight the specific participation of more than half the human resource component in agriculture: namely, women farmers.

In Nepal, as in much of the rest of the world, women's direct contribution to agriculture is increasing because of three key factors: 1)female labour input to family farms increases as cropping pattern shift to commercial food and non-food production; 2) women's own account production increases under pressure of rising costs of feeding, further family care, and less availability of children's labour, due to schooling; and 3) women's own account production necessarily increases as a function of the increasing number of female-headed households through divorce, desertion, urban migration and widowhood.

Studies demonstrate that in most communities throughout Nepal much of the agricultural work and in many cases much of the trading and many of the cottage industries are carried out by women. Rice, maize, millet, barley and potatoes are major crops in Nepal. All these crops require intensive care and weeding and these are mostly the responsibility of women. Statistics on the cost of rice production in selected places in the Terai show that for the entire production process from land preparation to harvesting, from 87 to 93 percent of the labour involved is spent on planting, weeding and harvesting. Likewise, the labour required for weeding and harvesting of maize and potato (an almost exclusive female undertaking) constitutes the bulk of total labour requirement for these crops. Kitchen gardening, which supplies the most necessary vitamins to the family, is another female undertaking .

In addition, the APP was developed at a time when comprehensive data demonstrated conclusively that women worked longer hours, and at a greater variety of tasks, and with a greater simultaneity of tasks than men in the agriculture sector in Nepal. In all age groups, women's total work burden exceeded that of men.

The APP also appeared in a political context in which His Majesty's Government of Nepal had guaranteed women the right to equality of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Nepal. It was conceived in at a time when the Government of Nepal had ratified the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) without reservations. It was drafted in the period of the Eighth Five Year Plan, where taking 'necessary measures to amend laws and acts that hinder women's development' was recognised as a priority.

In the country briefing paper the Asian Development Bank (ADB) wrote: 'the implication of this information (on women in agriculture) for the Bank is that any agricultural project in Nepal should assume from the start that women make a contribution to the activity at least equal to that of men. The project should then determine the gender division of labour in the particular case. Only then can the project be designed to promote development most effectively'. The ADB was also a donor in the APP.

In addition, almost without exceptions, all donor governments involved had published their own policy guidelines on the full integration of women in development projects. The rhetoric of these statements makes it abundantly clear that, operationally, these policies cannot be fulfilled by a few women's income generating activities, or by a ghettoised or token 'women's components' in major projects, but by the consistent technical targeting, in conception, operation, delivery, monitoring and evaluation, of half the human resource component in the country, and in the distribution of benefits.

But the rhetoric is the easy part. So it was no surprise to find in the Terms of Reference (TOR) of the APP, paragraph six, headed 'Poverty Reduction and Gender Analysis', which read:

i) Within the framework of a plan designed mainly to generate output and income growth within agriculture, develop mechanisms and approaches which ensure that the poor including poor women participate in the growth process and share in its benefits; and

ii) Evaluate the impact of the plan in terms of income increases for the poor and participation of women in national development. This should be done partly as one measure of the plan's objectives, but mainly during the planning process to assist in guiding the selection among alternative courses of action; and

iii) Carry out gender analysis as the plan is developed and analyse the impact of agricultural policy choices and recommendations on women.

There are, of course, conceptual problems with grouping 'poverty' and 'women', but for now there are other concerns to deal with.

In mid March 1994, having been appraised of the importance of the APP, and I visited the office of the project consultants. Inquiries were made as to the progress made in respect of the gender analysis paragraph of the TOR. None of the provisions of that paragraph had been met, and , I was informed, it was too late to commission an expert paper, or to have oversight of all draft chapters to mainstream the development interests of women farmers.

No one in the consultancy team had paid any attention to the contents of paragraph six. They never had on any other project in the past, so why should they start now. Besides, it was highly questionable if any of them had the knowledge or the expertise to fulfil the TOR of paragraph six. At our meeting, Mellor admitted that he had no idea that Nepali women had no effective access to land ownership. He had not asked. He had not read the Constitution. He was not aware of the signature to CEDAW. He submitted that to obey the Constitutional guarantees given to women, or to insist that the APP was doomed without access to land on behalf of the majority if the country's agricultural producers, would be to 'interfere in Nepal's domestic politics!'

But it was too late in the century to call it oversight, too late to claim forgetfulness, too late for those of us constantly in receipt of platitudinous and patronising excuses to be polite any more. It ignored constitutional guarantees, Five Year Plan priorities, multi-lateral and donor policy guidelines. It was illogical, and defied balanced economic analyses. If the great plan had perspective, it was chronically imperceptive. It was in breach of Nepali and donor obligations in international law.

So - options:

The system of periodic reporting established within the context of all major international human rights instruments is the central element in monitoring the full and effective national implementation of human rights standards. The reports submitted to independent expert bodies are expected to provide comprehensive information on the measures taken by a government to fulfill its commitments resulting from the ratification of or accession to a particular human rights convention.

Every one of us, whether donor or recipient, should be using the NGO channels to begin to ensure that in each of the UN Human Rights Committees our country is being closely examined on their human rights performance in development assistance programmes.

Every one of us who is a tax payer who sees revenue transferred to the regional banks, the World Bank or to multi laterals should begin a coordinated effort to lobby Ministers of Finance and Foreign Affairs and development, and to network with the public, to insist on our country's contributions being tagged to projects and programmes that comply with our international human rights obligations, conditionality writ large.

I am inviting those of us from the donor nations, and those of us called the 'international consultants' on multi lateral projects, to follow the lead of this year' Nobel Peace Prize winner, Medecins sans Frontieres. MSF was established by French doctors disgusted by the neutrality of the Red Cross during the Biafran war. They combine their relief work with human rights advocacy. Their policy of temoinage, or witnessing, includes establishing a presence near people in danger and condemning violations of human rights and international law. If you can't speak out loud, and are worried about where your next contract is coming from, just get the photocopied material out to the rest of us: we know how to ask the questions without revealing the source.

And what about the United Nations Human Rights Commission. What if we all combined in a world wide s 1503 complaint. You will be familiar that such a violation by a country must have established a 'consistent pattern of violations'. You may also realise that you have to exhaust your domestic legal remedies before making such a complaint, but that these cannot be too legalistic or esoteric. In terms of a s.1503 complaint, what standards determine what is egregious? How about the universal servitude of women? If unpaid work isn't work for the purposes of policy and the variety of human rights protections offered to workers, and since it certainly isn't leisure, there's one alternative: it must be servitude in terms of Article 8 of the ICCPR. In New Zealand, using our human rights law, I have now exhausted my domestic legal remedies in order to initiate a 'communication' under the Protocol procedure, which is available to some of us.

But an s.1503 complaint is available to all of us. To support policies, programmes or projects directly related to the economic oppression of women in this way is a complicity in international law. This 'complicity' includes tolerating, accommodating, justifying or excusing this ongoing servitude. There can be no 'development' while women are everywhere exploited.

If we want to participate in this millennium strategically united in an action that challenges the dominant economic paradigm, and that is fundamentally about equality and justice, and that offers the possibility for leadership from everyone gathered here, I make this my challenge. It is everyone's responsibility.

We may not be successful, but its an avenue we haven't yet exploited, a strategy untested, and a test of the international human rights system to deliver equality and justice.

APPENDIX 1.

WORKING DRAFT FOR A LIST OF RIGHTS FOR DONORS, AND RELEVANT CONVENTIONS.

Compiled by Andre Frankovits and Patrick Earle, for the Human Rights Council of Australia, and published in The Rights Way to Development : Manual for a Human Rights Approach to Development Assistance.

SLAVERY (UDHR Article 4)

TORTURE OR CRUEL, INHUMAN AND DEGRADING TREATMENT OR PUNISHMENT (UDHR Article 5; ICCPR Article 7;)

RECOGNITION OF EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: (UDHR Article 6; ICCPR Articles 2 AND 26)

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEAL ( UDHR Article 8, ICCPR Articles 9 and 14)

ARBITRARY AND UNLAWFUL ARREST, DETENTION OR EXILE (UDHR Article 9; ICCPR Article 9)

ASYLUM (UDHR Article 14, ICCPR Article 13, Refugee Convention)

NATIONALITY (UDHR ARTICLE 15)

PROPERTY (UDHR Article 17)

ASSEMBLY (UDHR Article 20, ICCPR Article 21)

ASSOCIATION (UDHR Article 20, ICCPR Article 22, ICESCR Article 8, ILO 1948)

THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE ( UDHR Article 21; ICCPR Article 25)

WORK ( UDHR Article 23, ICESCR Article 6, ILO Conventions)

SOCIAL SECURITY (UDHR Articles 22, 25; ICESCR Article 9)

PROTECTION OF THE FAMILY (UNHR Article 16; ICESCR Article 10; ICCPR Article 23; CRoC; CEDAW)

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE FOOD (UDHR Article 25, ICESCR Article 11)

RIGHT TO ADEQUATE HOUSING (UDHR Article 25; ICESCR Article 11; CERD Article 5, CEDAW Article 14.; CRoC Article 27.3)

RIGHT TO HIGHEST ATTAINABLE HEALTH(UNDR Article 25, ICESCR Article 12; CEDAW; CRoC)

RIGHT TO EDUCATION (UNDR Article 26; ICESCR Article 13; CRoC Article 21)

APPENDIX 2.

Selections from the DECLARATION ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT

GENERAL ASSEMBLY RES 41/128 (1986)

Bearing in mind the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations relating to the achievement of international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural or humanitarian nature, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion;

Recognizing that development is a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.

Article 1: All peoples are entitled to participate in contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development

Article 3: States have the primary responsibility for the creation of national and international conditions favorable to the realization of the right to development

Article 6: All states should co-operate with a view to promoting, encouraging and strengthening universal respect for and observance of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without any distinction as to race, sex, language or religion.

Article 8: State should undertake at a national level all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health, services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income.

APPENDIX 3.

UNITED NATIONS COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC , SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,

GENERAL COMMENT NO.2

UN Doc. E /1990/23, Annex 111

Recommendations in accordance with Article 22 may be made to any organs of the United Nations, their subsidiary organs and specialized agencies concerned with furnishing technical assistance. The Committee considers that this provision should be interpreted so as to include virtually all United Nations organs and agencies involved in any aspect of international development co-operation and addressed to agencies such as the World Bank and the IMF and any other UN specialized agencies. ......

(6) United Nations international agencies should scrupulously avoid involvement with projects which, for example, involve the use of forced labor in contravention of international standards, or promote or reinforce discrimination against individuals or groups contrary to the provisions of the Covenant, or involve large scale evictions or displacement of persons without the provision of all appropriate protection and compensation. In positive terms, it means that, wherever possible , the agencies should act as advocates of projects and approaches which contribute not only to economic growth or other broadly defined objectives, but also to enhanced enjoyment of the full range of human rights.

(d) Every effort should be made, at each phase of a development project, to ensure that the rights contained in the Covenants are duly taken into account. This would apply , for example, in the initial assessment of the priority needs of a particular country, in the identification of particular projects, in project design, in the implementation of the project, and in its final evaluation.

REFERENCES

1 H. Hasswell , " The Relevance of International Law to the Development Process," Proceedings of the American Society of International law , Sixtieth Annual Meeting, at 1,4 (1966).

2 K.de Vey Mestagh, " The Right to Development," 28 Neth. Int L.J. 30,33(1981) Mestagh speaks of the right to development as a general principle of law , rather than customary international law, but his analysis is similar to that employed for customary law.

3 I Haq, " From Charity to Obligation: A Third World Perspective on Concessional Resource Transfers," 14 Tex Int'l. J. 389, 420 (1979)

4 O. Schachter, " Principles of International Social Justice, " in Essays in Tribute to Wolfgang Friedman, 249, 251 ( G Wilner ed., 1979)

5: International Human Rights in Context, Law, Politics and Morals, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1996. 1111 - 1145

6 Steiner and Alston, 1117 - 1118

7 ibid: 1122 - 1123

8 Philip Alston and Gerard Quinn: 'The Nature and Scope of States Parties; Obligations under the ICESCR' [Hum Rts. Q.156(1987), at 186]

9 Personal interviews: February 1999

10 Committee's General Comment 2 (Fourth Session 1990 HRI/GEN/Rev.3

11 Personal Interview: January 1999