Part I: Human Rights-Based Approach to Development
 
Clarence J. Dias
President, International Center for Law in Development

    For much too long there has been reluctance on the part of developing country governments, bilateral development assistance agencies and multilateral and UN-system development agencies alike, to adopt a human rights-based approach to development. This has been largely due to a failure to recognize the varied relationships between development and human rights and a consequent failure to link human rights and development in mutually reinforcing ways.

    Today, however, there does exist a body of international law on development (ILD) comprising the UN Charter; the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the 1986 General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development, the Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; a variety of international human rights and environmental treaties, and the Declarations and Programs of Action of a round of UN World Conferences from Rio to Beijing. It is vital that development (indeed, all development activity) be brought under a regime of "rule of law". It is vital that all development activities conform fully to the principles of the international law on development. For such a premise (indeed mandate) one need not look beyond the Charter of the United Nations. In his Foreword to a Harvard Law School symposium commemorating the 50th Anniversary of the UN (Harvard Journal of International Law, Vol. 36, pp. 267-272) Secretary-General Boutros-Boutros Ghali emphasizes:

"In 1945, the founders of the United Nations identified peace, development, human rights, and international law, as the four cornerstones of the Charter. Increasingly, we have come to understand that these elements of the UN Charter are linked and intertwined."

• Lasting peace must be built upon respect for the human rights of all people.
• Development is the key to the progressive realization of human rights.
• Human Rights provide the value framework and the criteria for accountability for all UN activities with respect to peace and development alike.
• International law is the vehicle to achieve these purposes.

"Narrowing through compromise and consensus-building the scope for disparate policy strategies, rewarding certain practices and punishing others, prohibiting certain actions and encouraging others, enshrining certain principles and rejecting others--these are the means by which international law helps to add coherence to global development efforts.

"Agreeing on practical measures to implement a common approach to problems is the essence of a coordinated approach. Through the coordination of disparate policies and efforts, the promotion of goals and targets, the establishment of norms and standards, the negotiation of treaties and conventions, international law provides both a vehicle for development cooperation and a mechanism for action."

    Indeed, anything other than a human rights-based approach to development would be lawless, unjustified and unjustifiable.
 

2. The International Law on Development and the Human Right to Development

    The International Law of Development (ILD) isa body of principles which incorporate and apply the mandate of the UN Charter and international human rights and environmental law to the processes of development. These principles have been more fully elaborated, during the past decade, by the United Nations Declaration on the human "Right to Development" and by the Declarations, Commitments and Programs of each of the five World Conferences on development issues convened by the UN during the '90s. The ILD is not an invention of lawyers. It is a product of the experiences of three earlier "development decades", a reflection of a significant paradigm shift in development thinking and of the increasing participation of civil society in debates focusing on the meaning of "development": What should be the goals? How can they be realized?

    The importance of these questions is underscored by a range of lessons taught by the prior "development decades". Many kinds of once-favored development activities (e.g., big dams and mega infrastructure construction, large-scale irrigation, "green revolution" and capital-intensive commercial agriculture, exploitation of natural resources, unregulated industrialization) have clearly inflicted impoverishing but uncompensated harms on millions of already vulnerable people (displacement, landlessness, degradation of human habitats and environments). Many others (e.g., agricultural and rural development projects) have produced benefits to some but losses to many others (in the form of indebtedness, insecurity in land, dependency on new crops, money lenders and landlords). Systems of development planning, and projects in all sectors had regularly ignored the concerns of women, small farmers and other neglected groups. The rhetoric of "participation" had not been translated into action. As the World Bank announced in 1990, there had been a visible neglect of the growth of poverty and the creation of opportunities for those enmeshed in it. Indeed, the marginalization of the poor, those displaced, small farmers, tenants, unskilled workers, fisherfolk, indigenous and pastoral people, disfavored regions and ethnic groups had created now well-known categories of "development victims." Perhaps most serious, because it is productive of so many development failures as well as development wrongdoing, were the pathologies of development--administration characterized by corruption, discrimination or indifference, the absence of participation, transparency, "due process" and accountability, and by ignorance of or insensitivity to human rights.

    These flaws were repeatedly documented and lamented in a now, enormous literature, including official reports which received widespread attention such as: the "Morse Report on the World Bank-financed, notorious Sardar Sarovar project; Bank reports on the effects of nonparticipatory, authoritarian, structural adjustment on "development" in Sub-Saharan Africa; and (in 1990) on the growth of world poverty; the "Brundtland Report" on the environmental dangers of unregulated development; UNDP's "Human Development Reports", and many others.

    The "lawless" character of the business of "development" became the ultimate target of many demands from diverse groups--environmentalists, women, workers, social justice and human rights activists, religious groups and others--during the latter '80s. With the ending of the "cold war," there were also increasing pressures for democratization of processes. An "international civil society" became a powerful new force in shaping a new development discourse and influencing international policy.

    In official circles that discourse now reflected, in effect, a new multipurpose but holistic concept of both the goals of development and essential processes to achieve them. Of course "economic growth," was essential, but development must be truly "participatory" and "people" or "human-centered"; it must fully incorporate women as participants and address their concerns; it must be governed by "good governance"; it must protect and promote "human rights" and the building of "democracy". All this plainly calls for a "rule of law"--new standards and procedural guidelines geared to the realization of these goals. That need was reflected in the articulation of new policies emphasizing human rights and civil society goals by many bilateral agencies; in principles favoring participation elaborated by OECD's Development Advisory Committee; in the promulgation of a series of World Bank "Policy Procedures" addressed to all of the subjects above and to the need for an "independent review" of bank projects which allegedly violated Bank standards.

    It is important to reiterate that the international law on development has evolved as a response to development failures, development wrongs and development pathologies. Hence, it should not be viewed grudgingly by development agencies as something imposed upon them. Rather, it should properly be viewed as a set of corrective policies, principles and procedures that have evolved out of some three decades of development practice and that embody the consensus of the international community today. This becomes self-evident from a review of the content of ILD.
 

The Human Right to Development (HRD)

    Clearly, the single, most important source of the ILD is the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the UN General Assembly, not without some rancour, on December 4, 1986. The Declaration explicitly affirmed the existence of a human right to development.

    Such a right was implicit in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. But the landmark General Assembly Declaration referred to hereafter as DHRD) not only reaffirmed the existence of the right to development, it went further and elaborated the content of the right, as well as the specific obligations for States and Governments (both individually and collectively) that flow from the right. The right to development has been repeatedly reiterated and further elaborated--by consensus--at the UN World Conference on Human Rights (Vienna), the International Conference on Population and Development (Cairo), the World Summit on Social Development (Copenhagen) and the Fourth World Conference on Women (Beijing). It is significant to note that while the 1986 General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development was not obtained by consensus (apart from a few abstentions, the U.S. was conspicuous as the sole dissenter), each of the above mentioned UN World Conferences have unanimously (by consensus and not by vote) reaffirmed the right to development as a "universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights" (Article I(10) Vienna Declaration, Principle 3, Cairo Programme of Action, Commitment 1(n) Copenhagen Declaration and Article 213 Beijing Platform of Action). Thus, there is no doubt, today, that the right to development is not a mere pipe dream or ideological slogan. It is a human right guaranteed by international law.
 

UN World Conferences and the Human Right to Development

    As detailed in Annex I (Content of the Right to Development), the UN World Conferences, by consensus, have reaffirmed "the right to development, as established in the Declaration on the Right to Development, as "a universal and inalienable right and an integral part of fundamental human rights" (Vienna Declaration, Article 10). The Declaration on the Right to development explicitly states in Article 9(1) the, "All aspects of the right to development set forth in the present Declaration are indivisible and interdependent and each of them should be considered in the context of the whole". Thus, all aspects of the Declaration set out above constitute binding international law.

    The Vienna Declaration makes clear that "the promotion and protection of all human rights (including the right to development) and fundamental freedoms must be considered as a priority objective of the United Nations in accordance with its purposes and principles, in particular the purpose of international cooperation" and that "the promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community" (Article 5). Accordingly, it calls for the enhancement of the coordination of the activities of the UN, its organs and specialized agencies in this regard. This has obvious implications for the parts of the UN system involved in international development cooperation, especially so far as the right to development is concerned.

    The Cairo programme of action makes clear that, "the right to development must be fulfilled so as to equitably meet the population, development and environment needs of present and future generations" (Article 3). Commitment 1 of the Copenhagen Declaration and Programme of Action calls upon States and the UN system, to ensure that all human rights (including the right to development "are respected, protected and observed". The Beijing Platform for Action reaffirms the importance of the right to development for the advancement of women. Thus, as we approach a new millennium, the right to development (firmly rooted in international law) takes its rightful place among fundamental human rights.
 

The International Law on Development: Core Content

Sources of ILD

    ILD is contained in a large number of international treaties, conventions, resolutions and Declarations of the UN General Assembly and the instruments of UN World Conferences and Summits. During the past 50 years, the international community, under the auspices of the United Nations (the agency which is "the leading proponent of international law" and "the most important forum of international cooperation") has enacted a large number of international human rights instruments which contain many of the core principles of the ILD. The foundations for the ILD are the International Bill of Rights (the Universal Declaration and the two human rights Covenants which elaborate it) and other widely ratified treaties such as the Women's Convention. These instruments set out rights now deemed to be fundamental ends and means of development, and they mandate realization of these rights through the processes of development.

    These mandates and their implications (which formed the basis for the UN Declaration on the Right to Development) have been reaffirmed, and more detailed principles calling for their implementation have been set out in the instruments adopted by each of the recent World Conferences which focused on key aspects of global change and development.

    These conferences include the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992; the World Conference on Human Rights, held in Vienna in 1993; the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in September 1994; the World Summit for Social Development, held in Copenhagen in March 1995; and most recently the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in September, 1995.
 

Core Principles of ILD

    The whole body of law comprising ILD is formidable because there are now so many international instruments which speak on the subject of the role of human rights and development. For pragmatic policy makers, however, it is important to distill the core principles of ILD. The following is a summary:

1. Development, in accordance with the principles set out below, is the inalienable human right of all peoples. States and all relevant international agencies must:

• promote and protect the realization of the right by enacting and enforcing measures necessary to give effect to the principles set out below.

• respect the human dignity of all persons;
• provide for, or assure, realization of the basic needs of all people for shelter, food, health, and adequate subsistence;
• secure the liberty and physical security of all peoples.

• recognize these rights and incorporate them into law;
• promote knowledge of these rights and capacities to assert them;
• assess the social and human rights impacts of all development projects and programs;
• provide procedures and institutions enabling and protecting free exercise of these rights;
• provide procedures and institutions enabling full and adequate redress for victims of violations of these rights.

4. Development must be participatory. Governments and international development agencies must recognize the rights of all persons to participate in, and contribute to, economic, social and cultural development, promotion of these rights, which are guaranteed by international law, is an essential element of the human right to development, and governments and international development agencies must adopt appropriate measures to enable and empower people to:

• take part, at all relevant stages, in all spheres of development, including the design, implementation and review of policies, plans, programs and projects;
• form their own self-managed organizations to enable effective participation;
• exercise all internationally recognized political and civil rights necessary to participate effectively;
• initiate self-reliant, self-managed development efforts in all spheres affecting their economic, social, cultural and political development.

• decentralize and devolve powers of governance to encourage regional and local participation and self-determined development;
• encourage the exercise of rights of association at all levels free from any unwarranted governmental interference.

    This sovereignty must be realized:

• through exercise of rights of participation guaranteed by international law;
• through measures which fully respect all of the principles set out above and below.

• to reform legal systems;
• to prohibit discrimination in respect of employment, education, family affairs, land rights, credit services and other entitlements;
• to redress the effects of past discrimination in the above spheres;
• to educate and empower women and other victims of discrimination in regard to their rights and to enable their effective participation in development processes, and in regard to the determination of appropriate measures to implement the above objectives.

• conserve ecological systems and natural resources for the benefit of future generations;
• provide for the assessment of environmental and social impacts of all relevant development activities, and the setting and enforcement of standards to govern them;
• provide for environmental education;
• provide for free and meaningful participation in the above.

• promote and protect all human rights;
• protect language diversity;
• special measures to protect the lands, cultures, and autonomy of indigenous, pastoral and other peoples occupying ancestral homelands.

• civic education, including human rights awareness.
• legal environments conducive to the exercise of rights of participation, freedom of the press and the capacitation of civil society.
• participatory and representative institutions of government;
• frequent, free and fair elections; democratic political parties accountable to appropriate standards to assure the integrity of electoral processes;
• transparency, accessibility, integrity and fairness in public administration;
• recognition and respect for human rights in development processes, notably rights of participation;
• accountability to these standards on the part of all responsible officials.

• empower courts or other tribunals to enforce the appropriate rules and to strengthen their independence and capacities to enforce rights embodied in these principles;
• provide effective processes for mediating group grievances and remedying harms or threatened harms to distinct groups;
• provide legal resources, in cases of need, to such groups.

    The implementation must come from two basic sources: (1) All international development agencies are plainly obligated to respect and promote the ILD: it is plainly directed to them; they can promote it through the development of new policies and operational standards and procedures; (2) International civil society (ranging from jurists and scholars to action-oriented citizens' organizations) can legitimately demand respect and adherence through such activities as promotion of awareness of the ILD, monitoring compliance, using UN and other fora to expose noncompliance and inaction and through the processes of active participation in development activities. Above all, the agencies of the United Nations have a responsibility to further develop and adapt the ILD to changing circumstances.

    The ILD and HRD also reiterate a number of process-related rights--rights which must be respected in the process of development. These rights include the right of participation; the right to know and freedom of information essential to the exercise of the right of participation; the right to nondiscrimination and freedom from exclusion in respect of development; the right to accountability; the right to preventive remedies and to redress when human rights are violated in the process of development; and the right to adequate and effective compensation, resettlement and other remedies. These process rights are of crucial importance because they command and demand respect now, even while other rights command only "progressive realization" and "to the maximum" of a State's "available resources".

    The ILD and HRD have clear policy and legal implications for development agencies and national governments. They must comply with the provisions of ILD and must respect, protect and promote HRD and all other human rights. But, clearly, it is for communities and peoples that the ILD and HRD have greatest value, both in asserting development as a human right and in resisting "perverse development" (to use the phrase of the late Ernest Feder) which violates human rights, destroys communities and degrades environments. But if the ILD and HRD are to become valuable resources to communities and peoples, it is clear that NGOs have several crucial roles to play in promoting human rights education about ILD and HRD; in monitoring progressive realization of the HRD; in providing support to those who are asserting the HRD; in protesting violations of the HRD; in critiquing laws, institutions, structures, processes and practices of development agencies to ensure compliance with HRD and in elaborating further the content and components of the HRD.

    Development agencies (both multilateral and bilateral) also have crucial roles to play in both adopting and promoting the principles of the ILD and HRD and in ensuring that national development agencies do the same. Otherwise, the "oversight" function of development agencies may well degenerate into the practice of "overlook!"
 

3. The UN Human Rights System

    On December 10, 1948, the UN adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ushering in an era of rights. In the 48 years since then, the UN has evolved a complex human rights system progressing from standard-setting and promotion, to monitoring and enforcement. While the system is far from perfect, it does represent a major achievement of human kind during a century that has also, unfortunately, been witness to a plentitude of inhuman wrongs. The achievements on the standard-setting front have indeed been considerable. An International Bill of Human Rights (comprising the Universal Declaration and the two Human Rights Covenants) has come into existence. The Universal Declaration (adopted without a single vote of dissent) has come to acquire a universal and fundamental legal, political, and moral authority. The universality of the Declaration is now beyond serious challenge, even by the developing nations who were not parties to the Declaration because their independence came after 1948. Nation states are no longer able to claim that human rights issues are beyond the reach of the international community of nations because they are a matter of domestic jurisdiction of the concerned States. Indeed, some international law scholars are of the view that customary international law has emerged embodying the principles of the Universal Declaration and the Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

    In addition to the Universal Declaration and the two human rights Covenants, the last 40 years have witnessed the creation of numerous other human rights standards in the form of Conventions (such as those dealing with the rights of women, and rights against racial discrimination) and UN Declarations (such as the UN Declaration on the Right to Development and the Declaration on the Right of Minorities).

    Moreover, the Universal Declaration's impact has not been confined to the international level. The Declaration has helped inspire both regional human rights instruments (for example, in Europe, in the Americas and in Africa) and national human rights law enshrined in constitutions and domestic legislation. The Universal Declaration has also had considerable impact on the legal practice concerning human rights in very many countries. In sum, the worldwide acceptance of the generality and universality of the Declaration has helped launch a human rights movement with international agencies, governments and nongovernmental organizations, all taking appropriate actions in defense of human rights.

    Of crucial importance to this human rights movement are the various human rights treaties, conventions and declarations because they set out the standards and rights that demand recognition and respect--rights for people worldwide to assert equally in their struggles against impoverishment and exploitation and in their struggles for empowerment and justice. A recent compilation by the UN Human Rights Centre of such international human rights instruments contains some 95 such instruments dealing with a range of issues from self-determination; social welfare; progress and development to war crimes and crimes against humanity and humanitarian assistance. These human rights instruments provide a variety of principles and standards that can be invoked in respect of the whole gamut of shelter-related issues, both proactively and preventively as well as reactively after violations have occurred.

    Implementation of the principles, standards and rights set out in these international human rights instruments was left initially to a variety of treaty bodies created under the instrument itself such as the UN Human Rights Committee (under the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (under the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), the Committee on Women (under the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women) and the Committee on the Rights of the Child (under the Convention on the Rights of the Child) to name but four such treaty bodies. These treaty bodies are playing two main roles. First, they monitor State compliance with their obligations under the treaty. States, parties to the treaty are required to periodically present country reports dealing with their obligations under the treaty and the Committee examines such reports, calls for clarifications, if necessary, and makes comments and recommendations on issues arising out of such reports. NGOs can furnish the Committee with information that complements or challenges the content of such reports. A second function that the Committees play is one of clarification and further elaboration of the provisions of the treaty by issuing what are technically called General Comments or General Recommendations. Thus, for example, the Committee on Women has issued a very useful General Recommendation on violence against women which clearly spells out the obligations of States' parties. NGOs can help in the prioritization and development of such General Comments, urging relevant treaty bodies, for example, to address specific human rights issues relating to shelter. The UN Human Rights Centre has produced a very useful Fact Sheet, No. 21 on The Human Right to Adequate Housing which details the various provisions found in different human rights instruments that relate to the human right to adequate housing. NGOs could help develop similar compilations of other human rights related to shelter as a first step towards working towards further elaboration through General Comments by appropriate treaty bodies. A third function performed by treaty bodies operating under treaties which have an Optional Protocol, is that of handling complaints relating to violations. NGOs have crucial roles to play in respect of such complaints procedure. They can also lobby for the inclusion of an Optional Protocol in treaties such as the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on Elimination of all forms of Discrimination against Women, which currently do not have any complaints procedures.

    Despite the best efforts of such treaty bodies, the main weakness of the UN Human Rights system relates to monitoring and enforcement. Accordingly, over the years, a variety of supplementary fact-finding mechanisms have evolved. These special mechanisms, in a very creative manner, have helped increase the investigative reach of the UN human rights system. They remain largely underutilized thus far, however, by NGOs. An appendix to this paper sets out the existing mechanisms, several of which can be utilized by groups concerned with human rights issues pertaining to shelter. Thus, for example, there are Special Rapporteurs dealing with thematic issues such as torture, internally-displaced persons, forced evictions, racism, etc., or dealing with specific problematic countries such as Myanmar, Sudan, the former Yugoslavia, the Occupied Territories, etc. The Special Rapporteurs can study, investigate and propose resolutions on specific subjects such as, for example, forced evictions. There are also Working Groups on thematic issues such as minorities, development, etc., who work towards standard-setting by way of Declarations or draft Conventions and who also perform monitoring and investigative functions.

    The chief weakness of the UN human rights system lies in its enforcement mechanisms. There are historical explanations for such weakness. As far back as in 1946 the UN Commission on Human Rights was created and the next year, a Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities was set up. The first task for the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) was to prepare an "international bill of human rights". It achieved this task in stages, drafting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which was adopted on December 10, 1948 by a vote of 48 states in favor, none against and eight abstentions (Saudi Arabia, South Africa and the socialist states). Several years later, in 1966, it drafted the two Human Rights Covenants which came into force only in 1976--after the minimal required ratifications were reached. At its inception, the CHR did not view itself as an enforcement body. Indeed, at its very first session, it adopted a resolution denying itself the mandate to enforce human rights. The resolution stated, "The Commission recognizes that it has no power to take any action in regard to any complaints concerning human rights". This "no power to act" doctrine remained in effect till 1970 and states were permitted to violate human rights with impunity. The thousands of complaints sent to the UN concerning human rights violations were consigned to the limbo of private meetings of the CHR. The CHR refused to investigate or take action. It was only in 1970 that ECOSOC adopted Resolution 1503 setting up a "Procedure for Dealing with Communications relating to violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms". This important development came as a result of pressure from the 68 new UN members (36 from Africa, 16 from Asia, 10 from western Europe, 5 from eastern Europe and 1 from Latin America) who, by the mid-1960s had brought the UNs membership to 119 states. The pressure came mainly from the nonaligned and African states and was directed mainly against the apartheid system in South Africa. In 1967, ECOSOC acceded to such pressure and adopted Resolution 1235 (XLII) authorizing the CHR and the Sub-Commission to examine communications reserved by the UN regarding "gross" violations of human rights and fundamental freedoms. Accordingly, between 1967-1970, the Commission and Sub-Commission, turning their attention to how best to handle communications relating to violations of human rights, devised the confidential 1503 procedure. So named after ECOSOC Resolution 1503 (XLVIII) of 1970, the procedure provides that a working group on communications of the Sub-Commission annually screens communications and refers to the Sub-Commission those which appear to reveal a consistent pattern of gross and reliably attested violations of human rights, the Sub-Commission considers these, along with replies, if any, from governments and determines, on the basis also of all "other relevant information", which situations it will refer to the Commission. For its part, the Commission may decide to take no action to discontinue consideration under 1503 and consider the situation under another procedure, to make a thorough study of the situation, or to call for an investigation by an ad hoc committee. While this entire procedure is confidential and its effectiveness has thus been questioned, since 1978, the Chair of the Commission has each year publicly announced the names of the countries on this confidential or "black list" prior to the Commission's public debate on violations. Governments are known to go to great lengths to avoid being "black-listed" although, frequently, this is through lobbying, "politicking" or public relations' work rather than by moderating their repressive behavior.

    Today, the CHR and the Sub-Commission have evolved into fora which provide the international community an opportunity to mobilize shame and indignation against gross human rights violations. Lack of political will by member States, still prevents full enforcement of human rights and limits the UN from holding states accountable to international human rights standards. The international "generation of shame" has come to be perceived as the main sanction against human rights abuses and abusers.

    Promotional functions, advisory services and technical assistance are provided by the UN Centre on Human Rights and at the apex of the UN human rights system, there now is a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights with a wide-ranging mandate. The High Commissioner plays a variety of roles from promotion and fact-finding to diplomacy and negotiations on human rights issues. The UN human rights system is far from perfect. NGOs, from developing and developed countries alike, gathered in historic numbers at the UN World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna (in 1993) expressed several pressing concerns regarding the UN human rights system:

• The continuing international neglect (especially within the UN human rights system) of economic, social and cultural rights.
• The individualist orientation of the work of most international human rights organizations and their relative failure to address issues relating to group rights.
• The singular emphasis on civil and political rights (and that, too, with an individualistic focus) in the development of human freedom indices and human rights policies (and conditionalities) by international donor agencies.
• The continuing reluctance to acknowledge issues relating to women's rights (and rights of the disadvantaged and oppressed groups) as human rights issues.
• The continuing reluctance to acknowledge that grave and gross human rights violations are perpetrated, both by state and non-state violators.
• The pathetic inadequacy of remedies (and lack of preventive remedies) for victims of human rights violators and the feeble (or nonexistent) sanctions against human rights violators under both international law and national law.

4. The Road Ahead from Istanbul

    The UN human rights system is in still very much in a state of evolution. Entering the 1990s, much progress had been achieved in respect of standard-setting. Progress had also been made through special procedures and special mechanisms to strengthen the fact-finding and investigative reach of the UN Human Rights system. Efforts to strengthen enforcement appear to have shifted to the national level. The UN Conference continuum of the 1990s offers unique opportunities for further development of the UN human rights system, especially if human rights NGOs, environment NGOs and development NGOs can cooperate together and, if similar cooperation can take place within the UN between its development agencies (notably UNDP), its environment agencies (notably the Commission on Sustainable Development and UNEP) and its human rights agencies (notably the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, the UN Centre on Human Rights, the treaty bodies and special mechanisms).

    Such cooperation would be directed towards a three-pronged human rights strategy:

1. developing capacity for more accurate monitoring of the progressive realization of all human rights and especially economic, social and cultural rights;
2. developing capacity for progressive realization of the human right to development and capacity for monitoring such progressive realization;
3. developing capacity for monitoring the progressive implementation of the programmes of action of the various UN World Conferences from the Rio Agenda 21 to the Beijing Platform of Action and what will emerge from HABITAT II at Istanbul. Developing such capacity requires three core, essential and interrelated elements:
1. measures and indicators that relate to standards, rights, principles, commitments and targets reaffirmed by or established by the UN Conference continuum;
2. mechanisms, both intergovernmental and nongovernmental to utilize such measures and indicators for monitoring purposes;
3. advisory services and technical assistance to develop the human resource capabilities needed, both at national and international levels and at nongovernmental, governmental and intergovernmental levels as well, to achieve (a) and (b) above.

    Let us explore what a human rights-based approach to development would bring to the issues on the agenda of HABITAT II. A first step would be to develop a conceptualization from human rights perspectives of some of the familiar issues before HABITAT II. The very concept of habitat embodies several human rights--the right to housing and shelter, the right to community, the right of a community to its resource base, and the right of a community to its environment. Both rural habitats and urban habitats would be protected. Shelter cannot be seen in isolation from the rights of subsistence and livelihood. Sewage and sanitation issues clearly implicate the right to health. The right to affordable and adequate housing would require land policies, urban planning and regulations to check inflationary land development activities. The right to safe housing would require programs for urban renewal. As part of poverty alleviation, there would be need for programs that provide low-income housing and such programs would need to be linked to transport and infrastructure activities as well. The upgrading of slums would require the legal recognition, perhaps, of squatters and the initiation of sites and services' programs. Forced evictions would need to be accompanied by effective and equitable programs of resettlement. If the physical integrity of the community is to be safeguarded, there would need to be adequate law enforcement. The human rights of especially vulnerable groups such as internally displaced persons, minorities and migrant workers, would need to be especially safeguarded.

    In addressing the above issues there would be a mutually reinforcing interplay between international human rights standards and the principles and commitments set out in the Declarations and Programmes of Action of the UN World Conferences. For example, the 15 Principles enunciated at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development reaffirm the centrality of human rights and of the right to development; gender equality and equity; people-centered development; environmental sustainability; eradication of poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development. Similarly, the Cairo Programme of Action sets out bases for action and explicit objectives (e.g., to reduce urban bias and isolated rural development) which constitute criteria or commitments susceptible of being monitored. At times, there are very explicit prohibitions, "to put an end to all forms of forced migration, including ethnic cleansing" (Cairo Programme of Action, page 66). The repeated reiterations in these World Conference documents constitute the present global consensus on development. Those working on issues of shelter could very well compile the relevant provisions of the various international human rights instruments (currently numbering more than 95) and add to them the international commitments and targets of the UN World Conferences. These, in turn, could be carefully monitored. Violations could be placed before the relevant UN special mechanisms; issues for further development would be placed before the relevant working groups; the call for development of measures and indicators could be placed before the relevant UN agencies. Thus, for example, the Human Development Report Office of UNDP could be encouraged to develop indicators and data on development displaced persons, on numbers participating in resettlement programs and such data could help in policy formulation to promote progressive realization.

    Similarly, we could focus on Commitment 1 of the Copenhagen Declaration of the World Summit on Social Development that deals with "enabling environments" to achieve social development. The elements of an enabling legal environment are elaborated in the Declaration and this makes it possible to monitor which of these elements are in place and in which countries.

    A variety of monitoring tools and mechanisms need to be utilized.These could include:
 

    PRINCIPLES which must be adhered to (monitoring adherence or
      non-adherence).  These principles could be drawn from international human rights law,
      the international law on development, international environmental law, UN World
      Conference documents, including the Copenhagen Declaration as well as principles
      drawn from national constitutions and laws.

    STANDARDS which must be complied with (monitoring compliance or
      noncompliance) such as nondiscrimination, meeting minimal basic needs, etc.

    COMMITMENTS which must be met (monitoring fulfillment of nonfulfillment of
      commitments). A comprehensive listing of international commitments agreed to at a
      large number of UN Conferences is contained in a very useful document prepared by
      the UN Secretariat for the PrepCom of the World Summit on Social Development.
      (Review of existing international commitments relevant to poverty, employment and
      social integration. A/conf. 166/pc/16, August 16, 1994).

    TARGETS which must be achieved (monitoring achievement or nonachievement).
      Several such targets are referred to in the Copenhagen Declaration (for example,
      commitment to encourage, ratification of CEDAW to year 2000) and in the
      international commitments' document cited above.

    RIGHTS which must be respected, protected, promoted and realized.

    DUTIES AND OBLIGATIONS which have been agreed to by consensus, for
      example, at the WSSD and which are contained in the Copenhagen Declaration (e.g.,
      the obligation set out in commitments in respect of structural adjustment programmes
      "to develop policies to reduce their negative impacts").

    Monitoring progressive realization of human rights requires a very different mind set from that involved in monitoring violations of human rights. The purpose of the former is not to condemn but rather to identify needs for advisory services, technical assistance and human capacity-building. The various component rights of the human right to development need to be taken seriously--both the substantive rights as well as the procedural rights. Close to 50 years of work in the field of human rights has demonstrated that it is possible to work from universal declaration and universal affirmation towards universal realization. The same can be achieved with respect to development. The UN World Conference continuum has forged a new global consensus on development. We need now to move from affirmation to realization however progressively that might be.