Evolution of Rights Based Approach

There are many definitions and stand points on RBA given by number of agencies. A table is available at Annex 3. According to United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNHCHR), a human rights-based approach is a conceptual framework for the process of human development that is normatively based on international human rights standards and operationally directed to promoting and protecting human rights. In my opinion, the definition is precisely noted in Cohen (2004),

A rights based approach is founded on the conviction that each and every human being, by virtue of being human, is a holder of rights. A right entails an obligation on the part of government to respect, promote, protect and fulfill it. The legal and normative character of rights and the associated government obligations are based on international human rights treaties and other standards, as well as on national constitutional human rights provisions.

Cohen’s focal point seems poverty and deprivation of economic, social, and cultural rights. And meeting these rights could empower destitute to claim their rights. However, in the context of very poor country like Bangladesh, it is acceptable.

Today’s RBA came into existence during the passage of time from 1940s to now on through the formation and grown up of UN. From the following table we can have a quick journey into the history of RBA.

Table : History of rights-based approach[i]

UN charter after the Word War II was the first recognizable universal consensus of nation states that came up with the agenda of peace, human rights, and development. Through civil, political and economic, social, cultural rights from 1950s to 80s, the concept of economic, social, and people centered development became talk of the development agencies. Initially economic development was narrowly trapped within income growth and domestic product growth etc. Concept of economic growth existed for decade despite the fact that economic growth may be accompanied by inequalities[ii].

In 1986, the declaration on right to development was an attempt to emphasize development as right. Right to peace, environment, and development are known as third generation rights whereas CP rights belong to first generation and ESC rights are the second generation. Right to development is not alienable from main stream rights. The Declaration reflects the aims of “constant improvement of well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development.” According to Article 8, “equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and fair distribution of income”. This article supports the argument for “fundamental rights” that is drawn in this paper for adequate standard of life.

Right to development declaration is not legally binding and failed to get attention of the western wealthy states because of strategic reasons. According to Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, right to development “emphasizes a collective duty of all states to eliminate barriers such as unfair trade rules and debt burden, effectively pointing an accusing finger at the industrial countries. For this reason it has been opposed by Western states (2004: 8, cited in Ahsan, 2006).” In the AOA, and trade liberalization section we have found how these trade agreements have been exploiting developing countries and creating food insecurity. The failure of “right to development” reminds us about the power and intention of rich countries and their influence within UN system.

In 1993, Vienna conference affirmed the indivisibility of human rights and development. It was recognized in the conference that democracy, development, and human rights are interdependent and interlinked. In 1995, World Summit for Social Development in Copenhagen came up with the mantra that the ultimate goal of social development is to improve and enhance the quality of life of all people. Social development encounters problems including poverty, unemployment, and social disintegration. The summit urges to reduce sources of distress and instability from families and societies, and social development can be achieved by enhancing well-being of people.

Later on economic development thinking moved towards people centered development, which is aligned with UNDP’s latest version of “human development” that is in line with Sen’s “Development as freedom”. Human development is a process of enlarging people’s choice by expanding capabilities. According to HDR (2000), it focuses on progress of human lives and well-being. Well-being includes living with substantial freedoms. Human development enhances capabilities. According to HDR, capabilities include,

the basic freedoms of being able to meet bodily requirements, such as the ability to avoid starvation and undernourishment, or to escape preventable morbidity or premature mortality. They also include the enabling opportunities given by schooling, for example, or by the liberty and the economic means to move freely and to choose one’s abode. (2000, p 19).

While human rights guarantee freedom by legal protection and moral obligations, human development enhances capabilities to ensure freedom. Both has same destination but through different agenda for development. According to Theis (2004: 11) the growing popularity by UN agencies, INGOs, and some western governments to adopt RBA is because, “…together, human rights and development are more effective than either one on its own. ” RBA depends much more on international legal standards. The biggest challenge of RBA is the “realization” and “enforcement” of these standards. It is also difficult to pursue governments to ratify human rights treaties. Though the treaties are ratified; it is difficult to hold government accountable to fulfill her obligations. However, we are not digging into the issues of constraints and of difficulties to promote human rights here.

End notes:

[i] Theis (2004) has drawn this table and explains how BRA came into existence.
[ii] Britt Kalla (2006) noted Arjun Sengupta’s argument, which says economic growth can be accompanied by augmented inequalities or disparities and rising concentrations of wealth and economic power as well as the ignoring of human rights standards relating to economic, social and cultural (ESC) but also civil and political (CP) rights.

Handbook of Human Conflict technology by Tina Monberg

The results of Tina Monberg’s researches in conflict management has finally produced a new handbook to deal with conflicts in working environment. Psychotherapist and mediator Tina Monberg has published “Handbook of Human Conflict Technology”, an essential book for managers at every level in every industry and for anyone interested in the conflict phenomenon. The concept at the basis of the book has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. It explains how companies can execute their own conflict strategy to ensure any disagreements arising have a positive impact on their internal settings.

Tina Monberg provides practical models that can be customised to suit the needs of any company. That’s one of the strongest points of the theory which allows everyone and every environment to shape the basic strategy in order to adapt it to any particular situations. Monberg realizes that every environment can be different and a too tight system might not be working for everyone.

Many case-studies have been examined in the book to show companies that have succeeded using this strategy and a questionnaire at the back of the book has been designed to reveal your own company’s conflict culture.

The book is easy to navigate with an introductory paragraph at the beginning of each chapter addressing exactly what issues will be raised and what questions answered. This is a practical guide written in a straight-forward style that will motivate managers to introduce their own conflict strategy.

“Tina Monberg has written an excellent book about conflict resolution. This book should be required reading for any CEO!”
- Jens Graff, Erhvervsbladet

“The book gives new ways, so that conflicts can be turned around and used for the positive. It shows practical methods of how to build a conflict concept and shows how to involve all of the organisation in working with conflicts.”
- Jyllands Posten

******

Publication date: 2007, ISBN: 978-1-899820-39-9, Number of pages: 280

About Author

“Mediationcenter was established in 2000 by Tina Monberg. Tina Monberg is a lawyer and qualified psychotherapist. She was educated as a mediator by Professor Frank E. A. Sander of Harvard Law School and in win-win negotiation by Professor Robert H. Mnookin of Harvard Law School. She has previously run her own law firm and worked as a corporate lawyer, but now functions as a mediator, coach and teacher, working at mediationcenter a/s and mediationcenter ltd. Tina has specialized in preventing, handling, and solving business conflicts in an interest-based way, so that from a conflict, no one comes out as a loser. In relation to this, she has created a conflict management concept, which has been implemented into a number of Danish organisations. She has worked together with The Danish Bar Association to help implement mediation into Denmark. Tina wrote the books “Two Winners - Mediation as Positive Conflict Resolution” and “Handbook of Human Conflict Technology” and has co-written several management books.

Mediationcenter provides conflict mediation and develops strategies to bring solutions to a wide range of disagreements and disputes. The aim is to transform the conflict by bringing renewed energy and cooperation to the dialogue and create an environment, where mutual interests are recognised. It is a process, which aligns all parties for a positive outcome. mediationcenter believes that this is only possible with a complete understanding of the human elements involved, where relations can be preserved and ideally improved.

The key points of mediationcenter’s philosophy are:

• Human nature is fundamentally good.
• The best results are obtained when all interests - individual and group - are attended to.
• Conflict and cooperation are not mutually exclusive entities, but parts of the same process.
• Growth is only created in the presence of cooperation and shared interests, not through fear.”

For detail,

Tina Monberg
tm@mediationcenter.dk
Book Promotion Ltd.
Manuela Mesco
Manuela.mesco@book-promotion.com
www.book-promotion.com

Human Rights Report Assails U.S.

By ALAN COWELL
Published: May 29, 2008
——————————————

PARIS — Sixty years after the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, governments in scores of countries still torture or mistreat their people, Amnesty International said Wednesday in a report that again urged the United States to close down the Guantánamo Bay detention camp in Cuba…

for detail see,

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?ex=1369713600&en=f55f0428dfa86312&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

Amnesty int’s report at a glance

60 years of human rights failure - Governments must apologize and act now

Amnesty International today challenged world leaders to apologize for six decades of human rights failure and re-commit themselves to deliver concrete improvements.

“The human rights flashpoints in Darfur, Zimbabwe, Gaza, Iraq and Myanmar demand immediate action,” said Irene Khan, Secretary General of Amnesty International, launching AI Report 2008: State of the World’s Human Rights.

“Injustice, inequality and impunity are the hallmarks of our world today. Governments must act now to close the yawning gap between promise and performance.”

Amnesty International’s Report 2008, shows that sixty years after the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted by the United Nations, people are still tortured or ill-treated in at least 81 countries, face unfair trials in at least 54 countries and are not allowed to speak freely in at least 77 countries.

“2007 was characterised by the impotence of Western governments and the ambivalence or reluctance of emerging powers to tackle some of the world’s worst human rights crises, ranging from entrenched conflicts to growing inequalities which are leaving millions of people behind,” said Ms Khan.

Amnesty International cautioned that the biggest threat to the future of human rights is the absence of a shared vision and collective leadership.

“2008 presents an unprecedented opportunity for new leaders coming to power and countries emerging on the world stage to set a new direction and reject the myopic policies and practices that in recent years have made the world a more dangerous and divided place,” said Ms Khan.
Amnesty International challenged governments to set a new paradigm for collective leadership based on the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
“The most powerful must lead by example,” said Ms Khan.

China must live up to the human rights promises it made around the Olympic Games and allow free speech and freedom of the press and end “re-education through labour”.
The USA must close Guantánamo detention camp and secret detention centres, prosecute the detainees under fair trial standards or release them, and unequivocally reject the use of torture and ill-treatment.

Russia must show greater tolerance for political dissent, and none for impunity on human rights abuses in Chechnya.

The EU must investigate the complicity of its member states in “renditions” of terrorist suspects and set the same bar on human rights for its own members as it does for other countries.

Ms Khan warned: “World leaders are in a state of denial but their failure to act has a high cost. As Iraq and Afghanistan show, human rights problems are not isolated tragedies, but are like viruses that can infect and spread rapidly, endangering all of us.”

“Governments today must show the same degree of vision, courage and commitment that led the United Nations to adopt the Universal Declaration of Human Rights sixty years ago.”
“There is a growing demand from people for justice, freedom and equality.”

Some of the most striking images of 2007 were of monks in Myanmar, lawyers in Pakistan, and women activists in Iran.

“Restless and angry, people will not be silenced, and leaders ignore them at their own peril,” said Ms Khan.

Amnesty int’s report is available at

http://thereport.amnesty.org/eng/Homepage

Three faces of Vulnerability

Vulnerability as an entitlement problem
Endowment bundle is individual’s own labor power plus land and other assets he/she owns. And now Entitlement mapping is about rules and processes for transforming endowment bundle into entitlements (e.g. market structure & regulations, rights to communal output e.g. food, property etc.). Entitlement set is commodity bundles including food that can be commanded given an initial endowment. Lack of access to food and other resources caused vulnerability. Lack of command over food is caused by lack of power. There is a relation between power and command over food. Sen argues that famine is caused by power of the individual to command food, or exchange entitlement. He argues that there is always enough food to feed the worlds population, but there are many factors that prevent some people from receiving an adequate share of this. According Sen, there is enough food but extreme poor does not have command over resources (ie money) to purchase food. He emphasizes on entitlement relations. It is not lack of food rather it is lack of means to command over food. However, access to food may not help because vulnerable groups can not buy food from the market. Therefore, we need to focus on assets and entitlement.

Assets (labor, human capital, and productive assets) ——————food entitlements

Command over food is the most essential. The striking question is how vulnerable group of people can get command over food. Food entitlements and assets have to be mutually complementary to each other. According to Ford an entitlements approach is adopted whereby vulnerability of a group is explained by the availability of resources, and the entitlement of individuals and groups to call on these resources. In a broader context this relationship between entitlement and assets depend on political economy, which in a wider context related to political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements. Globalization, economic reform, and liberalization of trade could be a broader political economy that can make poor vulnerable locally.

Vulnerability as powerlessness/ political empowerment
Extreme poor and disadvantaged by other means are the powerless community. In the power relation perspective, this community is known as the rights claimers. This group of people, some time, does not have enough voice to speak out for their rights. They are illiterate, poor, and unaware about rights as well as their duty bearers are ignorant and uneducated about rights. They live within the society but outside the power structure. They are vulnerable by means of their livelihoods. Well, what makes people vulnerable and eventually powerless? According to Watts and Bohle (1993), “Vulnerability can also be politically determined, where people are powerless in their command over basic necessities and rights”.

Within the context of a developing or poor country, political factors cause powerlessness or vulnerability. Absence of good governance and lack of efficacy of institutions leads poor to live as poor or to become poorer. Powerless groups are usually found as deprived of fundamental rights, for example, right to food, adequate house, education, health, and employment etc. When fundamental rights are violated, it could be beyond their capacity to deal with civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights. Therefore, weak governance and deprivation of fundamental rights cause powerlessness and eventually vulnerability.

Availability of assets and ability to own that asset makes one not to be vulnerable. Moser & McIlwailne (1997) defines vulnerability as, “The more assets people have, the less vulnerable they are; the greater the erosion of assets, the greater the level of insecurity”. Vulnerability is also defined as lack of material and immaterial condition to stand against risk events (assets, entitlements). Political economy of distribution and formation of entitlements is wider context of asset entitlement relationship. Therefore, powerless people are neither politically empowered nor economically.

Political economy / social position of vulnerability
According to Ford (2002), economic and political power plays in determining vulnerability of individuals and groups. Historical and structural class-based pattern of social reproduction lies within the causes of vulnerability. So, political, economic, and social structures influence vulnerability. According to pressure and release model (PAR), vulnerability is part of risk (Blaikie et al 1994). The model says Risk = Hazards + Vulnerability. Hazards mean natural disasters. The progression of vulnerability is a series of levels of social factors e.g. i) root cause, ii) dynamic pressures, and iii) unsafe conditions. These levels focus on social, cultural, and political processes that give rise to unsafe conditions of vulnerable groups. According to Ford the model has a distinct scale element whereby root causes concerns remote influences including economic, demographic, and political processes within society and the world economy that reflect the distribution of power. The dynamic pressures include factors such as lack of local institutions, training, appropriate skills, local investments, local markets, press freedom, ethical standards in public life, and macro forces such as population growth, urbanization, arms expenditure, debt repayment, and deforestation. Unsafe conditions mean when people live in dangerous location with dangerous livelihoods, poor health, lack of building codes and regulations, and a lack of disaster preparedness. Unsafe conditions determine the vulnerable groups.

Women headed households are vulnerable because of gender inequality, social position, lack of mobility, and lower level of income. Class, caste, gender, age, ethnicity,
religion, or disability are factors for marginality and social exclusion. Hierarchical systems, structural and historical sequences of a society, and class based patterns of social reproduction continue a society to reproduce exploitation, exclusion, inequality, and consequently inequity. Under these dominant social factors poor live constantly at vulnerable state where they do not have any choice and eventually they do not achieve freedom for development.

Context of Vulnerability

Special attention to vulnerable and so as special solutions for them is missing from SLA frame. Here, by the word “vulnerable” we mean extreme poor such as land less, low waged, disables, elderly, minority, women, and children who struggle for livelihoods. Some economic factors are dominant for food security of vulnerable groups in the community such as purchasing power and market relationship that underpins the access to food that is not produced by community or household.

Vulnerability context may differ from nation to nation especially in the context of shocks and disasters. According to Ford (2002), Bangladesh and Frorida are both vulnerable in terms of sea level rise and storms. 1992 hurricane caused damage of US $ 16bn but killed fewer than 20 people. Where as a year before a similar cyclone killed 140,000 people and ruined the livelihoods of millions. Ford suggests that there is a need to focus the characteristics of a system that influences the ability of the people and communities to respond to, cope with, and adapt to stimulus. Therefore, a generalized common framework on livelihood may miss the national context of vulnerability. What is useful in Africa may not be worthy for South Asia. Regional or even more microscopically national perspective of livelihoods of vulnerable groups should be dealt with special care and focus.

Different population living under different social, cultural, economic, and political circumstance may have different levels of vulnerability. The rights-based approach recognizes that households’ ability to access assets and entitlements are influenced to a great extent by power relations, which has political, social and economic dimensions. Therefore, fulfillment of rights by households requires transforming power relationships among stakeholders and removing the exclusionary mechanisms that prevent rights-realization by the poor (Frankenberger and Cogill 2001, cited in CARE 2003). Therefore, we suggest RBA as a process to deal power relation led exploitations and eventually to fulfill rights as an end to poverty. This argument could be further elaborated in power relation section.

A generalized version of SLA frame could miss the target. It may miss the deeper structural causes of vulnerability. SLA may be termed as superficial approach to deal with the remedies and eventually prescribe weak solutions for livelihoods. Analyzing the deeper causes Watts and Bohle (1993) came up with,

• The particular distribution of entitlements and how these are reproduced
• The larger canvas of rights by which entitlements are fought over, contested (empowerment)
• Structural properties – crisis proneness for the political economy which precipitates entitlement crisis