Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social Rights and the International Development Agenda

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Social Rights and International Development

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Law ((BRIEFSLAW))

  • 640 Accesses

Abstract

Human rights—and social rights in particular—are increasingly perceived as a central benchmark for the arrangement of objectives, policy programs and specific projects in international development policy. The debate on the integration of so-called rights-based approaches into multi- and bilateral development cooperation has contributed to the fact that politicians’ acknowledgment of the relevance of social rights for development has risen considerably in recent years (Sect. 5.1). The Social Protection Floors Initiative of the ILO represents one example of a development agenda which is strictly oriented towards a rights-based approach (Sect. 5.2). Social human rights will also play a key role in the design of the Post-2015 Development Agenda which is currently being negotiated as a framework for the successor of the Millennium Development Goals (Sect. 5.3).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Cf., inter alia, Gready and Ensor 2005; Hickey and Mitlin 2009; Sano 2007; Seppänen 2005; with a focus on the right to social security see Sepúlveda and Nyst 2012; Kaltenborn 2013; with regard to public health see Wilson 2009; Beracochea 2011. For detailed information on the rights based approach to development cooperation see also http://hrbaportal.org/. All websites cited in this chapter have been last accessed 3 September 2014.

  2. 2.

    UNDG 2003.

  3. 3.

    Ibid. p. 2.

  4. 4.

    See Ratjen and Satija 2014; on a “right to social equality” see MacNaughton 2013.

  5. 5.

    Hamm 2001, p. 1018; cf. also Dann 2012, pp. 255–258.

  6. 6.

    Sano 2007, p. 72; see, generally, on the concept of “accountability” in development law Dann 2006.

  7. 7.

    OCHCR, Frequently Asked Questions on a Human Rights-based Approach to Development Cooperation, 2006, p. 26, www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/FAQen.pdf.

  8. 8.

    Cf. http://www.compareyourcountry.org/chart.php?project=oda&page=0&cr=oecd&lg=en.

  9. 9.

    USAID 2013, p. 5.

  10. 10.

    USAID 2013, p. 26.

  11. 11.

    https://www.gov.uk/programme-partnership-arrangements-ppas.

  12. 12.

    FCO 2013, p. 21.

  13. 13.

    Ibid. p. 28.

  14. 14.

    BMZ 2011, p. 7.

  15. 15.

    Ibid. p. 11.

  16. 16.

    Cf. inter alia European Commission 2010, Paras 39, 57.

  17. 17.

    Ibid. Para 9.

  18. 18.

    Ibid. Para 33; cf. in this context also OECD/DAC 2007, as well as in detail on rights-based approaches in development policy of individual donor countries World Bank and OECD 2013, pp. 141–243.

  19. 19.

    Global Fund 2014, p. 5; see also Global Fund 2011, Paras 70–75; cf. Davis 2014.

  20. 20.

    Accra Agenda for Action, 2008, http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/34428351.pdf, Para 3, 13c; The Busan Partnership for Effective Development Co-operation, 2011, http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/49650173.pdf, Para 22.

  21. 21.

    See supra 3.4.

  22. 22.

    United Nations Millennium Declaration, UN-Doc. A/RES/55/2, 18.9.2000, http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm, Para 24.

  23. 23.

    See infra Sect. 4.3

  24. 24.

    See supra Chap. 1 footnote 4.

  25. 25.

    Full Busan Proceedings—including all session summaries and speeches, http://www.oecd.org/dac/effectiveness/Final%20file.pdf, p. 108.

  26. 26.

    Alston 2005.

  27. 27.

    Cf., for example, on the question, whether ODA performance obligations can be based on human rights, supra Sect. 3.3.

  28. 28.

    See http://www.oecd.org/dac/dac-global-relations/non-dac-reporting.htm.

  29. 29.

    See the detailed analysis of the legal framework of social protection systems in ILO 2011; generally on the initiative see Cichon et al. 2011; Liebert 2011; Deacon 2013a.

  30. 30.

    Recommendation concerning National Floors of Social Protection (SPF Recommendation), Recommendation 102, http://www.ilo.org/dyn/normlex/en/f?p=NORMLEXPUB:12100:0::NO:12100:P12100_INSTRUMENT_ID:3065524:NO. See, generally, on the relationship between the SPF Recommendation and the ICESCR, Mestrum 2014; Cichon 2014.

  31. 31.

    Para 13 SPF Recommendation.

  32. 32.

    This is in fact a critical point because—as Deacon 2013b, p. 228, rightly points out—“the history of welfare states developed in the twentieth century, social policy and social development science tells us that the better way to reduce poverty is fairly consistent and involves middle-class buy-into inclusive state welfare provision. … (T)he political economy of welfare-state building … teaches us that this requires the construction of cross-alliances and middle-class buy-in to reform.”; (cf. also Deacon 2013a, pp. 159–160). This problem, however, has of course been realized by the advocates of the Social Protection Floor. As Cichon et al. 2011, p. 9, emphasize, it is “critical to ensure that public social security systems include and are supported by all strata of the population, including the rich and the better off, in order to maintain and strengthen broad public support and national solidarity. Such a broad national consensus will protect the necessary fiscal space and maintain pressure to assure the quality of provision. A broad national consensus can best be maintained by ensuring that all people perceive the potential benefits as worthwhile pillars of their risk management strategies. Solidarity works best when providing benefits for all. As the famous health economist Brian Abel-Smith once said: A system for the poor alone will always be a poor system”.

  33. 33.

    Para 9 SPF Recommendation.

  34. 34.

    For more information on social protection floors see http://www.socialprotectionfloor-gateway.org/index.html; cf. also ILO 2014, pp. 145–159.

  35. 35.

    See also Walker 2013, p. 282.

  36. 36.

    UNICEF 2012.

  37. 37.

    HLPE 2012.

  38. 38.

    See recently World Bank 2012; cf. also Vetterlein 2007; on the question to what extent Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs), which have been used by the World Bank as planning tool, can have an impact on poverty reduction indeed, see Siebold 2008.

  39. 39.

    Communication of the EU-Commission on Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation, 20.8.2012, COM(2012) 446 final.

  40. 40.

    Furthermore, the rights-based approach is especially highlighted in the UNICEF report, UNICEF 2012, p. 49. On the role of civil society in enforcing the right to social security, see also Communication of the EU-Commission on Social Protection in European Union Development Cooperation, 20.8.2012, COM(2012) 446 final, p. 9: “Civil society and the social partners should be empowered and encouraged to partner with the state in developing and implementing social protection systems. Their participation can help promote efficiency in provision as well as wider consultation and inclusion. They can play a key role as advocates for social protection as well as empowering communities and individuals, in particular the disadvantaged and excluded, through raising awareness and improving information. In some instances, they can also help in monitoring and evaluating social protection schemes.”

  41. 41.

    Para 3(b), 7 SPF Recommendation.

  42. 42.

    The following three paragraphs have already been published in Kaltenborn 2013, pp. 58–59; cf. also Sepúlveda and Nyst 2012, pp. 54, 58, 60, 62.

  43. 43.

    Cf. Articles 6, 72 ILO Convention No. 102 (see supra 4.3); for other principles of this Convention see Kulke/Cichon/Pal 2007:16).

  44. 44.

    See Para 3.r, 8(d) SPF Recommendation.

  45. 45.

    See Para 19 SPF Recommendation.

  46. 46.

    Article 70 ILO Convention No. 102.

  47. 47.

    Para 7 SPF Recommendation.

  48. 48.

    De Schutter and Sepúlveda 2012; see also Deacon 2013a, pp. 173–178.

  49. 49.

    See, generally, on the issue of financing national social protection floors Cichon et al. 2011, pp. 9–10.

  50. 50.

    See supra 5.1.

  51. 51.

    De Schutter and Sepúlveda 2012, pp. 10–11.

  52. 52.

    De Schutter and Sepúlveda 2012, p. 20.

  53. 53.

    In more detail De Schutter and Sepúlveda 2012, pp. 15–19.

  54. 54.

    See supra 3.3.

  55. 55.

    Para 12 SPF Recommendation.

  56. 56.

    See Deacon 2013a, p. 158: “(T)he watering down of the reference to international financial support to that being possibly necessary only initially and only in the poorest countries, flowing as it does with the fashion to stress to emphasise on national fiscal responsibility, undermines the case of those who still call for global taxes for global public goods”.

  57. 57.

    http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/.

  58. 58.

    See Karimova 2014, p. 183.

  59. 59.

    UN Doc. A/55/L.2, 18.9.2000, http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf, Para 25; for the Follow-up to the outcome of the Millennium Summit see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/mdg/Host.aspx?Content=/Products/GAResolutions.htm.

  60. 60.

    UN Doc. A/HRC/21/11, 28.10.2012, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/G12/176/77/PDF/G1217677.pdf?OpenElement. The UN General Assembly has denominated the Guiding Principles as a “useful tool for States in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication policies, as appropriate” and has required all governmental and non-governmental actors “to consider the guiding principles in the formulation and implementation of their policies and measures concerning persons affected by extreme poverty”, UN Doc. A/RES/67/164, 20.12.2012, http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/164.

  61. 61.

    Final draft of the guiding principles on extreme poverty and human rights, submitted by the Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, Magdalena Sepúlveda Carmona, UN Doc. A/HRC/21/39, 18.7.2012, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G12/154/60/PDF/G1215460.pdf?OpenElement, Para 3.

  62. 62.

    Ibid. Para 4.

  63. 63.

    Ibid. Para 16.

  64. 64.

    On the following see United Nations 2014, pp. 6–7.

  65. 65.

    For example in China the proportion of people living on less than 1,25 USD fell from 60 per cent in 1990 to 12 per cent in 2010; United Nations 2014, p. 7.

  66. 66.

    UNDP 2013.

  67. 67.

    Cf. the foreword of UN General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon to the MDG report 2014 (United Nations 2014, p. 3): “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) have been the most successful global anti-poverty push in history. Significant and substantial progress has been made in meeting many of the targets—including halving the number of people living in extreme poverty and the proportion of people without sustainable access to improved sources of drinking water. The proportion of urban slum dwellers declined significantly. Remarkable gains have been made in the fight against malaria and tuberculosis. There have been visible improvements in all health areas as well as primary education. …”.

  68. 68.

    Cf. Manning 2009, pp. 42–59; Loewe 2010, pp. 110–117; see also European Union 2013, pp. 21–22.

  69. 69.

    Holtz 2010, p. 7.

  70. 70.

    On that and on further points of critique cf. Alston 2005, p. 762 et seqq; Schmidt-Traub 2009, pp. 77–78; Engelhardt 2010, pp. 1135–1136. See, for a detailed discussion of the relationship between human rights and the MDGs, Nelson 2007, and the articles in Langford et al. 2013.

  71. 71.

    For an overview of the current state of negotiations see http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/mdgoverview/mdg_goals/post-2015-development-agenda/. See, generally, on the new agenda Melamed 2012; Kaul 2013; Beisheim 2012; Loewe 2012 and 2014; Janus and Keijzer 2013; Alonso et al. 2013; Higgins 2013; Global Policy Forum Europe and terre des hommes 2013.

  72. 72.

    HLP 2013, p. 7.

  73. 73.

    http://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/focussdgs.html.

  74. 74.

    UN Doc. A/RES/66/288, 27.7.2012, http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N11/476/10/PDF/N1147610.pdf?OpenElement.

  75. 75.

    Particularly noteworthy from a social rights perspective are Goal 1 (End poverty in all its forms everywhere, inter alia [target 1.3] implement nationally appropriate social protection systems and measures for all, including floors, and by 2030 achieve substantial coverage of the poor and the vulnerable), Goal 2 (End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and promote sustainable agriculture), Goal 3 (Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages, inter alia [target 3.8] achieve universal health coverage (UHC), including financial risk protection, access to quality essential health care services), Goal 6 (Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all), Goal 10 (Reduce inequality within and among countries; inter alia [target 10.2] empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status) and Goal 11 (Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, inter alia [target 11.1] ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services, and upgrade slums).

  76. 76.

    Cf. UNHCHR 2013; Marks 2014; Human Rights for All Post-2015: A Litmus Test, June 2014, http://www.cesr.org/downloads/HRs.Post2015.litmus.test.pdf; see also the Submission by the UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights on “The Post-2015 Development Agenda: Prioritising people living in poverty through goals on inequalities, social protection and access to justice”, http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/EPoverty/Post205SubmissionSR23April2013.pdf: “(I)t is first and foremost crucial that the post-2015 development agenda is underpinned by and premised on human rights. Human rights standards and principles provide concrete guidance as to how goals and targets should be framed. Governments have already committed to uphold human rights in numerous international treaties; however these existing legal obligations and norms have been largely overlooked in current development policy”.

  77. 77.

    The UN Special Procedures mandate-holders have rightly claimed in a joint statement published in May 2013 that “(t)he post-2015 agenda should include a goal on the provision of social protection floors, explicitly referencing the right to social security and a human rights-based approach to social protection”. Moreover, they have formulated two additional recommendations concerning key priorities for the Post-2015 development agenda: “The post-2015 agenda should incorporate equality as a stand-alone and cross-cutting goal, aiming to progressively eliminate disparities within and between the most marginalized groups and the general population as well as between countries in order to achieve more inclusive forms of development.” … “Accountability must be at the core of the post-2015 development framework. We propose the establishment of a double accountability mechanism, whereby accountability mechanisms are developed at both national and international levels.”; see Statement by 17 Special Procedures mandate-holders of the Human Rights Council on the Post-2015 development agenda, 21.5.2013, http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13341&LangID=E.

  78. 78.

    See supra Sect. 3.3.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, Ruhr-Universität Bochum, Bochum, Nordrhein-Westfalen, Germany

    Markus Kaltenborn

Authors
  1. Markus Kaltenborn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Markus Kaltenborn .

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2015 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kaltenborn, M. (2015). Social Rights and the International Development Agenda. In: Social Rights and International Development. SpringerBriefs in Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-45352-0_5

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation