human rights in the global economy - colloquium report 2010

8/6/2019 Human Rights in the Global Economy - Colloquium report 2010

1/28

Human RigHts in tHe global economyRepoRt Rom a colloquium


2/28

about tHe council

The International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP) was established in Geneva in 1998 to conduct applied research into current

human rights issues. Its research is designed to be o practical relevance to policy-makers in international and regional organisations,in governments and inter-governmental agencies, and in voluntary organisations o all kinds. The Council is independent, international

in its membership, and participatory in its approach. It is registered as a non-prot oundation under Swiss law.

www.ichrp.org

MeMbersoftheinternationalcouncilLydia Alpizar Duran (Costa Rica)Roberta Clarke (Trinidad & Tobago)

Lyse Doucet (Canada)

Roger Raupp Rios (Brazil)Wilder Tayler* (Uruguay)

Devendra Raj Panday (Nepal)Fateh Azzam* (Palestine)

Marco Sassoli* (Switzerland)Hina Jilani* (Pakistan) Chair

Jelena Pejic (Serbia)Fouad Abdelmoumni (Morocco)

Juan Mendez (Argentina)

Chidi Anselm Odinkalu* (Nigeria)Maggie Beirne* (United Kingdom)

Usha Ramanathan (India)Cynthia Brown (United States)

Ghanim Al-Najjar (Kuwait)Emma Playair* (United Kingdom)

*Board Member

about Realizing RigHts

Realizing Rights was ounded by ormer President o Ireland and UN High Commissioner or Human Rights Mary Robinson in late2002 with the aim o putting human rights principles and standards at the heart o eorts to address key global challenges. Over the

past eights years, Realizing Rights has worked with a range o partners to develop initiatives ocused on promoting the right to health;

ostering equitable trade and decent work; strengthening corporate responsibility or human rights; promoting womens leadership onpeace and security; and advocating or climate justice.

www.realizingrights.org

ISBN: 2-940259-95-X

2010 International Council on Human Rights Policy. All rights reserved.

This material may be reely copied and distributed subject to inclusion o this copyright notice and our World Wide Web URLwww.ichrp.org. Cover illustration: iStockphoto LP. adapted rom Abacus. Design and layout by Benjamin D. Peltier at theInternational Council on Human Rights Policy.


3/28

2010 International Council on Human Rights Policy. All rights reserved.

Human RigHts in tHe global economyRepoRt Rom a colloquium


4/28


5/28

Human Rights in the Global Economy: Report rom a Colloquium i

H Rh h g e: Rr r c

contents

Contents.i

ACknowledgmentsii

introduCtion. iii

struCture.of.the.report. iii

i. humAn.rights.And.eConomiCs:.ApproAChing.the.debAte. 1

Towards congruence?

ii. nAtionAl.poliCy:.the.role.of.the.stAte. 4

Revisiting Trade-Os in Economic Policy-Making

Regulating Markets to Protect Rights

Redistributing to ensure Equity and to Prevent Impoverishment

iii. humAn.rights.And.globAl.eConomiC.governAnCe. 9

Coherence and Primacy

Legitimacy and Accountability

iv. opportunities.And.ChAllenges.for.humAn.rights.AdvoCACy. 12

Human Rights as an Ethical Lens

The Issue o Unequal Power

More Sel-Refection

A New Relationship with Communities on the Margins

Build a New Consciousness Within and an Epistemic Community Outside

v. ConClusion. 13

bACkground.mAteriAls.And.bibliogrAphy. 14

Annexe.1:.list.of.pArtiCipAnts. 17


6/28

ii Human Rights in the Global Economy: Report rom a Colloquium

acknowledgments

The ICHRP and Realizing Rights are grateul to all the participants o the Colloquium who gave their invaluable time and energy to make

a rich discussion possible.

The advice and guidance provided by Diane Elson, Hamish Jenkins, Ignacio Saiz, Mac Darrow, Margot Salomon, Nicholas Lusiani,

Radhika Balakrishnan, Sally-Anne Way, Sakiko Fukuda-Parr and Stephen Marks helped shape the structure and agenda o theColloquium.

George DeMartino and Sally Anne-Way provided helpul guidance in urther shaping this report, which has also benetted rom detailedcomments by John Southalan, Hamish Jenkins, Margot Salomon, Mary Dowell-Jones, Sedat Aybar and Virginia Bras-Gomes.

Alison Graham led a team o rapporteurs (Adil Hassan Khan, Kasia Snyder, and Magdalena Piskunowicz) whose work was vital in pullingtogether the complex and wide-ranging discussions.

The Colloquium itsel would not have been possible without the commitment and hard work o sta rom both organisations, in particular,Tom Sanderson and Steve Ako Tanga at the ICHRP.

Madame Francisco Ruiz and sta at the Centre International de Conrences, Geneva provided valuable support to acilitate the conducto the Colloquium.

This report was prepared by David Petrasek and Vijay K Nagaraj, with support rom Alison Graham, Scott Jerbi and Robert Archer.

The International Council and Realizing Rights thank the Ford Foundation, United States; an anonymous donor; the Swiss FederalDepartment or Foreign Aairs (FDFA); the Swiss Agency or Development and Cooperation (SDC); the Canton o Geneva, Switzerland;

the City o Geneva, Switzerland; the Department or International Development (DFID), United Kingdom; the Netherlands Ministry o

Foreign Aairs; and the Catholic Agency or Overseas Development (CAFOD), or their nancial contributions to this project.


7/28

Human Rights in the Global Economy: Report rom a Colloquium iii

intRoduction

This report captures key questions, ideas and issues generated during a Colloquium on Human Rights in the Global Economy. The

meeting was co-convened rom 1113 January 2010, in Geneva, by the International Council on Human Rights Policy (ICHRP) andRealizing Rights: The Ethical Globalization Initiative. It brought together experts in human rights, economics and development and

included scholars, researchers and representatives rom human rights and inter-governmental organisations as well as social movementsand international networks.1

The Colloquiums primary objective was to acilitate a constructive debate

about the relevance o human rights to national and global economic policy-making. It was convened against the backdrop o the Global Recession

o 200809. The nancial and economic crisis caused tens o millions opeople to lose their jobs and, combined with ongoing ood and uel crises,

pushed millions more into poverty.2 While evidence o economic recoveryin some countries is now apparent, though ragile, the impacts o the crisis

continue. Growth remains sluggish; high levels o unemployment persist;and ballooning government debt in many countries is casting a shadow on

the sustainability o programmes that und universal entitlements to healthservices, education and social protection, especially programmes that protect

the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. When the Colloquium was convened, many governments had taken initial steps to address these

consequences and prevent uture crises. However, the ecacy o these steps has yet to be determined. Moreover, the extent to which suchmeasures adequately address the structural actors that contributed to the crisis, including the imbalance between the real and nancial

economies, the excessive power o nancial interests, and biased regulation (all urther explored below), remains open to question.

The scale o the economic crisis has prompted renewed interest in deepening understanding o the relationship between human rights and

economic policy-making. Important eorts have already been made to disentangle the links between ethics, human rights, developmentand economics.3 The Colloquium and this report is a contribution to these eorts, urthering understanding o the possibilities and the

challenges o collaboration. The report is intended to support human rights actors and economics and development experts as theyengage in dialogue and joint action around how to most eectively infuence economic policy-making.

Many o those taking part in the Colloquium underlined the value o bringing together dierent communities o practice. At the sametime, the discussion did not satisy everyone. While many participants explicitly recorded their appreciation or welcomed the act that

they were not constrained by a rigid agenda, some elt that the exchanges were at times too abstract, and others elt that the discussionlacked clear direction. Some considered that arguments were not taken ar enough, and others thought that the meeting attempted to

cover too much ground. In short, the Colloquium highlighted both the importance and the challenges o bringing together discourses onhuman rights, development and economics, especially in the uncertain environment created by the recent economic crisis.

This report attempts to capture succinctly and in a orward-looking manner some o this complexity. Like the Colloquium, it is best viewedas a basis or urther discussion and refection. We hope nevertheless that it identies some key opportunities or urther work, as well as

questions and dilemmas that will need to be addressed i human rights concerns are to infuence economic policy-making in the uture.

stRuctuRe o tHe RepoRt

The report does not attempt to summarise the Colloquium proceedings, though its structure refects the agenda o the meeting. Instead,

it seeks to draw together key issues that emerged rom the discussion and raises a number o questions to be considered, as well as

suggesting next steps.

It begins by summarising complementarities and disjunctions between human rights and economics (Section I). This section seeks primarily

to suggest approaches to economics and economic policy-making that advocates o human rights are likely to nd ruitul.

Section II considers the role o the state, again searching or possibilities o convergence. It examines trade-os in economic policy-

making market regulation, and the question o redistribution. It pays particular attention to employment, regulation o nancial markets,social security and taxation.

Section III ocuses on global economic governance and highlights two signicant and complex issues: obstacles to achieving coherencein international legal and policy regimes (including the primacy o human rights); and eorts to strengthen governmental and inter-

governmental accountability and legitimacy.

Section IV concludes by suggesting several ways in which human rights advocacy and research might be strengthened to better

infuence economic policy-making.

Participants comments are not attributed, but relevant work by individuals or organisations who were present at the Colloquium is

acknowledged in ootnotes. In addition, to assist readers who wish to pursue specic questions or lines o argument in more detail, aselect bibliography lists publications and resources on issues the Colloquium addressed.

While the inuence o human rights hasspread, so have disparities in globaland national income and wealth. This raisesimportant questions regarding the relevance ohuman rights to global and national economicpolicy, an issue especially important toconsider at a time when a signifcant shit ineconomic thinking is underway.

1 See Annexe 1 or a list o participants.

2 See, or instance, Report o the independent expert on the question o human rights and extreme poverty, A/HRC/11/9, March 2009.

3 See or example, Balakrishnan and Elson, 2008a; Seymour and Pinkus, 2008; Balakrishnan, Elson and Patel, 2009; and Kinley, 2009. See also DeMartino, 2000;

Marks 2004; McKay and Vizard, 2005; Fukuda-Parr, 2007; Peil and van Staveren eds., 2009; and Amartya Sens work on amines and entitlements.


8/28


9/28

Human Rights in the Global Economy: Report rom a Colloquium 1

i. Human RigHts and economics: appRoacHing tHe debate

To what extent should internationally agreed human rights

principles and standards infuence economic policy ormulation?The global recession o 200809 has been overwhelmingly viewed

as a national and global ailure o economic policy and regulationthat undermined a range o undamental rights or people in many

countries. However, despite some attempts, international humanrights standards and obligations have hardly been considered

in the design, implementation and evaluation o policy measuresto bring the crisis under control.4 Was this because human rightswere not perceived to be relevant? Are advocates o human rights

simply not eectively explaining the pertinence o human rightsto economic and nancial governance? Precisely what arguments

should be made?

These questions lie at the core o a policy gap that pre-dates the

recent recession. For many millions o people in poverty there haslong been a crisis o economic opportunity and social protection.The global recession arguably heightened the risk or many o

them and also put many others at risk, including those in relativelywealthier countries that had less than robust nancial regulation

coupled with a high degree o global market integration.

When considering these issues, it is important to begin by noting that

economics and human rights are distinct and largely sel-containedelds. Equally important, both are markedly heterogeneous. As

many participants at the Colloquium highlighted, several schools

o thought in economics, oten reerred to as heterodox (orprogressive), do not share the assumptions, methods, normative

oundations or policy conclusions o mainstream economic theory.5Equally, though human rights is used throughout this report

to reer to the international body o human rights standards andinstruments that embrace civil, cultural, economic, political and

social rights, human rights advocates, working in many dierentkinds o organisations and political environments, do not practice

or invoke human rights in an identical manner.

As many argued in the Colloquium, understanding the dierent and

sometimes conficting worldviews o those working in mainstream

economics and those working in human rights is an essential

starting point or any meaningul dialogue in this area. For example,economic thinking ocuses on choice in a world o scarcity (where

everything o value has an opportunity cost and where trade-osare inevitable). Economic theory, thereore, must ocus on setting

priorities. In contrast, human rights thinking is grounded in universalprinciples, and all human rights are considered to be equal in status

and indivisible. Consequently, prioritising one right over anotherposes particular challenges or human rights advocates.6 Waryo trade-os (e.g., between present pain and uture gain), human

rights advocates oten criticise economic analyses that calculate thebenets o long-term aggregate outcomes and discount violations

o individual rights as short-term losses and collateral. In thisrespect, economic analysis is indeed at odds with an approach that

values equality.

Yet long-term structural interventions o the kind necessary to buildeective and inclusive education, health and social protection

systems, reduce endemic poverty or sustain modern economies,cannot be designed solely on the basis o monitoring compliance with

individual rights. Some trade-os are inevitable. Many economists

criticise advocates o human rights or avoiding tough choices, andregard human rights principles as unspecic and unenorceable

policy tools. From their perspective, human rights advocates appearto arm broad principles over specic policy choices, especially

when the latter seem likely to compromise them.

Underlying these diculties may be a deeper problem. For many,

particularly those coming rom an activist perspective, the realisationo human rights is an end in itsel. States, in particular, are expected

to guarantee and ull rights. In contrast, mainstream economics hasa largely consequentialist normative ramework.7 Human welare is

generally viewed in terms o utility levels, preerence satisaction,etc.8 Thereore, like some development experts, some economists

consider human rights to be a means (i.e., a tool) that can be

instrumentalised to achieve less distorted or corrupt markets or moreequitable development. These are two very dierent conceptions o

human rights. For one group, they are an additional tool or method,to be adopted where they have practical value; or the other, human

rights are a goal representing intrinsic values that should not becompromised. Because they perceive the ullment o human rights

as primary, human rights advocates generally arm a hierarchy ininternational law, which others may not.

Human rights advocates are wary o trade-os (between present pain and uture gain)and criticise economic analyses that calculatethe benefts o long-term aggregate outcomesand discount violations o individual rights as

short-term losses and collateral.

International human rights standards andobligations have not received adequateattention in policy measures to respond to theeconomic and fnancial crisis.

Several schools o thought in economics, otenreerred to as heterodox (or progressive), donot share the assumptions, methods, normativeoundations or policy conclusions o mainstreameconomic theory.

Many economists criticise advocates ohuman rights or avoiding tough choices.From their perspective, human rights advocatesappear to afrm broad principles over specifcpolicy choices.

4 See, or example, Balakrishnan and Elson, 2008b; Fukuda-Parr and Salomon,

2009; CESR, 2009; ESCR-Net et al, 2010; The Human Rights Council, 10th

special session, The impact o the global economic and nancial crises on

the universal realization and eective enjoyment o human rights, S-10/1, 20

February 2009; UN Human Rights Council, Note by the High Commissioner

or Human Rights, 2009.

5 Mainstream or dominant economics, oten reerred to as the New Classical

Economics, is traced back to the work o theorists like Milton Friedman and

Robert Lucas. Its theorists advance three inter-related hypotheses, concerning

rational expectations, the real business cycle, and ecient markets. Its period

o dominance is typically dated to the mid- and late 1970s, when it received

a huge impetus rom the governments o Reagan in the United States andThatcher in the United Kingdom. For more on the rise o New Classical

Economics see, or example, Skidelsky, 2009. Unless specied otherwise,

terms such as economics, economic theory or economic thinking in the

report reer only to mainstream economic thinking.

6 The idea o core obligations in economic and social rights is an example o

a certain approach to prioritising rights.

7 Consequentalism bases moral evaluation (o policy, or example) primarilyon its consequences rather than considering the context or the intrinsic

value. For a uller discussion see, or example, Sen, 1987.

8 GDP per capita becomes a primary target only because it can be measured

in ways that other subjective states o well-being cannot.


10/28

2 Human Rights in the Global Economy: Report rom a Colloquium

Moreover, because equality is the mainstay o human rights(whereas or the most part mainstream economic thinking prioritises

eciency) and the achievement o ormal and substantive equality

demands an active state, the human rights ramework endowsgovernment with many positive and negative duties. It has

ocused on constructing the public domain while current economicthinking, which or decades has been dominated by an emphasis

on the market as the most ecient distributive mechanism, hasenhanced the private.9

At the same time, nothing intrinsic to economic policy or economic

ways o thinking rules out human rights. In act, many human rightsadvocates argue precisely that a rights-based approach will bring

better economic and developmental results, thereby themselvespartially instrumentalising human rights values and concepts.

One ought, thereore, to be wary o generalisations. It is toosimplistic to assume that economists are insensitive to human

dignity or that advocates o human rights are uninterested ineconomic progress. Many economists aim (through taxation and

redistribution strategies) to reduce inequities in access to ood,

education and health care (all basic rights). Equally, thoughmuch human rights advocacy (especially in the global North)

has concentrated on civil and political rights, a growing numbero experts and organisations have developed human rights

approaches that address broad questions o development andgrowth and more specic issues relating to poverty reduction

programmes, budget analysis, social protection, and corporateaccountability.10

towardscongruence?

Looking orward, certain obstacles to achieving congruencebetween human rights and economics principles and approaches

need to be recognised. Just as economic thinking can appeardisengaged rom ethics, rights-based language can be open to

manipulation. For instance, some participants at the Colloquiumwarned o the need to guard against rights-based approaches

that valorise property rights or promote a narrow understanding

o the rule o law or contract-based regimes. Others noted thatmany social movements have relied on more open-ended and

accessible ideas, such as social justice rather than human rightslaw, to mobilise people to question unjust economic policies

and models. Nor is the dialogue between human rights andeconomics the only one that is possible or to be desired. Human

rights are unlikely to provide answers to all economic questions.This reminds us also that both the economics and human rights

traditions are prone to claim intellectual sovereignty, which does

not encourage open-mindedness.

The point is to understand the value o the human rightsramework, not necessarily to substitute it as a new and over-

arching paradigm that has all the answers. It has some distinct

strengths. It requires rights to be recognised and protected by law,anchored in international commitments that can be independently

monitored, at least in theory. International human rights standardsare comprehensive, deal with all categories o rights, and provide

special protection to marginalised groups (such as women andgirls, children, persons with disabilities, minorities and indigenous

people) that too oten benet last and least rom economic growth

and suer rst and most in economic downturns.

Many economists, especially those who have long pressed orchange in dominant modes o economic thinking, recognise

these strengths and are potential allies o human rights. Some

suggest that human rights principles like non-discrimination andnon-retrogression (and its ramework o obligations to respect,

protect and ull) can provide a normative ramework againstwhich economic policy can be evaluated.11 When rights-based

approaches stress participation and empowerment they refectmany elements o human rights. Possible elements o congruence

can be ound too in the UN Declaration on the right to development(and in work within and outside the UN human rights system that

applies this ramework to health, education and poverty reduction)

as well as wider eorts to integrate human rights principles indevelopment policy.12

In addition, certain other streams o thought within economic

philosophy arm many o the principles put orward by rights

advocates, and oer real possibilities or intellectual and policycongruence.13 They include, or example, the capabilities approach,

which arms human rights principles such as participation andindivisibility14; and pro-poor approaches to economic growth,

advocated by many economists, that place poverty and equity atthe centre o economic policy-making. Thereore, it can be said

that, although there are certainly disagreements about whichpolicy prescriptions are most eective, many economists are

not averse to taking rights seriously, especially in the context o

addressing poverty.15

Attempts to improve congruence stand to benet both disciplines.

For instance, quantitative methods o economic analysis, which

have sometimes ailed to predict how people will act in the realworld, could be enriched by the more behavioural perspective

o human rights, and vice versa. Because the two proessionsare divided by the dierent languages they use, human rights

advocates could do more to explain and promote core humanrights principles, like universality or interdependence. The act

that economists use similar terms to reer to dierent things (orexample, they speak o universal or targeted welare policy) means

The human rights ramework has ocusedon constructing the public domain whileneoliberal economic thinking, or decades,dominated by an emphasis on the market asthe most efcient distributive mechanism, hasenhanced the private.

Although there are certainly disagreementsabout which policy prescriptions are mosteective, many economists are not averse totaking rights seriously, especially in the contexto addressing poverty.

Human rights principles are not necessarilyneutral; when applied inappropriately or inways that do not take account o power dynamics,they may do little good (and much harm).

9 For an analysis o these tensions see Salomon, 2010.10 See or example Marks 2004, 2008; See too the work o the Centre or Economic

and Social Rights and also Beyond Voluntarism: Human Rights and the

Developing International Legal Obligations o Companies, ICHRP, 2002, and

Duties sans Frontires Human Rights and Global Social Justice, ICHRP, 2003.

11 See Balakrishnan and Elson, 2008a; Seymour and Pinkus, 2008; and

Kinley, 2009.

12 See Fukuda-Parr, 2007; Marks, 2008 and 2010; and the work o the OHCHR

High Level Task Force on the Right to Development. See also the reports o

the UN Special Rapporteurs on Health, Water/Sanitation, Extreme Poverty,

and Housing, which provide detailed policy proposals on such integration.

13 See, or instance, McKay and Vizard, 2005.

14 See, or example, Osmani, 2005.15 See Foresti, Higgins and Sharma (ODI Brieng Paper 34), 2010, or an

instructive survey o opinions o economists in this regard. See Kanbur,

2001, or an analysis o the nature o disagreements around distribution

and poverty.


11/28


approaching huMan rights advocacyon econoMic policy: soMe pointers

Economics and human rights are both heterogeneous bodies o knowledge and practice marked by internal disagreements andtensions.

I human rights advocates improve their understanding o the internal disagreements within economics, it will help them to bridgedierences and build strategic alliances, particularly with heterodox economists.

The theory and practice o economics and human rights are shaped by a range o political and ideological infuences; economicpolicy is not determined by economists alone.

The absence o human rights is not the only problem with economic policy; a range o other social, political and institutionalactors and infuences are relevant and can obstruct new approaches.

Much can be learned by human rights advocates rom social movements, especially their analyses o power structures that shape

public policy and its outcomes, and vocabularies such as social justice.It is important to put conversations about the global economy and human rights in a historical context; past critiques o economicpolicy have oten lost their cutting edge when translated into policies or programmes.

Advocates should advance human rights not only as legal prescriptions but as ethical principles that oer substantive and (notonly) procedural guarantees; human rights have broad power as an inclusive political vision, but it also remains necessary to

guard against their co-option within conditionalities (e.g., trade-related) or a specic aid regime.

that human rights advocates, no less than economists, need to becareul to explain their terminology.

Human rights can also provide an ethical lens so conspicuouslyabsent rom a dominant economic ramework that overly ocuses

on aggregate outcomes. O course, human rights principles are

not necessarily neutral; when applied inappropriately or in waysthat do not take account o power dynamics, they may do little

good (and much harm). Nevertheless, the economic crisis and

its atermath have presented a clear opportunity to articulate theways in which human rights principles, as an ethical and legal

ramework, might shape and improve economic policy both

nationally and globally. This is a major undertaking. In terms oapproaching such a task, several broad pointers emerged rom

the Colloquiums discussions, which could guide human rightsadvocates, and allies in other elds, as they work towards new

approaches to economic policy (see Pointers, below).


12/28

huMan rights analysisand national econoMic policy: towards convergence

How might advocates o human rights most eectively contribute to these ongoing refections? Three potential points o convergencebetween human rights and economic analysis became apparent during the Colloquiums deliberations.19

R r- r h r rhHuman rights principles (e.g., universality, indivisibility,participation, accountability, non-discrimination) can help to ensure that costbenet models, or example, are equitable and are

not discriminatory. In many ways, this corresponds to the duty to respecthuman rights, but it also echoes economic analyses thatemphasise pro-poor approaches, transparency, growth with equity and decentralisation, etc.

R r r rhThe regulation o markets (in particular, nancial markets) is now the subject o intensedebate. The crisis not only exposed the myth o sel-correcting markets but conrmed the essential role that states play, asregulators and in protecting public interests. This corresponds to the duty to protect human rights, under which states are

expected to ensure that non-state or private actors act in ways that do not undermine rights. By extension, this also has a bearingon the duty to ull.

Rr r r rhThe redistributive role o the state has been armed by manyeconomic theories that recognise the importance o state intervention (through taxation, social transers and other means) to

ensure that the wealth generated by economic activity is airly distributed. In human rights terms, this corresponds primarily to the

duty to ulfl, which requires states to use the maximum o their available resources to ull economic, social and cultural rights.

This, in turn, has a bearing on the duty to protect.

Some specic challenges in these three areas are examined below. At the same time, the states role must be contextualised,

because global institutions and inter-governmental and private actors greatly infuence the policy options or policy space availableto states. Issues o global economic governance are considered in Section III.

)

)

)

ii. national policy: tHe Role o tHe state

Both human rights and many schools o economic thinkingemphasise the central role o the state as a guarantor o rights and

as an enabler o economic activity.

Advocates o human rights have a complex attitude towards

the state: the issue is not whether the state is strong or weakbut whether it ulls rights.16 On one hand, they are cautious

and suspicious o strong states, oten perceiving them asauthoritarian (associated with repression and oppression). On

the other, it is increasingly recognised that a well-organised and

active state is needed to establish and maintain the rule o law,and support an independent and ully unctioning judiciary. The

generation and redistribution o wealth also require the state tocoordinate the large social and economic investments that must

be deployed to establish transport and communications systems,protect the environment, and provide universal access to basic

rights, including social protection, employment, and health andeducation. Under international human rights law, states are

responsible or respecting, protecting and ullling human rights,

but also or creating the broader social, political and economicconditions in which citizens can exercise human rights reely.

Neo-liberal economists have sought to restrict the states role in

order to release the energy in markets that can potentially generate

social good. However, other economic theories have emphasisedthe states responsibility to maintain prices, curb infation, levy

taxes, equalise the balance o payments, and in other ways createconditions in which economies can operate eciently and generate

outcomes that are socially as well as economically sustainable.

While these concerns are not entirely congruent with those o humanrights, when the states role in generating and distributing individualand aggregate wealth is considered, they come much closer.

The role o the state sits at the centre o social and economicpolicy and human rights objectives. More than any other institution,by implementing eective policies, states determine whether

people prosper, exercise reedom, become skilled, overcome

poverty and enjoy consensual governance. Neo-liberal economictheories, which have dominated policy-making in recent decades,

arm that almost all orms o government intervention distort reemarkets. Under their infuence, states across the world reduced

the range o services they provided, privatised public institutionsand services, sold public assets and lowered taxes. Yet, while

aggregate wealth increased under this policy regime, it did so moreslowly than during the immediate post-war period, and growth in

many countries has been associated with sharp, sometimes

grotesque increases in inequality. The wealth o those at the apexhas increased vertiginously in the majority o societies, while large

numbers o people living in poverty have been excluded romthe benets o growth, and in many countries even middle class

incomes have stagnated or been relatively depressed.17

The political shock generated by the recent economic crisis

has challenged the hypothesis o ecient markets o neo-liberalthinkers: that markets not only regulate themselves but over time

allocate resources in the most ecient and equitable manner.18While the old arguments between socialism and capitalism have

not been revived, there appears no serious interest in reverting tocommand economies. However, or the rst time in a generation,

many economists and economic institutions are reviewing certain

dominant doctrines and assumptions and, in particular, the role othe state in mediating economic fows and outcomes.

Advocates o human rights have a complexattitude towards the state: the issue is notwhether the state is strong or weak but whetherit ulfls rights.

There is signifcant potential or congruencebetween human rights approaches andlines o economic thinking that emphasisethe centrality o the state in generating anddistributing wealth equitably.

16 Centre or Economic and Social Rights, 2009.

17 See, or instance, From Poverty To Power, Oxam, 2008.

18 See, or instance, Colander et al., 2009; Krugman, 2009.

19 This way o raming the issues emerged rom discussions with Sally-Anne Way.



13/28


revisiting trade-offsin econoMic policy-Making

At the heart o the question o trade-os is a normative tension

between mainstream economics and human rights thinking.Though most mainstream economic writing ocuses largely on

resource and technological constraints, it is not entirely blind toethical constraints. For example, like members o other proessions,

economists would not accept slavery even i it were shown to be

more ecient. In general, nevertheless, mainstream economicthinking externalises social and environmental constraints, leaving

their determination to others. Human rights advocates arguethat human rights represent a binding constraint against which

economic policy and the goal o maximising human welare mustbe assessed, however they are dened.

Economists who adopt a more instrumental view would tend toargue that, since human rights impose opportunity costs and

trade-os, they must be optimised, preerably using costbenetanalysis or a similar calculus. Indeed, costbenet models, oten

presented as ideologically neutral, in act rely on assumptions

that are problematic rom a human rights perspective.20 Moreoten than not, they presume that an aggregate enhancement o

wealth justies the sacrice o particular interests (oten those opeople who live in poverty and/or are powerless). For example, the

impoverishment and social distress that result when dams or otherlarge inrastructure projects displace communities have oten

been justied on the grounds that such projects generate largeeconomic and social benets or other populations or over time.21

As stressed more than once during the Colloquium, a classicunderstanding o human rights provides a good point o departure

or evaluating such trade-os; the right o all to participate equallyin the governance o a country is particularly relevant. Too oten,

those who are not powerul (who have limited resources orinfuence) are not able to infuence economic policy or ensure that

it takes account o their interests.22

To what extent can policy proposals grounded in human rights

(and thereore committed to inclusion and participation) gain

traction in the ormation o economic policy? How can the powerand infuence o the private sector, major nancial institutions,

oreign investors and donors, and other elites, be oset whentrade-os occur? Put dierently, how can conditions be created

that ensure consideration o a broader range o valid interests,

including the views o people who are vulnerable or marginalised?The realities o power, international as well as national, and the

act that privileges are not readily surrendered, severely restrictnot only access to decision-making on economic policy but also

the autonomy o many states.

A discussion about trade-os is essentially a discussion about

priorities and the processes by which decisions are made. As such,it engages key human rights principles and concepts. The human

rights ramework holds that everyone has the right to eectivelyparticipate in decision-making, express opinions, have access

to inormation, and reely associate and act. International human

rights standards also require states to ensure that civil societyorganisations are able to operate reely. This implies that states

should not only rerain rom interering unduly in their activities butalso take steps to ensure third parties do not do so and create

conditions avourable to citizen participation. As highlighted at theColloquium, this also speaks to the principle o indivisibility (e.g.,

reedom o expression, association and a ree media are vital toensure accountability in governance). International human rights

law urther requires states to be accountable or their actions:

applied skilully, human rights principles can expose abuses opower, including malpractice by state ocials and the improper

infuence o private interests on ocial decisions.23

th c mr-e p d wror

Jobless growth, experienced in dierent countries across the world,demonstrates that, while stable and sustainable gross domestic

product (GDP) growth is a necessary condition or job creation, itdoes not guarantee the generation o decent work opportunities.

High GDP growth can occur alongside high levels o inequality,unemployment and the extension o inormal sectors in which

work is neither regulated nor protected by the state.24 Monetarypolicies that target infation can negatively aect employment

levels, privileging some interests over others. In similar ways,

deregulation o labour markets and the destruction o unions andlabour protections can negatively impact wages and working

conditions and can lead to the fexibilisation and inormalisation owork, benetting some at the cost o others. This too is an area that

could benet rom greater collaboration between human rightsand economic and development experts.

Under international human rights law, the right to work includesthe right o everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work

which he reely chooses or accepts.25 States are obliged totake appropriate steps to saeguard this right26 and provide an

enabling environment that avours the generation o employment

that provides an adequate standard o living, decent conditionsand undamental individual reedoms.27 A key question or

Are human rights binding constraints againstwhich economic policy and the goal omaximising human welare must be assessed?Or, since they impose opportunity costs canthey be optimised?

Adiscussion about trade-os is essentiallya discussion about priorities and theprocesses by which decisions are taken. Assuch it engages key human rights principlesand concepts.

20 Some argue that the problem is not with costbenet analysis but how it is

used. Hansjrgens (2004, p.248), or example, holds that because eects

on human health and the environment can only be made in the orm o sotqualitative inormation and because hard numbers in which nancial benets

are expressed do indeed oten have a greater weight in political discussion

[...] a certain momentum develops in avour o evidence which is backed up

by hard numbers to the detriment o sot ones. Arguably, however, this is

precisely why costbenet analysis is considered problematic.

21 Nothing highlights this better than the inamous note that Lawrence

Summers wrote in December 1991 when he was Chie Economist at the

World Bank. When he observed that the economic logic behind dumping

a load o toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we

should ace up to that, Brazils then-Secretary o the Environment Jose

Lutzenburger replied: Your reasoning is perectly logical but totally insane...

Your thoughts [provide] a concrete example o the unbelievable alienation,

reductionist thinking, social ruthlessness and the arrogant ignorance o

many conventional economists concerning the nature o the world we livein.... At: www.whirledbank.org/ourwords/summers.html.

22 This is relevant to another concern raised at the Colloquium (discussed

below): the space available or individual governments to infuence trade-

os and policy priorities.

23 See ICHRP Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, Geneva,

February 2009; ICHRP Corruption and human rights: integrating human

rights in anti-corruption agendas, Geneva, orthcoming September 2010.

24 For example, see Maurizio, 2009.25 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966,

Article 6.

26 Ibid.

27 For more on this, see ILO 2009a, 2009b and 2009d.


14/28

advocates o the decent work agenda is how these obligationsmight be implemented more eectively and how the relevance o

such commitments could be highlighted in related policy areas.28

The creation o employment is broadly recognised as central to

ending poverty. However, there is stil l little evidence o consensus

around how to generate decent work opportunities in practice,particularly in developing countries. For many years, neo-liberal

policies allowed the market to determine the rate at which jobswere generated, believing that ree-market competition would

produce the most ecient and sustainable outcome.

Over the last two decades, deregulated employment markets and

market-led processes o production have created conditions inwhich labour has become both more fexible and more inormal.

Work in the inormal sector oten means inadequate workingconditions, low wages and lack o eective bargaining power.

It is oten dominated by women, who are also more likely to be

exploited on account o other variables that contribute to existinggender inequalities that disadvantage women. In addition, the

growth in inormal work hinders poverty reduction eorts and hasserious eects on social and economic development. In such a

context, human rights principles that require states to supportthe creation o decent jobs that provide adequate pay and social

protection are clearly relevant.

As the Colloquium highlighted, it is vital to consider the human rights

impact o macro-economic policy decisions that Central Banks andother economic actors make. Macro-economic policy decisions

that target infation, or reduce state expenditure to cut decits, while

ignoring employment eects, are governed by policy objectives thatrefect political interests and priorities. This demonstrates the need

to create conditions in which policy ormation is transparent andparticipatory, as well as the need or human rights organisations

to monitor economic institutions such as Central Banks as well asMinistries o Finance. Monitoring should track not only the impact o

their policy interventions, especially on vulnerable groups, but alsothe interests that drive and shape their decisions.29

The policy autonomy o economic institutions raises parallel issues.Individual Central Banks (and their governments) may be constrained

in running an independent monetary policy i their policy clashes withinternational monetary policy norms. A new international consensus

is required that balances the requirements o monetary policy and theneed to create sustainable and decent employment.

regulating Marketsto protect rights

The regulatory reach and powers o the state and the conditions

under which they may be exercised has been the subject o muchdebate between economists. Between the laissez aire state as

acilitator and the soviet-style command economy, economists

hold many dierent views about the states role in governanceand its relationship with markets. Human rights advocates and

economists at the Colloquium repeatedly returned to the needor an active state. Given the signicant regulatory ailures that

occurred beore and during the recent nancial crisis, this wasnot a surprise. However, it did give added resonance to the claim

o human rights advocates that states are the primary duty bearer

and guarantor o rights.

The human rights notion o a rights-ullling state ocuses not

so much on the states scale (i.e., whether it is minimalist ormaximalist) or the question o how much regulation is required but

on the degree to which a given regulatory regime avours certaininterests or purposes over others and responds to the needs o the

most disadvantaged.

R b

The recent nancial crisis was arguably caused not so much by

the absolute ailure o regulation as by a biased regulatory systemavouring the interests o major actors in the nance sector.30 The

system did not protect the interests o the less powerul, includingthe middle classes and those living in poverty. Given this, what

can human rights law and principles contribute to the substanceor success o eorts to reorm nancial systems nationally and

internationally?

It might be argued that the states obligation to protect human

rights was contravened by leaving the nancial markets to the care

o apparently independent regulators, sel-regulating corporationsand hedge-und titans, which led to economic and social

distress. It is not clear whether such a conclusion adds much toour knowledge about the regulatory ailure that occurred or ully

takes into account the realities o a globalised nancial system.A human rights analysis should go urther: it should throw light on

inequalities in access to power and on ailures o accountabilitythat enabled large institutions to unduly infuence regulators and

legislators in the rst place.

The current system o nancial regulation produced not just a

ailure o accountability; it expanded the wealth o a ew rather

than generating social value by signicantly strengthening the

economys productive capacity.31 The challenge is to (re)conceivea regulatory ramework that will bridge the real and nancialeconomies and encourage nancial innovation to catalyse

productive investment rather than speculation.

Indeed, even i it was necessary to bail out ailing markets (banks, in

particular) doing so without making those institutions accountablehas arguably not only increased the risks o a second crisis, but

has yet again socialised private ailures. Citizens have paid thecost o market ailure, and the price includes a retrogression in the

enjoyment o rights. Eectively, this amounts to a redistribution owealth in avour o the rich, achieved rstly by bailing out the highly

paid nancial sector and secondly by cuts in social spending in

response to the threat o a public debt crisis (due to the bailouts

and the recession that the nancial crisis precipitated). Despitesome initiatives, there is little evidence yet that the political leadersin the major economies possess the political will or capacity to

reorm the regulatory system in a undamental manner, or suchthat it will achieve more equitable outcomes in the uture.

The quality o regulation rarely outpaces innovation, and this

perpetually creates opportunities or new and ungoverned orms

o speculation. A key question then is how to approach nancial

Human rights organisations need to monitoreconomic institutions such as CentralBanks and Ministries o Finance. This must gobeyond monitoring the impact o their policyinterventions (especially on vulnerable groups)to examine the interests that drive and shapetheir decisions.

Citizens have paid the cost o marketailure, with the large bailouts representingwealth redistribution in avour o the richasocialisation o private ailures.

28 The case o the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act in India was cited

as an example o how this may be realised in policy terms.

29 See Balakrishnan, Heintz and Seguino, 2008; and Balakrishnan, Elson and

Patel, 2009.

30 See Balakrishnan, Heintz and Seguino, 2008; and Dowell-Jones, 2010.

31 See or instance Dowell-Jones, 2004; Caliari, 2009; Caliari and Yu, 2009;

UNCTAD, 2009b and 2009c.



15/28


regulation. A human rights approach would likely support an ex

anterather than an ex postapproach. In other words, regulation

must be designed to approve every nancial innovation ater a

transparent evaluation o risks involved, thus preventing toxicnancial products rom entering the markets.32 Private nancial

actors have preerred an ex postapproach, largely on the groundsthat an ex anteapproach slows down nancial innovation. This,

however, also appears to be a way o keeping innovation one stepahead o regulation. Besides, as the recent crisis made clear, there

is oten a thin line between nancial innovation and speculation.

Improved regulation alone is, however, unlikely to avoid a recurrence

o crises within nancial markets. Several Colloquium participantspointed out other specic structural problems in the nancial sector

that need addressing, including the use o mathematical models that

obscure risk, risk models that do not account or social behaviourin the real world and the ailure o central bank policy rameworks to

give adequate attention to social concerns.

Would a nancial transaction tax bring benet? Could governments

devise arrangements that would orce the nance industry to takemore responsibility or its impact on marginalised people? At

present, such questions lack denitive answers, and human rightspractitioners and economic policy-makers would need to move

rom naming problems to nding solutions. Human rights principlescannot simply be grated onto existing regulatory rameworks.

One possible approach is to expand the terms o the regulationdebate to take account o broader socio-economic linkages and

impacts.34 Advocates o human rights might then be able to showthat a particular initiative would assist regulators to predict market

behaviour accurately and better understand the markets social

impacts, which in turn might shit assumptions about nancial costsand risks. To do this, however, human rights advocates will need to

enhance their own knowledge and nd ways to build dialogue andcollaboration with experts in relevant elds. Experience gained

rom applying human rights principles to project nance andethical investment may be o some relevance in this context.35

redistributing to ensure equity and to prevent

iMpoverishMent

Redistribution has been a central question or several economicschools, even i neo-liberals, Marxists, Keynesians and others

have argued the subject dierently. The human rights rameworkrecognises that states have a responsibility to ull human rights,

which requires them to redistribute available resources or thepurpose o achieving the universal and progressive ullment o

economic, social and cultural rights.

It is important to recognise at the outset that redistribution is

necessary because patterns o distribution o social goods andopportunities are skewed in the rst place. For instance, widening

dierences in income across the world refect a weakening o

labour protection and labour unions as well as unequal access toresources and opportunities such as (quality) education.

Fiscal policies (that address public expenditure and revenues)possibly have the biggest impact on distributive justice and

the attainment o economic and social rights. As underlined

in Colloquium discussions, advocates o economic and socialrights could benet rom the insights that economic researchers

have gathered about the generation and management o publicrevenues and expenditure, in particular policy instruments relating

to social security transers and taxation.

International human rights law already arms the right to social

security, and social security systems play a critical role in povertyreduction.36 The act that social security programmes are relatively

uncontroversial and that a wide range o diverse actors (both Northand South) support them, at least in principle, means they provide

signicant opportunities or policy negotiation and advocacy.

A number o well-argued human rights perspectives and approaches

to social security and protection have been developed.37 Especially

relevant is the concept o minimum core obligations that can guidescal policy to guarantee all citizens access to minimum levels o

essential ood, education, healthcare, housing, etc., which theyrequire to live a lie o dignity.38 In addition, applying the principle o

indivisibility claries the content o entitlement to social protectionand associates it with principles o participation, transparency and

accountability, which are central to its realization.

In many ways, thereore, this is an area with evident potential or

eective human rights advocacy. To make a signicant impact,however, advocates will need to engage with more dicult issues,

including universal versus targeted provision; the denition o

beneciaries and entitlements; and issues o process, accessand accountability. The long-term sustainability o social security

schemes also poses signicant challenges, especially in view othe growing public debt. Moreover, some o the apparent solutions

(such as exposing social protection unds, especially pensionunds, to nancial markets) present their own risks. In short, human

rights advocates are challenged to go beyond broad guidelines orthe parsing o human rights standards and to demonstrate the

operational relevance o human rights.

For instance, under human rights law, states are obliged to use the

maximum o their available resources to progressively achieveeconomic and social rights. This suggests that an eective taxation

system is indispensable in ullling all human rights.

Neo-liberal economists traditionally hold that taxation distorts

markets and obstructs their ability to allocate resources eciently.

It has become evident, however, that markets do not always ornaturally allocate resources airly. The persistent rise in inequality

in recent years, both within and between countries, illustratesthis and demonstrates the inadequacy o existing tax systems to

correct the bias that market-led economic policies have created.

Increasing tax competition to attract oreign direct investmenthas caused a dramatic change in the structure o tax systems.Many governments have tended to increase indirect taxes such

as Value Added Tax while reducing progressive income tax rates.

As a result, the tax burden on the wealthiest has allen and in manycountries so have tax revenues that should be used or unding

basic services. The recent crisis presents an opportunity tostrengthen the case or considering new ideas and tax reorm.39

32 See UN-NGLS, 2010.

33 Ibid.

34 See Dowell-Jones, 2010.

35 Ibid.

36 See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, General Comment

No. 19, The right to social security, E/C.12/GC/19.

37 See Riedel, 2007; and the Reports o the Independent Expert on the

Question o Human Rights and Extreme Poverty.

38 This echoes ideas o a social protection foor or minimum incomeadvanced by development thinkers.

39 For an analysis o the relevance o tax advocacy in the context o development

and rights, see Christian Aid, 2009a and 2009b. The work o the Tax Justice

Network is another example.

Should it [regulation] be based on the principlethat everything is allowed unless explicitlyorbidden (the preerred approach in fnancialcircles)? or should the guiding principle bethat everything is orbidden unless explicitlyapproved (the approach used or exampleto prevent the marketing o toxic oods andmedicines)?33


16/28


Several questions demand attention. What would be the basis oa human rights approach to taxation? Although the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR)

requires governments to raise revenue to und economic andsocial rights, it does not speciy the characteristics that tax

systems should have. How might the notion o maximum availableresources condition a states taxation and borrowing policy?

What does the duty to meet minimum core obligations imply?How does the sustainability o tax regimes relate to the question

o employment (see above)? In complex economies, what links

should be made between corporate taxation, productivity andwealth generation, and the ullment o state obligations, including

human rights obligations? What would a taxation system consistentwith human rights look like?

Human rights principles o equality, airness, due process, andtransparency are relevant to all these questions; however, it should

be pointed out that such principles can be invoked by the richas well as those in poverty and might not make the collection o

additional resources (or the challenging o vested interests) easier

or speedier. Again, these questions would all benet rom urtherdialogue and collaboration between human rights experts and

experts rom economics, development and other relevant elds.

What would a taxation system consistent

with human rights look like? How mightthe notion o maximum available resourcescondition a states taxation and borrowingpolicy? What does the duty to meet minimumcore obligations imply?


17/28


44 See Fragmentation o International Law: Difculties Arising rom the

Diversifcation and Expansion o International Law, International Law

Commission, A/CN.4/L.682, 2006 or a wider analysis o ragmentation o

the international legal space.

45 This is however becoming a signicant ocus o human rights advocacywithin the MDG review process and or post-2015.

46 See or example, Climate change and human rights, ICHRP, Geneva, 2008;

and also ICHRP, Climate change: technology policy and human rights,

orthcoming.

iii. Human RigHts and global economic goveRnance

In the last two decades, as the infuence o human rights has

spread, so have disparities in global and national income andwealth. Over the same period, rapid economic globalisation has

increased interdependence, a trend mediated and institutionalisedby global regimes that organise and oversee trade, nance and

development relations. Questions o global economic governancemust be considered in this context. These trends not only shape

the evolution o contemporary poverty, but also global responsesto it, including the development and application o internationalhuman rights law.40

Contemporary capitalism is another issue that merits attention inthe context o these global interdependencies and imbalances.41

The recent crisis has oten been characterised as a crisis o theglobal capitalist system. It has been suggested, or instance, that

underlying this crisis are three imbalances, between: the real andthe nancial economies (refected also in the imbalance between

returns to capital and labour); dierent macro-economies; andthe economy and the environment, which sets a material limit on

economic expansion.42 Consideration o these three constraints

cannot be disentangled rom, and thereore orms a key part o,

discussion o contemporary global economic governance.

In such a context, states (particularly less powerul states) areunable to determine or pursue all their economic objectives through

domestic policy alone. Their policy options and political autonomyare increasingly subject to international norms and constraints,

both ormal and inormal, inter-governmental and private. Someo these may actually restrict the ability o states to meet certain

human rights obligations.

As pointed out during the Colloquium, many experts (including

economists) have recommended expanding the policy space orautonomy o governments, especially those in developing countries.43

A principal critique o the Washington Consensus and global economic

institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the WorldBank (WB), and the World Trade Organisation (WTO), is that they

shape monetary and scal policies by imposing policy conditionalitiesand also by empowering private actors in global markets. In parallel,

human rights advocates call on states to take account o humanrights standards and obligations when they ormulate policy. Many

economists also support global standard setting, or example,with respect to labour rights. Important questions, thereore, arise

concerning both the value o policy space and ethical criteria that

should apply when policy is ormed.

On the other hand, it is evident that international cooperation is

necessary to successully manage large global problems (nancialmarkets, trade relations, debt, poverty, climate change), because

their scale and complexity are such that no single state can dealwith them on its own. International institutions like the IMF, WB

and WTO, and a range o UN institutions, have emerged in thelast 60 years to address this need, complemented by numerous

institutions that ll similar unctions at regional and sub-regionallevels. This development has been accompanied by a very

considerable expansion in the global regimes o law and policythat cover trade, banking, nance, debt, crime, human rights, and

climate change, among others.

Many Colloquium participants observed that, despite these

developments, international cooperation remains highly imperect

and is largely driven by national and relatively short-term political

agendas. For numerous reasons (e.g., weak legal rules governingcooperation, conficting objectives, the tendency o national

interest to override international interest whenever they collide)states have rarely succeeded in agreeing or implementing global

public policies eectively. The ailure to negotiate an adequateprogramme o action on climate change is the most evident recent

example: reorm and regulation o nancial markets, ullmento trade and development objectives, and adoption o equitableglobal economic policies, present equally dicult political

challenges.

To complicate matters urther, there is no consensus on the political

objectives that should drive the reorm o global institutions. Someseek to adapt the structures that regulate the global economy, others

wish to replace the existing system, and still others want to constructa new architecture on its oundations. This said, rom a human

rights perspective, the Colloquium identied at least two essentialchallenges that any change strategy would have to address. First

is the question o the primacy o international human rights rules in

the global normative system: competing branches o international

law and policy (trade, investment, environment, aid) oten overriderespect or human rights norms. This is oten understood as aproblem o coherence. Second is the question o the legitimacy

and accountability o existing, new or reormed institutions.

coherenceand priMacy

Coherence is one o the biggest challenges acing global publicpolicy. The ragmentation o international legal and policy regimes

(the separate evolution o rules governing trade, banking andnance, investment, environment, human rights, etc.) means that

rather than complement, they oten undermine each other.44

Examples o ragmentation and incoherence abound. Participants

at the Colloquium highlighted how economic institutions like the

WTO, IMF and WB (which operate outside the ramework o theUN) and unrepresentative orums o states (the G-8 and now

the G-20) that seek to control large parts o the global economicpolicy agenda, contribute to policy incoherence nationally and

internationally. Within the UN, relationships are similarly ragmented.Though human rights have been declared one o the UNs three

pillars, the UN human rights system has only been a marginalplayer in UN discussions and responses to the recent economic

crisis. Similarly, the Millennium Development Goals ramework

lacks a serious human rights perspective,45 and existing climatechange policies barely mention human rights.46 At the same time,

while institutions such as the WTO, WB and IMF continuously seekto expand their role in the global economic architecture, they

From a human rights point o view, there areat least two important challenges acing anyreorm o the global economic architecture: thequestion o primacy and coherence; and, thato legitimacy and accountability.

40 See, or instance, Salomon, 2007.

41 Such analyses predate the recent crisis. See, or example, Li and Zhu,2005.

42 Jayati Ghosh, speaking at the Guardian Forum on the Economic Crisis in

London, 2009.

43 For example, see Rodrik, 2001, or Chang and Grabel, 2004.


18/28


have historically been, and remain, unwilling to accept that theybear human rights obligations, and have only selectively adopted

elements o international human rights law.47

It is no doubt benecial to the interests o some powerul international

institutions and actors to have a disjointed global legal, regulatory

and policy ramework. Politically speaking, too, it is oten convenientor states i dysunctional international processes prevent them

rom addressing global issues that are politically or nanciallycostly. Reorm is made innitely harder because, while states are

discredited and rustrated by ailures o international governance,an improved system o governance would also disadvantage their

political interests in other respects.

Some say this is simply the nature o messy multilateralism. Atthe same time, the global environment is not static. Underlying

institutional and normative change continues to occur. Theemergence o the Washington Consensus, and more recently the

G-20, signalled attempts to impose a more coherent internationalagenda. Neither agenda put protection o human rights at the

oreront o its concerns. In this regard, coherence, cannot be

an end in itsel: what counts is who determines the content ocoherence and what ends it serves.48

Human rights advocates arm the primacy o international

human rights rules. They argue that constitutionally guaranteedrights supersede other domestic legislation and that, on the same

grounds, international human rights standards should overrule

conficting standards that are set in other areas o internationalpolicy (rom trade to environment).

Support or this position can be ound in the rst paragraph othe Vienna Declaration and Programme o Action, adopted at

the Vienna World Conerence on Human Rights in June 1993,which arms that: Human rights and undamental reedoms are

the birthright o all human beings; their protection and promotionis the rst responsibility o Governments. Resolutions o expert

bodies, such as the ormer UN Sub-Commission on the Promotionand Protection o Human Rights, have also upheld the primacy

o human rights in relation to international trade and investment

policies.49 The UN Committee on Economic, Social and CulturalRights noted that human rights norms must shape the process o

international economic policy ormulation so that the benets or

human development o the evolving international trading regimewill be shared equitably by all, in particular the most vulnerable

sectors.50

However, the legal case or primacy is not clear-cut. Notwithstanding

the resolutions cited, it is ar rom being accepted by all governmentsor international actors. The Director-General o the WTO (speaking

at the Colloquium) argued, or example, that states assume ahorizontal relationship between the dierent international legal

regimes, including international human rights law. Viewed this way,the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)

or the ICESCR are not o higher legalsignicance than treaties

covering trade, the environment or nuclear non-prolieration.Unless explicitly directed to do so by Member States, why should

the WTO work to uphold human rights provisions when leadingnegotiations on trade agreements?51

A political consensus on the primacy o human rights has thereorestill to be achieved and their relevance to global economic

governance is even less accepted. When the UN Human RightsCouncil adopted two resolutions that armed the importance o

human rights in the context o the global nancial and economiccrisis, the discussion and the vote revealed signicant dierences

o opinion on the question. Despite interventions by severalUN human rights bodies, the nal report o the Commission o

Experts o the President o the UN General Assembly on Reorms

o the International Monetary and Financial System (the StiglitzCommission) contained no specic reerence to human rights.

This is essentially a political rather than a legal issue: new normsare not likely to provide the answer.52 Advocates o human rights

need to build new alliances and intensiy eorts to mobilise publicand political opinion in avour o human rights principles and

standards, even while continuing to ght legal battles.

In this context, the headway made by social movements andcampaigns in contesting international trade, nance andinvestment regimes on grounds o legitimacy, social justice and

equitable development oers lessons.53 To secure acceptanceo the primacy o human rights, human rights advocates will no

doubt have to show that human rights principles are relevant

to the solution o economic and social problems, engage withbroader concerns around economic and social justice, and build

alliances with social movements and other like-minded networksand organisations. Such alliances have shown themselves to be

eective, or example, with respect to certain investment issues,cases o corporate corruption or complicity in abuse, and in

addressing labour exploitation and labour standards.

Adisjointed global legal, regulatory and policyramework may allow powerul internationalinstitutions and states to justiy not addressingimportant global issues that are politically orfnancially costly.

Coherence, cannot be an end in itsel: whatcounts is who determines the content ocoherence and what ends it serves

47 For an analysis o the WB and the IMF and international human rights law,

see Darrow, 2006.

48 See, or example, Dommen,Human rights and trade; two practical suggestions

or promoting coordination and coherence, chapter in Cottier, Pauwelyn andBrgi (ed.), Human Rights and International Trade, Oxord University Press,

November 2006; and Dommen The WTO, International trade and Human

Rights, chapter in Winduhr (ed.) Beyond the nation State Human Rights in

Times o Globalisation, the Global Publications Foundation, June 2005.

49 Sub-Commission Resolution 1999/30, adopted on 26 August 1999, UNDoc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/RES/1999/9 (1999); and UN Sub-Commission resolution

1998/12, adopted without vote on 20 August 1998, UN Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/

RES/1998/12 (1998).

50 Para 5, UN Doc. E/C.12/1999/9 (26 November 1999).

51 The international legal position would hold that no international treaty could

abrogate jus cogensnorms directly or indirectly. Some human rights are

so absolute as to have achieved this status: they include prohibitions on

torture, disappearances, slavery, or genocide. However, disputes regarding

trade or nancial policy usually concern rights that are more qualied, and

oten raise dicult issues o causality.

52 The Director-General o the WTO, or instance, called or a political

consensus (Geneva Consensus) that deregulation and opening o markets

must be accompanied by solid social policies to redistribute wealth or

provide saeguards to the men and women whose living conditions havebeen disrupted by evolving trade rules and trade patterns. See: www.wto.

org/english/news_e/sppl_e/sppl146_e.htm or the ull text o his remarks.

53 See, or instance, the work o Focus on the Global South, the Third World

Network, and coalitions like Jubilee South, etc.

Though human rights have been declaredone o the UNs three pillars, its humanrights system has not been a signifcant playerin UN responses to the recent economic crisis

or on economic aairs in general.


19/28


legitiMacyand accountability

The crisis in global economic governance is essentially a crisis olegitimacy and accountability. The recommendations o the Stiglitz

Commission or a new Global Economic Coordination Councilwithin the auspices o the UN, mirroring the UN Security Council,

do not seem to have gained the necessary traction.54 However,

rising economic powers such as India, Brazil and South Aricaappear to have made some progress in claiming a greater role

in global decision-making. The G-20, which has quickly risenin its infuence on global economic matters, also includes in its

membership Argentina, Mexico and Indonesia. The G-20 regardsitsel as representative and legitimate because o its geographical

composition (members are drawn rom all continents), its share

o the global population (two-thirds) and its share o world grossnational product (around 90 percent). However, does this entitlethe G-20 to discuss and resolve issues that aect the large number

o smaller and poorer states?

As some Colloquium participants observed, the G-20 representsa politically expedient realignment o global and regional power

in a multi-polar world rather than a undamental shit in underlyingvalues o global economic governance. This is evidenced by

the groups lack o willingness to set or monitor clear normativestandards, especially ones respectul o human rights. So ar, the

G-20 has acted primarily to coordinate emergency responses tothe collapse o banks and nancial markets rather than on long-

term refection o the systemic faws o the global economy. To

eectively address issues o legitimacy, issues like the rise othe G-20 and the excessive tilt o UN Security Council in avour

o the global North (which eeds the case to reorm it) must beaddressed.

Reorm o the IMF and the WB has also been widely discussed,notably their decision-making processes, conditionality based-

lending, and democratisation. Accountability is a key issue inthis context. A large accountability gap separates those who

make decisions concerning the global economy and those whoare aected by those decisions. Several Colloquium participants

argued that it is nevertheless important to continue to ocus on theaccountability o national governments, though views diered about

the extent to which international action could help to accomplish

this objective. To restore public trust in international institutions, itis critical that inter-governmental and international institutions, as

well as non-state economic actors (notably corporations), are heldaccountable or their actions and decisions.55

There is no political consensus on the primacyo human rightsand their relevance toglobal economic governance is even lessaccepted. Are new norms the answer? Or, dohuman rights advocates have to do even moreto orce a political consensus rom belowbydemonstrating the relevance o human rights to

securing economic and social justice.

What does accountability imply? Traditionally, the human rightscommunity tends to ocus on judicial accountability, which has

limited purchase on issues o economic policy in the international

context. Those seeking to make institutions and structures moreresponsive and accountable may have to consider the proper

balance betweenjudicialisingand politicisingaccountability. Forexample, though it will be important to strengthen ongoing work

on the notion o transnational or extraterritorial legal obligationsregarding human rights (since this might oer additional levers or

infuencing global economic and nancial decision-making), it is

important to look beyond this. New approaches to accountabilitymay be needed that build on ideas such as shared responsibility

and solidarity, and on eective public advocacy strategies,to achieve change. In widening the normative underpinnings o

accountability, it is pertinent to consider how ideas like sharedresponsibility and solidarity, not new in themselves, oer

consensual rameworks o action around shared concerns.56

Several participants at the Colloquium warned that, when

pressing or reorm, human rights advocates should resist theinstrumentalisation and tactical adoption o human rights language,

an approach oten employed by economic and nancial institutions.Equally important will be the demand or accountability: it will not

be achieved i those who are least well served by current nationaland global economic policies do not call or it.

A signicant obstacle here, noted by many participants, is theweakness o global and regional human rights enorcement

mechanisms, which are widely perceived to lack bite and in manycases also lack legitimacy, as highlighted by criticisms o the UN

Human Rights Council, or instance. On several levels, thereore,

infuencing and reorming the institutional architecture o globaleconomic governance presents signicant challenges.

Alarge accountability gap separates thosewho make decisions concerning the globaleconomy and those who are aected by thosedecisions.

Human rights advocates should resist theinstrumentalisation and tactical adoptiono human rights language an approachoten employed by international economic andfnancial institutions.

Is it time to reconsider the balance between judicialising and politicising accountability?What are the possibilities o new approachesto accountability that build on ideas such asshared responsibility and solidarity?

54 Report o the Commission o Experts o the President o the United Nations

General Assembly on Reorms o the International Monetary and Financial

System, September 2009.

55 US and EU cotton production and export policies and their impact onWest and Central Arica coming to grips with international human rights

obligations, 3D and EGI, May 2004; and Ovett, Making Trade Policies More

Accountable and Human Rights Consistent: A NGO Perspective o Using

Human rights instruments in the Case o access to Medicines, 3D, 2006.

56 See, or instance, the Report o the Independent Expert on human rights and

international solidarity, A/HRC/12/27, 22 July 2009.


20/28

iv. oppoRtunities and cHallenges oR Human RigHts advocacy

Preceding sections have already highlighted questions, challenges

and opportunities that ace human rights advocates when theyconsider economic policy-making. This section captures some o

the more general conclusions that emerged rom the Colloquium.

Despite the complexity o applying the human rights ramework

in this area, much work has already been done to illustrate the

relevance o human rights to social policy.57

A large body oliterature addresses various dimensions o global economic andnancial governance and related issues (e.g., climate change,

debt, aid) rom a human rights perspective. In addition, various

UN human rights mechanisms, especially the Oce o the HighCommissioner or Human Rights and a growing number o

Special Procedures, have produced analyses o oreign debt,extreme poverty, ood security, water, social security programmes,

education, etc. that help substantiate the links between protectiono human rights and economic policy-making.

huMan rightsasan ethical lens

As work in this area progresses, it will be important or all actors

involved to consider two distinct strengths o the internationalhuman rights ramework: its emphasis on accountability (the

clear identication o duties and o the persons and institutionsresponsible or honouring them, supported by legal consequences

or misconduct) and its internationally recognised ethical values oparticipation (non-discrimination and transparency), which can be

applied to the design and evaluation o policy.

Attempts have already been made to use human rights to audit

macro-economic policy, drawing on basic human principles and

the respect, protect and ull ramework.58 Human rightsbasedaudits o national and local authority budgets, human rights impact

assessments, and eorts to develop human rights benchmarksand indicators all provide valuable elements to build on.59

Even where the human rights ramework is insuciently precise,human rights principles (i.e., non-discrimination, gender equality,

protection or vulnerable groups, the ullment o minimum corestandards o shelter, health, education and social security, non-

retrogression, participation, access to remedies) have signicantuniversal resonance. The current economic crisis has created

opportunities to advance the idea that national and global

economic and nancial regimes must have social content andrefect a oundation o values. Human rights principles can meet

this expectation.

the issueof unequal power

Many Colloquium participants highlighted the need to analysemore deeply the power relations in economic policy-making. They

suggested that human rights interventions on economic policy,and on social and economic rights in general, need to integrate

an analysis o power dierentials (e.g., between genders, classes,

regions, nations). It is not sucient to highlight individual violations oeconomic and social rights; analysis needs to question the underlyingstructures and relationships (and the collective responsibility o

States in perpetuating them) that generate violations. I advocates

o rights do not take this step, they risk losing political credibilityamong activists seeking social justice and may be perceived as

justiying and deending the status quo.

More self-reflection

The economic and also the environmental crisis have made it clearthat a range o actors needs to give more substantial attention

to the ethical underpinnings o the global economy and globalgovernance issues. It is widely acknowledged that human rights

advocates generally lag behind other sectors o civil society ingiving attention to economic policy matters, and need to take a

more visible role in debates on poverty reduction.

Questions raised at the Colloquium included:

Do human rights organisations need to change or adapthuman rights norms to engage more eectively on economic

matters?

What are the implications o the ocus on poverty and economic

justice or human rights organisations and their work?

In particular, how should human rights organisations adapttheir institutional culture and practices to respond to these new

realities?

How can dierences between approaches to the challenge o

poverty and inequality (both within the economics proessionand human rights organisations and their potential allies, such

as soci

human rights in the global economy - colloquium report 2010

Documents