Project topics and materials
Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »
Controversy at the UN
At the UN level, the disagreement on the RTD is characterised by the politicisation of the debate, the reflection of such politicisation in voting resolutions on the right and different approaches vis a vis the right by international organisations.
The politicisation of the debate
The idea of the RTD was designed by developing countries in the 1970s when they came together to claim the establishment of the NIEO568 to eliminate world injustice and allow third world countries to enjoy their development. Right from the start, there were two opposing camps: One developed and the other developing. The latter made up of countries in the Non- Aligned Movement (NAM) complained about their poverty and underdevelopment which could not be resolved through years of decolonisation process as well as years of development co-operation569 in which ‘developing countries continue to face difficulties in participating in the globalisation process, and that many risk being marginalised and effectively excluded from its benefits’.570 This claim did not sit well with the developed countries with the USA in the driving seat. As a result, throughout the numerous Working Groups on the RTD and the Open Ended Working Group led by Sengupta the Independent Expert on the right,571 the latter was the topic of ideological and political battles.
The fighters were divided in four camps: The most dynamic members of the NAM in the Working Group on the RTD, known as the ‘Like-Minded Group’ made of Algeria, Bangladesh, Bhutan, China, Cuba, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Malaysia, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Sudan, and Vietnam.572 This group views the RTD as the roadmap to reduce global inequities and stand for the institution of fair trade rules, technology transfer from the North to the South and the abolition of developing countries debts amongst others. A second group is made of more cautious developing countries that want to use human rights based approach in their national development plans and intend to keep good relations with the donor community at large.573
A third group comprises countries in transition and some wealthy countries. This group views the RTD as a bridge to enhance the North-South dialogue and is inclined to support the implementation of the right. The position of this group, especially the European Union (EU), is not always predictable because as Marks correctly observes, ‘they will go along with a resolution if nothing particularly objectionable is inserted or will abstain’.
The fourth group or the ‘outsiders’ is the one in which the USA always leads the votes against resolutions on the RTD. Japan, Denmark, Israel and Australia are the other members of this group. It is worth to note that the US rejection of the RTD is linked to its hegemonic ideologies implemented through the globalisation of capitalism.
The reflection of the politicisation of the debate on the voting pattern of RTD resolutions
This division on the RTD characterises the proceedings at the international level. The disagreement was manifest during the vote of the General Assembly Resolution 41/128 of 1986 proclaiming development as a human right, where the USA cast the only negative vote and eight other countries abstained.576 Even after 1986, the debates remain polarised at the UN. From 1998 to 2008, several resolutions on the RTD were adopted (some without votes) at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR or the Commission), (from 2006 Human Rights Council), and at the General Assembly. An examination of the voting pattern on the resolutions on the RTD at the UN level shows the following lack of unanimity:
In 1998, the resolution E/CN.4/RES/1998/72 was adopted at the CHR without a vote whereas at the General Assembly, 125 votes in favour, 1 vote against and 42 abstentions were recorded for the resolution A/RES/53/155. In 1999, the resolution E/CN.4/RES/1999/79 was adopted at the CHR without a vote and at the General Assembly 119 votes for, 10 against and 38 abstentions were recorded for the resolution A/RES/54/175. In 2000, the resolution E/CN.4/RES/2000/5 was adopted without vote at the CHR and the resolution A/RES/55/108 was also adopted without a vote at General Assembly. At the CHR in 2001 the EU (except the UK) was for the RTD, 3 abstentions (UK, Canada and the Republic of Korea) were recorded and Japan and the USA voted against.577 The same year (2001), at the 56th session of the General Assembly (September–December) 123 votes in favor and 4 against (Denmark, Israel, Japan, and the USA), with 44 abstentions were recorded.578 The abstaining countries included Australia, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, and the UK, who had voted for the resolution in the previous year.
At its 57th session in December 2002, where the General Assembly adopted the conclusions of the Open-Ended Working Group on the RTD, it recorded 133 votes in favor, 4 votes against (United States, Australia, the Marshall Islands and Palau), and 47 abstentions.580 At the CHR in April 2002, when the Commission (in the absence of the USA) was preparing the endorsement of the conclusions adopted by consensus at the third session of the Open Ended-Working Group, 38 countries voted for the RTD, 15 countries including the EU (incorporating the UK), Canada, Japan, South Korea abstained and there was zero vote against, perhaps because the USA was not member of the CHR in 2002.
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the study
1.2 Thesis statement
1.3 Research questions
1.4 Objectives of the study
1.5 Literature review
1.6 Research methodology
1.7 Limitations of the study
1.8 Scope of the study
1.9 Overview of chapters
CHAPTER 2 SETTING THE STAGE: CONCEPTUAL, CONTEXTUAL AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORKS
2.1 Introduction
2.2 Conceptual framework
2.3 The RTD and NEPAD: Historical and theoretical contexts
2.4 NEPAD: Historical and theoretical contexts
2.5 A critique of NEPAD
2.6 Criticism of the APRM and its good governance underpinnings
2.7 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 3 THE NATURE OF THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
3.1 Introduction
3.2 The content of the RTD
3.3 The RTD: A controversial human right
3.4 The normative force of the RTD
3.5 Implementation of the RTD
3.6 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 4 THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE AFRICAN HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Substantive provisions on the RTD in the African human rights system
4.3 The RTD in African national laws – Case studies
4.4 The jurisprudence of the African Commission on the RTD
4.5 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 5 NEPAD AND THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
5.1 Introduction
5.2 NEPAD and the holistic realisation of human rights
5.3 NEPAD’s legal status and the RTD
5.4 NEPAD and the right to participation
5.5 NEPAD, financial constraints and the RTD
5.6 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 6 INTEGRATION OF NEPAD INTO NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES: THE CASE OF CAMEROON AND SOUTH AFRICA
6.1 Introduction
6.2 NEPAD’s policies on integration of vulnerable groups and participation
6.3 The Cameroonian subprogramme to integrate the vulnerable groups into the economy
6.4 NEPAD and the Cameroonian subprogramme to integrate the vulnerable groups in the economy
6.5 The right to participation in Cameroon
6.6 NEPAD and the right to participation in Cameroon
6.7 Integration of vulnerable groups trough the New Growth Path in South Africa
6.8 NEPAD and the integration of vulnerable groups in South Africa
6.9 The right to participation in South Africa
6.10 NEPAD and the right to participation in South Africa
6.11 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 7 NEPAD, THE NEW GLOBAL PARTNERSHIP FOR DEVELOPMENT AND THE RTD
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Brief overview of the concept of partnership
7.3 NEPAD and the new global partnership
7.4 Concluding remarks
CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 Introduction
8.2 Summary of findings
8.3 Recommendations
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAHY
