Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
N. J. Udombana*
[F]our fifths of the world’s population no longer accept that the remaining fifth should
continue to build its wealth on their poverty.1
I. INTRODUCTION
* N.J. Udombana obtained his LL.B. (with Honors) degree from the University of Lagos, Akoka,
Nigeria, in 1988, and a law degree from the Nigerian Law School. He received an LL.M. in
1991 from University of Lagos. In 1994, he joined the University of Lagos Department of
Jurisprudence and International Law, Faculty of Law. His research interests are in the areas of
International Law (with specialization in Human Rights and Environmental Laws), Jurispru-
dence, and Constitutional Law.
The author wishes to express thanks to Professor Yemi Osinbajo of the University of Lagos
for his advice and comments on the initial draft. Any error in the final work is, however, my
responsibility.
1. See Mohammed Bedjaoui, The Right to Development, in INTERNATIONAL LAW: ACHIEVEMENT
AND PROSPECTS 1177, 1182 (Mohammed Bedjaou ed., 1991), excerpted in HENRY J. STEINER
& PHILIP ALSTON, INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT 1117 (1996).
Human Rights Quarterly 22 (2000) 753–787 © 2000 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
754 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
and those who suffer. There are walls that consign whole sectors of society
to an existence barely worth the name. In short, there are walls of
underdevelopment.
So although some walls are falling, this is not the time to be
complacent. It is not yet the time to celebrate Uhuru. The process is just
beginning. New structures are yet to be built. Besides, there are still “many
more lands to be possessed.”2 There are many more battles to be fought,
many victories to be declared. Only an emergency organization—“a war
syndrome”—can win this war.
This article seeks to examine the concept of “the right to development,”
or “development rights,” in relation to the Third World. Is the right to
development an inalienable right? If so, what priority should countries of the
Third World give to development? Should they place it above other rights?
Can this be legally justified? How can Third World countries balance
economic growth with basic human needs—and human rights? This article
will also consider the consequences for the new millenium of the near-
universal embrace of the market economy and the effects of the globaliza-
tion of the economy on the right to development. What are the challenges
that the right to development creates for contemporary international law?
A. “Third World”
Alfred Sauvy first used the expression “Third World” in 1955.3 It has, since
then, caught on very successfully. However, a satisfactory definition has yet
to be elaborated. The Chinese invented the theory of the “three worlds.”4
The first was constituted by the dual American-Soviet hegemony. The
second consisted of such countries as China, the Western European States,
Japan, Canada, and Australia. The last corresponded precisely to the
developing countries, also described as the “Third World.”
The term “Third World” can be defined according to many criteria. It
can, for example, be defined from the political perspective. In this sense, it
represents a group of states attached neither to the capitalist camp nor to the
communist bloc; they are the non-aligned countries. Also, “Third World”
can be defined from the economic perspective. In this sense, it means
countries with the common characteristics of underdevelopment.
B. Development v. Underdevelopment
14. See Development and Human Rights: Report of a meeting held on July 7, 1980, 6 HUM.
RTS. REV. 194, 195 (1981).
15. See id. at 195.
16. Id.
17. Yves Lacoste, Geographie du Sous-development (1976), quoted in BEDJAOUI, supra note
1, n.3 at 24.
18. See RODNEY, supra note 8, at 21.
19. See id.
758 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
1. Causes of Underdevelopment
20. See Abdellatif Ghissassi, in Eric Laurent ed., Un Monde a Refaire, Debats de France-
culture, Trois Jours pour la Planete 81 (Paris: Menges, 1977).
21. See, e.g., Report of the World Summit For Social Development: Copenhagen Declara-
tion on Social Development and Programme of Action of the World Summit for Social
Development, adopted 12 Mar. 1995, U.N. GAOR, Annex I, at 7, U.N. Doc. A/
CONF.166/9 (1995) [hereinafter Copenhagen Declaration].
22. See Lazar Mojsov in Laurent, supra note 20, at 144–45.
23. See BEDJAOUI, supra note 1, at 27.
24. See id. at 30 n. 2.
25. See id. at 31.
26. See the “intelligent, enlightening, provocative book,” as J.K. Galbraith describes it, SUSAN
GEORGE, HOW THE OTHER HALF DIES: THE REAL REASONS FOR WORLD HUNGER 26 (1977).
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 759
Clearly, the above concepts show that “Western man has escaped for
the moment the poverty which was for long his all-embracing fate.”27 That
statement is a very bold and comfortable assertion! However, the same
cannot be said of Third World countries. In this part of the globe, “poverty
had always been man’s normal lot.”28 There are vast millions of hungry,
discontented, and disoriented people in the Third World.
The World Summit for Social Development was held in Copenhagen
from 6 to 12 March 1995.29 The document that followed revealed, inter alia,
that more than one billion people in the world live in abject poverty. A large
proportion of these people have very limited access to income, resources,
education, health, or nutrition. The majority of these are women, and they
are found particularly in Africa and the least developed countries.30
What are the causes of such underdevelopment? This is an area where
the debates are fierce. The two major paradigms that have dominated the
field are the modernization theory and the dependency theory.31 Simply
stated, the modernization theory holds that development is an inevitable,
evolutionary process of increasing societal differentiation that would ulti-
mately produce economic, political, and social institutions similar to those
in the West. The outcome of this process would be the creation of a free
market system, liberal democratic political institutions, and the rule of law.32
Dependency theory, on the other hand, argues that the sources of underde-
velopment are to be found in the history and structure of the global
capitalist system. Underdevelopment of the Third World, according to these
writers, is the product of historical forces and a direct result of the contact
between the hitherto underdeveloped social formations and the forces of
Western imperialism.33
The historical and political reasons for the present disorder can be
mainly expressed in terms of imperialism, colonialism, and neocolonial-
ism.34 Dependence, exploitation, the looting of the resources of the Third
because not all human rights abuses in the Third World are the results of
historical process. Many are consequences of the internal political decisions
of sovereign Third World states. These states are laboring under the yoke of
dictators, who have planted seeds of discord in their various countries.42
C. Right to Development
42. See N.J. Udombana, The Rule of Law and the Rule of Man in a Military Dictatorship in
CURRENT THEMES IN NIGERIAN LAW 73 (I.O. Agbede & E.O. Akanki eds., 1997); see generally
Richard Falk, Militarization and Human Rights in the Third World, 8 BULLETIN OF PEACE
PROPOSALS 220 (1977).
43. See, e.g., Karl Vasak, A 30-year Struggle, 11 UNESCO COURIER 29 (1977).
44. See C. Welch Jr., Human Rights as a Problem in Contemporary Africa, in HUMAN RIGHTS
AND DEVELOPMENT IN AFRICA 24 (Welch and Meltzer eds., 1984).
45. Karel Vasak, For the Third Generation of Human Rights: The Right of Solidarity,
Inaugural Lecture, Tenth Study Session, Int’l Inst. of Hum. Rts., July 1979.
46. See Cees Flinterman, Three Generations of Human Rights, in HUMAN RIGHTS IN A PLURALIST
WORLD 76 (Jan Berting et al. eds., 1990).
47. See id.
48. See id.
49. See Karel Vasak, For the Third Generation of Human Rights: The Right of Solidarity,
Inaugural Lecture, Tenth Study Session, International Institute of Human Rights, July
1979, at 3.
762 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
Many factors were responsible for the emergence of the category of rights
involved in development. One was the emergence of a numerically
dominant group of developing countries. This itself was a result of the wave
of decolonization that peaked in the late 1960s. This development led to the
elevation of economic development goals to the top of the international
agenda.59 There was feverish resentment over the negative consequences of
colonialism, although the former colonial powers were reticent in recogniz-
ing continuing obligations towards the people concerned. Third World
countries were, however, undaunted; they called for reparations.
In terms of the UN human rights debate, there were demands that
greater attention be paid to economic and social rights and that colonial-
ism—and neocolonialism—were gross violations of international law.60
Third World countries argued that some form of development cooperation
should be put in place. They insisted that the imperialist world had a legally
binding obligation to do so. They demanded some form of specific transfers
of capital, technology, or other goods and services. These, they contended,
should be seen as entitlements, not acts of welfare or charity.61
Another factor leading to the emergence of development rights was the
1973 Arab oil embargo. The embargo itself was because of the Yom Kippur
war—or “War of Ramadan,” as some prefer to call it.62 Further, the intensity
of the North-South divide heightened. All gave rise to the search for a “New
International Economic Order.”63
In regards to the UN activities in this area, 26 November 1957 was a
historical epoch. On that date, the General Assembly expressed the view
that a balanced and integrated economic and social development would
contribute towards the promotion and maintenance of peace and security,
social progress and better standards of living, and the observance of and
respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.64
may not use the language of rights. Sources of information on development and human
rights include newspapers, the publications and documents of international organiza-
tions, books and articles. A few of these will be referred to in the course of the
discussion. But see generally, Bibliography. Symposium: Development as an Emerging
Human Rights, 15 CAL. WESTERN INT’L L.J. 639–46 (1985).
59. Philip Alston, Revitalising United Nations Work on Human Rights and Development, 18
MELB. U.L. REV. 216, 218 (1992).
60. See id.
61. See id. at 219.
62. See BEDJAOUI, supra note 3, at 21.
63. See, e.g., Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order
(NIEO), UN G.A. Res. 3201 (S-VI) of May 1,1974. The NIEO comprises three
ingredients. The first is the elimination of the economic dependence of developing
countries on developed country enterprise. The second is to promote the accelerated
development of the economies of the developing countries on the principle of self-
reliance. The third is the introduction of appropriate institutional changes for the global
management of world resources in the interests of mankind as a whole. See Hope, Basic
Needs and Technology Transfer Issues in the New International Economic Order, 42
AM. J. ECON. & SOC. 394 (1983).
64. See G.A. Res. 1161 (XII) (1957), 1957 U.N.Y.B. 1161, Sales No. 58.I.1.
764 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
65. See G.A. Res. 1710 (XVI) (1961), 1961 U.N.Y.B. 1710, Sales No. 62.I.1.
66. See Measures to Accelerate the Promotion of Respect for Human Rights and Fundamen-
tal Freedoms, G.A. Res. 2027 (XX) (1965), U.N. GAOR, 1381st plen. mtg.
67. See id.
68. U.N. Doc. E/3347/Rev. 1 (1960).
69. Id. at ¶ 90.
70. First UN World Conference on Human Rights, 22 April–13 May 1968. See G.A. Res.
2081 (XX) of 20 December 1965.
71. See G.A. Res. 1161 (XII) (1957).
72. Proclamation of Teheran, Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights,
22 April–13 May 1968, ¶ 12. For the text of the Proclamation, see THE UNITED NATIONS
AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 1945–95, at 247 (1995).
73. See Declaration on Social Progress and Development G.A. Res. 2542 (XXIV) (1969),
1969 U.N.Y.B. 2542, Sales No. E.71.I.1.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 765
that social progress and development shall aim at the continuous raising of
the material and spiritual standards of living of all members of society.74
Such shall be done with respect for and in compliance with human rights
and fundamental freedoms. Since then, the relationship between human
rights and development has occupied a prominent place in the international
discourse of rights.
The political economy of human rights thereafter found increased
resonance in the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States.75 The
purpose of the Charter was to give a formal legal basis to earlier demands
and principles concerning the establishment of a new international eco-
nomic order.76 In the preamble to the Charter, the General Assembly
stressed that “the Charter shall constitute an effective instrument towards the
establishment of a new system of international economic relations based on
equity, sovereign equality, and interdependence of the interests of the
developed and developing countries.”77
In 1977, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a
resolution stating that “Human rights questions should be examined
globally, taking into account both the overall context of the various societies
in which they represent themselves as well as the need for the promotion of
the full dignity of the human person and the development and well-being of
the society.”78
In the same year, the Commission on Human Rights decided to pay
special attention to consideration of the obstacles hindering the full realiza-
tion of economic, social, and cultural rights, particularly in the developing
countries.79 It also decided to pay attention to the actions taken at the national
and international levels to secure the enjoyment of those rights. It recognized
the right to development as a human right. It recommended to the Economic
and Social Council that it should invite the UN Secretary-General to study
“[t]he international dimensions of the right to development as a human right”
in relation to other human rights based on international cooperation,
including the right to peace, taking into account the requirements of the New
International Economic Order and the fundamental human needs.80
81. See Akin Oyebode, UN and the Protection of Human Rights in Africa, in AFRICA AND THE
UN SYSTEM: THE FIRST FIFTY YEARS 90, 92 (G.A. Obiozor & A. Ajala eds., 1998).
82. See STEINER & ALSTON, supra note 53, at 1110.
83. Declaration on the Right to Development, G.A. Res. 41/128, annex, 41 U.N. GAOR
Supp. (No. 53) at 186, U.N. Doc. A/41/153 (1986) [hereinafter DRD].
84. The Federal Republic of Germany maintained that the DRD would lead to the erosion
of individual rights. Japan maintained that the right to development might be invoked to
legitimize violations of the rights of citizens. Australia maintained that the DRD failed to
draw a distinction between people’s rights and individual rights. The United States
maintained that the DRD tended to dilute and confuse the human rights agenda. The
United Kingdom maintained that the Declaration provided an over-simplified view of
the complex relationship between disarmament, security and development. It further
maintained that the Declaration provided a mistaken link between the promotion of
human right and the establishment of a new international economic order.
85. The United States was the sole country to vote against it. This “signals the continued
need for rich capitalist nations to recognise the legitimate rights claims of poor nation.”
Howard, supra note 54, at 215.
86. See DRD, supra note 83, pmbl. ¶ 2.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 767
human right by virtue of every human person and all peoples entitled to
participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, socio-cultural, and
political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms
can be fully realized.87 It further declares that the right to development
implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination. This
includes the exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to full sovereignty
over the entire natural wealth and resources.88
Human beings have a responsibility for development, both individually
and collectively. They should take into account the need for full respect of
their human rights and fundamental freedoms. They should take into
account their duties to the community. They should promote and protect an
appropriate political, social, and economic order for development. This
alone can ensure the free and complete fulfillment of the human being.89
According to Article 2(3), states also have the right and the duty90 to
formulate appropriate national development policies. Such policies should
be aimed at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire
population. The basis is their active, free, and meaningful participation in
development and in the fair distribution of the resulting benefits. States, the
DRD continues, also have the “duty to formulate international development
policies that aim at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire
population and of all individuals . . .”91
States are to undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for
the realization of the right to development.92 They are to ensure, inter alia,
equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources. These
include education, health services, food, housing, employment, and the fair
distribution of income. Recognizing that women often suffer substantial and
disproportionate difficulties in securing human rights, the DRD provides
that effective measures are to be taken to ensure that women have an active
role in the development process. Appropriate economic and social reforms
are to be carried out with a view to eradicating all social injustices.93
Article 3(3) of the DRD provides that states have the duty to cooperate
C. Arising Matters
Some pertinent questions may be asked at this stage. To whose benefit does
the right to development inure? Is it to the state or to the individual? Is the
state the bearer or beneficiary of development rights? Put in another way, is
the individual the subject of development rights?
Some believe that the right to development was conceived long before
being addressed in the context of the emerging “International Law of
Development,” and as one of its constituent elements. Thus, originally, it
was conceived of as one of the human rights of the individual.94 In fact, the
concept of an “International Development Right” was first implied by the
resolution of the International Labor Organization (ILO) conference in
Philadelphia to the effect that “[A]ll human beings, irrespective of race,
creed or sex, have the right to pursue both their material well being and
their spiritual freedom and dignity, in conditions of economic security and
equal opportunity.”95
That resolution was passed in May 1944. Sometime after this, the right
to development continued to be conceived of as a “human right.” It was,
therefore, contemplated by, or implied in, some of those rights enumerated
in the post World War II universal and regional instruments.96
The United Nations Study on the International Dimension on the Right
to Development97 also attests to this. It makes the individual the sole
beneficiary of this right. The study identified the following elements as
forming part of the concept of development:
(i) The realization of the potentialities of the human person in harmony with the
community should be seen as the central purpose of development;
(ii) The human person should be regarded as the subject and the object of the
development process;
94. See F.V. GARCIA AMADOR,THE EMERGING INTERNATIONAL LAW OF DEVELOPMENT 49 (1990).
95. See General Conference of the International Labour Organization (26th Sess.), adopted
12 May 1944, available on International Labour Organization <http://ilolex.ilo.ch:1567/
public/english/docs/convdisp.htm>.
96. See e.g., Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted 10 Dec. 1948, G.A. Res. 217
A(III), U.N. GAOR, 3d Sess., (Resolutions, pt. 1), at 71, arts. 22–27, U.N. Doc A/810
(1948), reprinted in 43 AM. J. INT’L L. SUPP. 127 (1949); arts. XI–XIV of the American
Declaration of Rights and Duties of States (1948).
97. See U.N. ESCOR, 35th sess., Agenda Item 8, ¶ 27, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1334 (1979).
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 769
98. Id.
99. See CHR/Res./5 (XXXV).
100. See G.A. Res./34/46 (1979).
101. See CHR/Res./6 (XXXVI) (1980).
102. See GEORGES ABI-SAAB, The Legal Formulation of a Right to Development in Academy of
International Law, in THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL 164 (René Jean
ed., 1980).
103. Id.
104. The right to self-determination is a cornerstone of the international legal system, and has
been a premier concern of the international community since the creation of the Untied
Nations in 1945. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, adopted 16
Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR, 21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, art. 1, U.N.
Doc. A/6316 (1966), 999 U.N.T.s. 171 (entered into force 23 Mar. 1976) provides, for
example, in article 1 that “[a]ll people have the right to self-determination. By virtue of
770 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
recognize at the same time a “right to development” for the peoples that
have achieved self-determination. This right to development must be an
“inherent” and “built-in” right forming an inseparable part of the right to
self-determination.105 This makes the right to development much more a
right of the state or of the people, than a right of the individual.106 According
to this view, therefore, the primary responsibility for development and
human rights rests with nations themselves. This is a matter of self-
determination. There is no doubt, from all of the above, that the right to
development is a core right. All other rights stem from, or point to, this right.
It is “[t]he precondition of liberty, progress, justice and creativity. It is the
alpha and omega of human rights, the first and last human right, the
beginning and the end, the means and the goal of human rights.”107 The
DRD itself attests to this. It enjoins states to take steps to eliminate obstacles
to development resulting from failure to observe civil and political rights, as
well as economic, social, and cultural rights.108
It is submitted that the DRD is a document oriented to human rights. It
places due emphasis on the central position of the human person in the
development process. It is an important contribution to the debate on
human rights and development. Besides, it is an important contribution to
national and international policies in this area. Its adoption marked a
turning point, expressing a new way of regarding the very concept of
“development” following the failures of national and international develop-
ment policies. This failure had been attested to by the increasing concentra-
tion of wealth and power in the hands of a few.
With the adoption of the DRD, the international community questioned
for the first time the idea that the primary objective of economic activity was
to improve economic and financial indicators.109 Instead, it placed human
beings, individually and collectively, at the center of all economic activity110
that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic,
social, and cultural development.” See also The International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, adopted 16 Dec. 1966, G.A. Res. 2200 (XXI), U.N. GAOR,
21st Sess., Supp. No. 16, art. 1(1), U.N. Doc. A/6316 (1966), 993 U.N.T.S. 3 (entered
into force 3 Jan. 1976). The self-determination provisions are important because the
realization of this right is a fundamental prerequisite for the effective guarantee and
observance of individual human rights. It is also pivotal in securing and strengthening
human rights protection measures. See CENTER FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, FACT SHEET NO. 16
(Rev. 1), at 7.
105. See BEDJAOUI, supra note 1.
106. See id.; Jack Donnely, In Search of the Unicorn: The Jurisprudence and Politics of the
Right to Development, 15 CAL. W. INT’L L.J. 473, 482 (1985).
107. BEDJAOUI, supra note 53; see also Weeramantry, The Right to Development, 25 IND. J.
INT’L. L. 482 (1985).
108. See DRD, supra note 83, art. 6(3).
109. See THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 75.
110. See DRD, supra note 83, pmbl. ¶ 13.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 771
provides, inter alia, that “[a]ll peoples shall have the right to their economic,
social and cultural development, with due regard to their freedom and
identity and in equal enjoyment of the common heritage of mankind. States
shall have the duty, individually and collectively, to ensure the exercise of
the right to development.”118 We are, thus, not short of rhetoric. The
blueprints for a more just international and social order, oriented toward
human rights, are available. They are, in fact, well-conceived. The problem,
however, is with the implementation of these lofty proclamations. In other
words, realities are in very short supply. The gap between standards—of
justice, achievement, and performance—and aspiration is evident every-
where.
From what has been said so far, the evolution of conceptions about
development has led to the following efforts: to reflect about the ultimate
objective of development; to move away from considering development
just as an economic process or a set of economic measures; to include the
satisfaction of material and non-material needs as objectives of the develop-
ment process; to emphasize the role of the individual as beneficiary and as
actor while also stressing the rights of nations; and to look into more
contextual factors, such as the international order and the environment.119
What, then, must be done? How do countries of the Third World
prepare for the next millennium? Two approaches will be adopted by this
article in positing an answer. One approach looks to domestic remedies and
the other to international cooperation.
A. Domestic Remedies
and strategy, taking due account of the specific situation of each country. It
must, of course, not ignore economic realities.121 This is where the right to
development becomes relevant. There must be a Third World redefinition of
development, one that is suitable to Third World needs. Too often, Third
World countries tend to overlook this in their search for development.
The Third World perception of development is, and must be, different
from those of foreign interests.122 As Frantz Fanon reminds us, “Let us not
pay tribute to Europe by creating states, and societies which drew their
inspiration from her. . . . If we wish to live up to our people’s expectations,
we must seek the response elsewhere than in Europe.”123 Every society must
work in a deliberate and carefully structured way to ensure the enjoyment
by all its members of their economic, social, and cultural rights. For Third
World countries, it is essential that specific policies and programs be
devised and implemented by their governments that are aimed at ensuring
respect for the economic, social, and cultural rights of their citizens.124
Countries of the Third World should turn inwards because charity begins at
home. They must devise internal strategies for economic growth. They must
develop their own resources and technology. Their future will remain bleak
as long as they continue to copy foreign patterns of development.125 They
should search for means of development within their own resources. They
must change their attitude of depending on the goodwill of others. The child
must now become the “father of the man.”126 They must, consequently,
begin to pay more attention to the traditional values and attitudes of their
societies.
The aim of development is not only economic and financial efficiency
and improvement of the principal macroeconomic indicators, such as gross
national product and the balance of trade and payments. The aim of this
complex process is, in substance, to increase the active participation of the
population as a whole. An individual’s, or a people’s, right to development
places a concomitant duty on the state to ensure for each individual the full
and free right of participation and benefit from the development process of
society as a whole.127
Development should promote social change centered on people. It
121. See THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 75.
122. See Weeramantry, supra note 107.
123. FANON, supra note 34, at 315.
124. See, e.g., Statement to the World Conference on Human Rights on behalf of the
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, U.N. Doc. E/1993/22, Annex III.
125. See Augustin Oyowe, The Way ahead for Africa, 156 THE ACP-EU COURIER 1996, at 72.
126. THE POEMS OF WILLIAM WORDSWORTH 115 (NOWELL CHARLES SMITH ed., 1908).
127. See Ved Nanda, Development and Human Rights: The Role of International Law and
Organizations, HUMAN RIGHTS AND THIRD WORLD DEVELOPMENT 301(G.W. Shepherd, Jr. & Y.P.
Nanda eds., 1985).
774 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
128. See THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 76.
129. The notion of happiness lacks philosophical exactitude. There is no agreement on its
substance or source. We, however, know that it is “a profound instinctive union with
the stream of life.” BERTRAND RUSSELL, THE CONQUEST OF HAPPINESS 249 (1930). Cf. BILLY
GRAHAM, THE SECRET OF HAPPINESS Preface (1956). There happiness is associated with
“serenity, confidence, contentment, peace, joy and soul satisfaction.”
130. C.S. LEWIS, MERE CHRISTIANITY 167 (1944).
131. The basic needs approach goes back to the World Employment Conference of 1976.
During the Conference, the Dutch Minister for Development Cooperation suggested
that a basic needs strategy should constitute a central theme or basis for the work of the
whole UN system. Such a strategy should concentrate on those most in need and on
essential human needs. For a history of the emergence of the basic needs strategy, see
UNESCO Doc. 105 EX17 ¶¶ 16–54 (22 Sept. 1978).
132. See N.J. Udombana, Socio-Economic Rights and the Nigerian Worker, 3 MOD. PRACTICE
J. FIN. & INVEST. L. 397, 411 (1999).
133. JEAN DRÈZE & AMARTYA SEN, HUNGER AND PUBLIC ACTION 20 (1989).
134. See GALBRAITH, supra note 27, at 274.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 775
Bread, of course, is very important; in fact, man cannot live without it!
However, the tapestry is much larger. Other values need to be considered,
too. The basic-needs strategy, unfortunately, has been used as a convenient
excuse by countries of the Third World. It is as if the only problem of
developing countries is to provide the maximum requirements necessary for
subsistence.
What is wrong with “basic needs”? It is a diversion and a cold-blooded
strategem. It carves people into layers of poverty—relative and absolute—
and sets up arbitrary statistical criteria of judging levels of growth. In the
end, a focus on basic needs aims at ameliorating rather than eradicating
poverty.135 A strategy that aims only to satisfy basic needs would, if followed,
reduce the stature of the human race.136
Third World development must, therefore, be geared towards a larger
end. The promise of a better life in the next millennium must, consequently,
be matched with concrete development plans. The hope for survival,
security, and contentment requires that our governments direct their
resources to the most urgent needs. They must get their acts together; these
efforts must go beyond bogus and fraudulent contrivances. They must, for
example, go beyond Vision 2010137 that the Abacha misrule put in place for
Nigeria. Countries of the Third World must get matters into better perspec-
tive. Their priorities must be right. They must be more consistent with life
itself.
The Third World has the human and material resources necessary to
eliminate poverty and other incidents of underdevelopment. To achieve
this, however, their governments must accept certain standards of good
governance, which should be based on legitimacy, accountability, compe-
tence, and respect for human rights. Countries of the Third World are
presently undergoing momentous political transformations. Their citizens
are yearning and clamouring for democracy.
Military rule and dictatorship are increasingly becoming an aberration.
The burden of proof is now on military regimes to show reasons why they
must not democratize. In most cases, they have failed to discharge this
burden. And, as contemporary experiences show, the international commu-
nity is beginning to isolate dictators. Hopefully, the tempo of democratiza-
tion will increase in the new millennium.
135. See Altaf Gauhar, What is Wrong with Basic Needs?, 4 THIRD WORLD Q. xxi (July 1982).
136. See U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/A/SR 1489.
137. The “Vision 2010” Committee was empanelled to draw up, inter alia, an economic
blueprint for Nigeria for the next millenium. The Committee, headed by Chief Ernest
Shonekan, was obviously a talk shop. It provided relief for the dictator who was being
pressurized to convene a Sovereign National Conference to address fundamental
national issues. See Report of the Vision 2010 Committee, available on <http://
www.nigeriangalleria.com/business/2010.html>.
776 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
138. Jose Diokno, Text of the Amnesty International 1978 Sean MacBride Human Rights
Lecture, AI Index: ICM01/11/78.
139. U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1488, 31 Dec. 1981, cited in THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS,
supra note 72, at 76.
140. According to the 1996 ANNUAL CORRUPTION PERCEPTION INDEX, published by Transparency
International, an NGO, the most corrupt country was judged to be Nigeria, followed by
Pakistan, Kenya, Bangladesh, and China, quoted in UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT REPORT of
1998 for Nigeria, at 31.
141. See THE GUARDIAN (Nigeria), 9 Mar. 2000, at 8.
142. See THE GUARDIAN (Nigeria), 8 Feb. 2000, at 1. In 1992, it was reported in The Financial
Times that 300 Nigerians own over U.S. $30 billion in European and North American
banks. Similar cases of mind-boggling foreign accounts belonging to other African
citizens abound. See Afe Babalola, Legal and Judicial Systems and Corruption, in
CORRUPTION, DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN WEST AFRICA, 93, 94 (A. Aderinwale ed., 1994).
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 777
150. See J.J. Olloqui, The International Debt Crisis in INTERNATIONAL FINANCE AND EXTERNAL DEBT
MANAGEMENT 5 (Lagos: UNCTC/UNDP/FMJ, 1991); Yemi Osinbajo & Olukonyinsola
Ajayi, External Debt Management: Case Study of Nigeria INTERNATIONAL FINANCE 69.
151. See generally M.A. Ajomo et al., REGULATION OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT IN AN ERA OF STRUCTURAL
ADJUSTMENT; THE AFRICAN EXPERIENCE (1995).
152. See Osinbajo & Ajayi, supra note 6, at 731.
153. See World Debt and the Human Condition: Structural Adjustment and the Right to
Development (Ved P. Nanda et al. eds., 1993).
154. L. Michael Hager, 89 AM. J. INT’L L. 464 (1995).
155. Oyowo, supra note 125. See generally Tsui Selatile, African Alternative Framework to
Structural Adjustment Programme for Socio-Economic Recovery and Transformation, in
REGULATION OF TRADE AND INVESTMENT IN AN ERA OF STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT: THE AFRICAN EXPERIENCE
1 (1995).
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 779
B. International Cooperation
156. Their policies have become so deeply insinuated in national policies without the
concomitant accountability that usually accompanies political power. See J. Oloka-
Onyango, Beyond the Rhetoric: Reinvigorating the Struggle for Economic and Social
Rights in Africa, 26 CAL. WEST. INT’L L.J. 1, 10 (1995).
157. See CHARLES C. OKOLIE, INTERNATIONAL LAW PERSPECTIVES OF THE DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 4 (1978).
158. See WOLFGANG FRIEDMANN, THE CHANGING STRUCTURE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 60 (1964).
780 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
The relationship between the rich North and the poor South has
become central in international affairs. Growing disparities between the
developed and the developing countries and between population categories
are reflected in rising unemployment, deterioration in living standards,
acceleration in migratory movements, growing marginalization, and an
upsurge in poverty everywhere. These developments, and the burden of
debt servicing, has provoked a rise in social and political tensions and
conflicts and increased inequalities in the access to the right to develop-
ment.159 This imbalance between the industrialized countries and the
developing world appears to be complete; the asymmetry is abnormal and
the discrepancies frightening. These scales of imbalance make one’s head
swim. The inequalities are so fantastic! They allow some to have a surplus
and prevent others from obtaining the bare necessities.
All this is bound to lead to a major conflict situation if nothing is done
to address it. A situation where some people are the Wretched of the Earth
is inexorably endangering world peace.160 The resources of the earth belong
to the international community. They are “the common heritage of man-
kind” to borrow the expression of the Law of the Sea Convention.161 These
resources should be shared among all states in accordance with the maxim,
“to each according to his needs.”
Many different organizations spend a great deal of effort trying to find
ways to bridge this gap. They include the United Nations and its related
agencies such as the World Bank, the IMF, and the United Nations
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). Others organizations
are the Commonwealth, the Organization of African Unity (OAU), and the
Non-Aligned Movement. Their efforts, notwithstanding the disparities, are
constantly growing due in part to obstacles and incorrectly placed emphasis.
The obstacles to Third World development are many. The first major
constraint relates to insufficient transfers from multinational, bilateral, and
private sources, as compared to the growing needs.162 Then there is the
problem of unequal distribution of resources within international agencies.
The result is that social goals are at a disadvantage in comparison with
economic goals.
There is also the generalization of a sectoral approach favoring
economic growth. There is the tendency to separate macroeconomic
159. Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development on its Second Session, 5
Sept. 1994, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1995/11, excerpted in THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN
RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 481.
160. See FANON, supra note 34.
161. See Convention on the Law of the Sea, adopted 10 Dec. 1982 at art. 136, U.N. A/
CONF. 62/122, reprinted in 21 I.L.M. 1261 (1982).
162. See supra note 159.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 781
policies from social objectives. There is, finally, the problem of inadequate
coordination within the UN system.163
In regards to the United Nations, it must be stated here clearly that the
UN system has a responsibility to promote the right of development in the
Third World. This demands greater coordination of strategies and programs
and requires more effective cooperation in the field. It demands ongoing
consultation between specialized agencies and improved circulation of
information between them.
Further, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
(UNHCR)164 should play a more important role in the realization of the right
to development. This role is envisaged in the resolution that created the
post.165 Her key responsibilities include “the promotion and protection of
the realisation of the right to development and enhancing support from
relevant bodies of the United Nations system for that purpose.”166
Economic development and respect for human rights are the twin
foundations of peaceful and friendly relations among nations. Human rights
and economic development are interlinked and interdependent. One of the
linkages is through the firm association of each concept with the notion of
peace. Another is through the clear acceptance of economic and social
rights as well-established human rights. The two concepts are complemen-
tary to each other. They ought not to be treated as belonging to different
categories of study or enquiry.167
The legal obligation undertaken by states to promote and protect
human rights under the UN Charter,168 must extend to economic develop-
ment as well.169 This responsibility is not of a subsidiary or last-resort nature.
It reflects, as a universal principle, the unity of mankind. It reflects the
dignity and worth of all human beings. Recognition of this principle creates
new relationships between and within peoples and nations.170
The DRD stresses that states have the duty to cooperate in order to
163. See THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 77–78.
164. For its official Web site, see The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights,
<http://www.unhchr.ch>.
165. See General Assembly Resolution creating the post of the United Nations High
Commissioner for Human Rights, U.N. GAOR, G.A. Res. 48/141 of 20 Dec. 1993, cited
in THE UNITED NATIONS AND HUMAN RIGHTS, supra note 72, at 471.
166. Id. art. 4.
167. See M.G. Kaladharan Nayar, Human Rights and Economic Development: The Legal
Foundation, 2 UNIVERSAL HUM. RTS. 55 (1980).
168. See e.g., U.N. CHARTER arts. 55, 56, signed 26 Jun. 1945, 59 Stat. 1031, T.S. No. 993, 3
Bevans 1153 (entered into force 24 Oct. 1945).
169. This was the consensus of international experts expressed in Montreal Statement of the
Assembly for Human Rights, March 22–27, 1968 at VII.
170. See van Boven, supra note 112, at 133.
782 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
181. See MICHAEL BLAKENEY, LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE TRANSFER OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEVELOPING COUNTRIES 57
(1989).
182. See Solow, Technological Change and the Aggregate Production, 39 REV. ECON. &
STATISTICS (1957), quoted in Ewing, UNCTAD and the Transfer of Technology, 10 JWTL
197 (1976).
183. See generally Surendra J. Patel, The Technological Dependence of Developing
Countries, in 12 J. MOD. AFR. STUD. 9–13 (1974).
184. Previous attempts to put this in the agenda of the International Law Commission for
deliberation did not receive the approval of the Commission. One hopes that in the
immediate future, the Commission will revisit this crucial issue and place it in its agenda
for development and possible codification.
185. See, e.g., Lome IV Convention of November 4, 1885, art. 5, in ACP-EU COURIER NO. 155,
Jan.–Feb. 1996, at 11. “Cooperation shall be directed towards development centred on
man, the main protagonist and beneficiary of development, which thus entails respect
for and promotion of all human rights.” Id. The Resolution of the Council of European
Communities and of the Member States on Human Rights, Democracy and Develop-
ment, 28 Nov. 1991, is also worthy of note: “The Community and its Member states will
explicitly introduce the consideration of relations with developing countries: human
rights clauses will be inserted in future cooperation agreements. Regular discussions on
human rights and democracy will be held, within the framework of development
cooperation, with the aim of seeking improvement.” In 1992, the Council of Europe
issued statements on Zaire, Togo, Burundi, Kenya, Algeria, and Equatorial Guinea on
human rights situations with a view “to heighten public awareness issues and bring
pressure to bear on the governments I question to change their attitudes.” See Report on
the Implementation of the Resolution of the Council and of the Member States Meeting
in the Council on Human Rights, Democracy and Development, adopted on 28 Nov.
1991, Comm’n of the Eur. Communities, SEC (92) 1915, final communique, Brussels
(1992).
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 785
World countries whose governments violate the human rights of its citizens
in a gross, continuous, and systematic fashion. They should re-direct such
aid to the same population through local non-governmental organizations.186
The Western world must redirect the monetary and financial flows in a
manner more compatible with the imperatives of development.187 It should
also take the issue of debt relief very seriously.188 It must realize that the
monies it gave to the Third World by way of loans were monies stashed
away in foreign banks by greedy Third World leaders. The monies belong to
the Third World!
International cooperation must bring to bear a concerted effort to tackle
the obstacles to democracy. The West must recognize that underdeveloped
societies are not likely to become democratic. Democracy will not thrive in
instability. The West cannot simultaneously demand democracy and deny
development. It cannot expect people to cherish the ballots when their
stomachs are empty. Of what use is the right to vote to a hungry and angry
man? “The right to peaceful assembly, free speech and thought, fair trial,
etc. . . . appeal to people with a full stomach.”189 Therefore, the World Bank,
the IMF, the World Trade Organization, and other bilateral aid programs of
the West should do more in the area of development. Indeed, concepts
contained in the DRD should form, within their areas of competence, an
integral part of the policies and programs of these institutions. Action that
advances development is far more valuable in promoting democracy and
human rights than the admonition of the West. The Third World is asking for
action, not preaching, for action speaks louder than words. Again, practice
is better than precepts.
What are the tools for this development? They are the same as the tools
for democracy. They include education, the advancement of women, rule of
law, an independent press and judiciary, as well as freedom of expression
and assembly. These are the fundamental concepts underlying develop-
ment. If the developed world is serious about rendering assistance to the
Third World, it should place emphasis on these and related areas. It must
186. See Edward Broadbent, Human Rights and Democratic Development, in HUMAN RIGHTS
IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A GLOBAL CHALLENGE 717 (K.E. Mahoney & Paul Mahoney eds.,
1993).
187. See Georges Abi-Saab, supra note 102, at 171.
188. It is gratifying to note that the Nigerian government of Olusegun Obasanjo is seriously
discussing with Western nations on the possibility of debt relief for the country. There
appears to be positive signs. It is reported that Canada has cancelled Nigeria’s debts to
her. See THE GUARDIAN (Nigeria), 21 Aug. 1999, at 3. Other Third World leaders should
follow suit.
189. Claude Ake, The African Context of Human Rights, AFRICA TODAY 5 (1987). Cf. Rhoda
Howard, The “Full-Belly” Thesis: Should Economic Rights Take Priority over Civil and
Political Rights? Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa, 15 HUM. RTS. Q. 467 (1983).
786 HUMAN RIGHTS QUARTERLY Vol. 22
recognize that it has a duty to assist the less prosperous societies. And it
should do it in the spirit of partnership, practicality, and friendship, not in
condescension or with impatience.190
V. CONCLUSION
This article has attempted to show, in the last section, that developing Third
World countries have primary responsibility for their own economic and
social development in accordance with their priorities and plans, as well as
their political and cultural diversities. The article has also shown that
developed countries have a special responsibility, in the context of growing
interdependence, to create a global economic environment favorable to
accelerated and sustainable development.
As we begin the new millennium, it must be quickly pointed out that
the problems of the world will not all be solved. We do not even quite know
the shape of the problems. We do not, therefore, know the requirements for
solution. However, one thing is certain: the basic problems of mankind—
food, clothing, and shelter—will remain. These needs, however, vary in
degrees from country to country.
In a study dating from 1981, the UN Special Rapporteur on the right to
self-determination stressed that development must be defined in each
specific context and must be based on popular participation. Thus,
development can be neither exported nor imported. It presupposes taking into
consideration numerous economic, technical and social parameters and estab-
lishing priorities and setting growth rates on the basis of knowledge of needs,
conditions and external possibilities. It presupposes the participation of the
entire people inspired by a common ideal, and individual and collective
creativity in devising the most adequate solutions to problems arising from local
conditions, needs and aspirations.191
Countries of the Third World must, in the words of the Copenhagen
Declaration,192 “respond more effectively to the material and spiritual needs
of individuals, their families and the communities in which they live
throughout our diverse countries and regions.” They must do so as a matter
of urgency and with sustained and unshakeable commitment through the
years ahead.
190. See Petronella Maramba, Development and Human Rights: Introduction, in HUMAN
RIGHTS IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY: A GLOBAL CHALLENGE 679 (K.E. Mahoney & Paul Mahoney
eds.,1993).
191. See U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/Sub.2/404/Rev.1).
192. See Copenhagen Declaration, supra note 21, at 3.
2000 Agenda for the Next Millennium 787