I recently submitted my dissertation on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and human rights as the culmination of two years of studying for an LLM in International Law, Globalisation and Development (woohoo!). The dissertation discussed the relationship between human rights and development, and whether the 2030 Agenda (the document adopting the Goals) can more effectively support human rights and development than previous approaches. The following is a summary of the main issues and some basic conclusions.
A quick introduction to the Goals:
Point 1: Human rights and freedoms are minimum guarantees for human well-being
The most basic drive of any living being is survival. First and foremost then, human rights must guarantee survival, whether in terms of basic physical and psychological needs, or protection from extra-judicial execution, and so on.
Yet survival is not sufficient for well-being. Humans are self-aware, autonomous individuals, who - generally speaking - value their freedom to exercise that autonomy. Based on my reading, particularly of Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, human rights must therefore guarantee people the freedom to choose the life they want to lead. Beyond survival, this requires education, protection from discrimination, exploitation and arbitrary laws, judicial guarantees, social and political freedoms of expression, assembly and the press, and so on and so on.
(Obviously lawmakers must strike a balance when the way in which some want to live their lives impacts on the lives of others. Nevertheless, freedom remains a positive foundational principle.)
Point 2: Human rights and development are inseparable
Development is the process of enabling ever more people to enjoy their human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social or cultural.
The spark of this idea was really ignited while I was taking the module on development. It always seemed to me that what we were really talking about was creating a world in which everyone could enjoy their human rights. Where the economic, social, political and cultural context in which they live provides opportunities for them to flourish rather than obstacles to their well-being.
While economic prosperity is an essential element of development, providing a range of public and private goods and services conducive to freedom (particularly where the system is stable, equitable and transparent), it is fallacious to suggest that human rights can or should be sacrificed on the altar of economic development. For a start, this would take an extremely narrow view of development, completely ignoring the fact that ever increasing national (or even personal) income does not equate to ever increasing well-being. Secondly, this approach is generally counterproductive as failing to guarantee basic rights has severe negative long-term economic impacts.
The SDGs take a broad view of development, covering the economic, social and environmental aspects in detail, with a clear foundation in international human rights law. This can only be a positive development.
Interlude - My favourite SDG video:
Point 3: Powerful high-income countries will have to make sacrifices
This is the biggest obstacle to the achievement of the SDGs, development more widely and the realisation of human rights for all.
Firstly, power is a zero-sum game. If low/middle-income countries are to have more power in the international arena, high-income countries must have less. Even though all would most likely benefit from this change, high, middle and low-income countries alike, it is something powerful, high-income countries have always been unable to countenance.
Secondly, we live in a world of finite resources. If all countries were to consume at the rate of high-income countries, the planet's resources would be depleted shockingly fast. Thus, sustainable global development relies not only on bringing up the bottom, but also on moderating the consumption of the top, so that the earth's limited resources can be more equitably distributed worldwide.
While this sounds like I am proposing some kind of global tax system (I am not), increasing economic growth and consumption do not in fact, beyond a certain point, actually increase well-being. It is manifestly futile and unnecessary for high-income countries to continue on their current path. Put simply, in the right national and international context, many people in high-income countries could be much happier consuming far far less.
For example, life expectancy stops increasing with national
income at a certain point (The Spirit Level)
In this respect, inequality is a greater barrier to freedom and well-being than income, and is discussed at length in the 2030 Agenda, particularly under Goal 10 on reducing inequalities. The Spirit Level was the first book I read that highlights, and attempts to explain, the correlation between inequality and well-being. I would certainly recommend it to anyone.
While the 2030 Agenda does cover sustainability, renewable energy and making the best of new technologies extensively, it only briefly mentions the issue of moderating high-income countries' consumption and only indirectly acknowledges the power issue.
Point 4: Legal human rights guarantees are insufficient
The key issue here is that formally recognising human rights and the political will to see them realised are not sufficient for them to be enjoyed by all. Governments need the technical, financial and human capital to be able to generate changes to social welfare, legal and judicial systems, as well as cultural norms. Many simply do not have the means to properly guarantee human rights. In turn, a lack of capital to guarantee human rights, which enable to people to live fulfilling lives, negatively impacts wider social, political and economic systems, maintaining this deficiency, in a vicious cycle.
In this context, the SDGs function as guidelines for local, national and international action to support a human-rights based development trajectory that increases these capitals. Technical, financial and human capital improvements, through local, national, regional and international initiatives should enable governments to implement reforms that empower individuals to exercise their human rights for individual and societal benefit, in a virtuous cycle.
Conclusion 1: Human rights and development are interdependent and mutually reinforcing
The mutually reinforcing nature of human rights is covered extensively by Sen and others. Here I will simply illustrate the principle using two examples:
1) Investments in quality education provide the population with the skills and knowledge to contribute to even better education, healthcare, judicial systems, entrepreneurship, productivity, governance, infrastructure, etc. Not only do investments in education provide the human and technical capital required for development in other areas, but financial capital for reinvestment is also generated by more abundant, more productive, and more efficient economic activity. A poorly educated population can only make a limited contribution in any of these areas. Not only do individuals benefit from education, in one respect because they can choose to engage in work they find fulfilling, but society as whole benefits from their contributions.
2) Similarly, freedom of speech and of the press help to hold governments accountable for their actions, promoting positive action in areas such as education, healthcare, judicial reform and environmental policy. In states where political oppression is widespread, and transparency in government poor, not only is financial capital more easily lost to corruption but vested interests are also more easily able to promote policy agendas that benefit only a small elite, harming the development and human rights of others.
Conclusion 2: International cooperation and policy coherence must go hand in hand
Development and the realisation of human rights requires both bottom-up and top-down action. Bottom-up in the sense that individuals must be empowered to exercise their rights, to education, healthcare, political participation, expression, work, and so on. And top-down in the sense of international cooperation, where high-income, high-consumption countries support the development of low and middle-income countries.
While it is common knowledge that powerful high-income countries have used international development cooperation to push for policies beneficial to themselves rather than low-income countries; I was, probably naively, surprised by the extent to which powerful high-income countries implement monetary and trade policies that have severe harmful effects on the economies of low-income countries.
International cooperation in no way means that high-income countries may interfere in the development policy of other countries. Rather it means that they should be prepared to share what they know and what they have. Above all, they must stop erecting barriers to development and remove those that already exist. The current situation is best described as giving with one hand while taking with the other.
This goes some way to explaining why the 2030 Agenda places such emphasis on policy coherence. It is frankly pointless for high-income countries to meet the 0.7 percent official development assistance target, when their monetary and trade policies cause harm that far outweighs this benefit. Over and above the waste of resources that results from contradictory and counteracting policies, policy coherence is the foundation of effective action.
Conclusion 3: Public mobilisation may make all the difference
Although conspicuously absent from the text of the 2030 Agenda, significant efforts have been made to publicise the SDGs globally. (I love these videos.) Whether or not the SDGs can galvanise public support for a human rights-based approach to development will ultimately determine whether they are effective. It is citizens who hold their governments to account, both at home and abroad, and without the pressure of public scrutiny, it is unlikely that governments will prioritise effective action. Of course, in some instances, individuals at the top do lead the way on such matters - as they should -, but often this only happens when the political pressure is great enough.
All countries have further to go in terms of development and human rights. Public mobilisation is needed in all countries to ensure that governments implement policies at national and international level for the achievement of the Goals and local level mobilisation is needed to promote community projects. Public mobilisation in high-income countries will be vital, to change consumption patterns and to push for technology and knowledge sharing, as well as the abolition of harmful policies.
***
My hope is that the SDGs can indeed support the realisation of all people's human rights, sustainably. Changes will need to be made at all levels. Individuals must act and communities will have to work together to make it happen. While there are challenges, and these can seem insurmountable, there are vast opportunities and the potential for a better life for all.
***
For a full list of the Goals: http://www.globalgoals.org/#the-goals
For more information on what you can do: http://www.globalgoals.org/take-action/
Here are some of my favourite videos:
https://youtu.be/sZQ2RUFd54o (so strange)
Resources:
Amartya Sen, Development as Freedom (OUP 2001)
Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, The Spirit Level: Why Equality is Better for Everyone (Penguin 2010)
Michael Green, 'How We Can Make the World a Better Place' (TED Talks) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o08ykAqLOxk
Ann Pettifor, ‘Globalisation, Debt and the “Hoover Effect”:
International Structural Changes that Have Led to the Poor Financing the Rich’
in Cheru Fantu and Colin Bradford (eds), Millennium
Development Goals: Raising the Resources to Tackle World Poverty (Zed Books
2005)
