Introduction
Development is invariably noted to be a catchall term expressing how well a better life can be produced and agreed as a standard for measuring the extent to which societies realize their potentials and wellbeing. The effort to realize these potentials inherent in the human and the environment therein includes how well all members of society have the right to participate in every single way they possibly can. But the opportunities and scope that ignite their right to participate in the process depend on the structures and instruments designed to protect the interests of all concerned.
There is a variegated outlook of Development just as it is with the concept of the Right to Development. It nevertheless does not mean that there is no point of common grounds. The Right to Development has not only come to stay as a tool trying to propel the progress of Developing States1 and people around the world but also it is a common platform on which states and their citizenry can explore and utilize the opportunities the scope of possibilities can provide.
However, the extent to which the Scope2 of the right to development affords the Developing States and their people to Claim3 the right to participate in and benefit from the process of development seem to be crowded with heaps of international legal ambivalences that lack complete will and legally binding enforcement instruments.
Concept of Development and Right to Development
Generally, Development means growth, enhancement or improvement. For this discussion, Development is simply a process of growth and change that has a positive transformative effect on the realisation of the dignity and well being of people and their environments. Thus, development is quite related to the meaningful progress of states and human beings therein. Scholars have over the years come up with theories to support their understanding of the term Development as well as how it could be applied to the human situation.
The most notable views of development are the radical views and orthodox views. the radical views are mainly Marxist theories and Dependency theories both critical on Free Market Capitalism1 and advocates for states to assist break down the obstructive pre-capitalist modes of production2 of their people as well as protecting the citizenry against external trade influence. The Orthodox theories of development primarily observe that free-unregulated markets significantly play a positive role in development and do argue that state interference in the Free Market is largely self-defeating3.
These played out during and after the Cold War1 between the Soviet Union1 and the West ibid. And even though as in the words of Francis Fukuyama2, a USA philosopher and economist, “What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War or the passing of a particular period of postwar history, but the end of history as such... That is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government”, seems to have really held the development currents to date, it should be pointed out that the development of the world is best seen in the eyes of broader consensus building among the world economic power players.
The bottom-line is that development is a process of producing a better life possible for states and their citizenry. This better life even way back in 1969, Dudley Seers (Sussex Development Theorist) in his book ‘The meaning of Development’2 stressed the need for ‘social development’ as area of concern for development theory and thus called for a ‘relativistic’3 approach for evaluating development with particular emphasis of how conventional economics are inapplicable to the Third World. In his view, development meant eliminating poverty, unemployment and inequality. He indeed reinvigorated and rightly so activated the social dimension to development beyond the radical and orthodox thinkers.
And following up, Paragraph 2 of the Preamble of the Declaration of Right to Development7 in 1986 also recognizes Development as “... a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom”. Right to Development was seen to have been instigated by the ideological undercurrents that existed between the Soviet Union Republic and the West which resulted in two human rights international covenants. Thus, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights promoted by the West while International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights being promoted by the Soviet bloc or the East.
The right to development is recognized as a right inherent in human beings that guarantees enjoyment of individual civil and political liberties realized through participation and collaboration on the economic, social and cultural spheres of states. It is seen by its proponents as a bridge between the civil and participatory set of rights. In the words of the Commission on Human Rights, the Declaration on the Right to Development adopted by the General Assembly Resolution 41/128 of 4th December 1986, “constitutes an integral link between the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action (A/CONF.157/23)4 through its elaboration of a holistic vision integrating economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights “. It should be reckoned that the Right to Development might well be another dimension of development but widely encompassing with holism, duality and functionality.
Scope and Dimension of Right to Development
The UN adopted the Right to Development in 1986 as the Declaration on the Right to Development which was, in 1993, unanimously adopted by 171 member States as the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Over the years and to date scholars and development practitioners alike have been mostly trading opinions as to how to narrow the coded definition of the Right to Development as “an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in and contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized”. According to Felix Kirchmeier1, for many of development practitioners, the Right to Development seems to be an unfinished idea of a right which no one can define in terms of its concrete ramifications. Advancing that, the Right to Development is more like “the Right to Everything”. By nature the Right to Development is a Third Generation Right or Group Right such as peace and environment which can be invoked on a State and on the International Community as well. This makes some in the developed world to still harbour a certain degree of anxiety and suspicion since, as they think, it could be taken up by the developing countries as a right to development aid.
Interestingly, however, efforts have now been made to link the Right to Development4 and the Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000 striving to end absolute poverty by 2015. Well, reports from the Millennium Development Goals Summit held from 20th to 22nd September 2010, have it that significant progress has been made towards achieving some of the goals but they have equally pointed to a gloomy picture if serious attention is not paid to addressing the commitment challenges that impede progress.
Even in the face of another report from the UNDP dubbed “People are Healthier, Wealthier and Better Educated”5 launched on 4th November 2010 painting a bright picture of most countries witnessing “major advances in the past decades”, the reality still tell a sad story of the inability of thousands of millions of people across the globe, at least a billion, to actively participate and enjoy from the spirit of the range of opportunities contained in Article 1 (2) of the Declaration of the Right to Development and particularly so in Art1(1), simply because they are poor and incapacitated. Articles 2(2,3), 3(1,3), 4(1), 8(1), 9(1) and 104 of the Declaration of Right to Development all proclaim and empower the people and state to participate in, and enjoy from the benefits contained in the spirit and letter of the Right to Development but it looks difficult for right holders to invoke the authority therein and have them enforced . This is because obligations are vaguely defined and just so broad based that duty holders are equally constrained by the lack of the accompanying legal enforcement structures.
As it Stands Now
From the Declaration of the Right to Development, to Vienna Declaration of Action1, Open Working Group, Agenda for Development and to Millennium Development Goals and various legal instruments derived therefrom, it is obvious that steps have been taken not just to give a meaningful meaning to the spirit and letter of Development as a Human Right but also make it possible for such an important right of the human to be realized. Rights-holders are equally constrained as duty-holders. At this point the right holders can only exercise their obligations and demand duty-holders to act in the spirit of good will for humanity. Thus at large and theoretically so it is that scope or opportunity is granted under the Declaration of Right to Development for Developing States and their People to claim the right to participate in and benefit from the Right to Development but in practise it is difficult to enforce. This is partly due to the ‘softness’ of the provisions of the law backing the Right to Development much in the same way as that of its parent motivator - international law. .
Limited References
1Felix Kirchmeier (No 23/July 2006): Dialogue on Globalization The Right to 2Development: Where Do We Stand? The State of the Debate on the Right to Development, Geneva: Friedrich Ebert Stftung
3Sengupta A., Negi A. and Moushumi B. (eds) (2005): Reflections on the Right to Development, London: Sage Publication.
