Human rights are indeed a very powerful framework for bringing change to the unequal power structures and relationships that perpetuate poverty and its accompanying HR violations provided the proper accountability mechanisms are in place. (Equalinrights 2007)
1. This Reader has not emphasized enough an additional actor in the human rights (HR) discourse. Actually, in any well-developed system of rights there are three major roles to be fulfilled: the claim holders, the duty bearers and the agents of accountability. The task of the agents of accountability is to make sure that those who have the duties carry out their obligations towards those who bear the rights. Thus, to describe a rights system, we also need to know the procedures through which a government (and/or civil society) assure(s) that the duty bearers meet their obligations towards the claim holders. These accountability mechanisms include, in particular, the remedies and restitutions available (or not) to the claim holders themselves.
2. In essence, the system should work as follows:
• Rights establish the standards and goals of the system.
• Duties describe who must do what to achieve those standards and goals.
• Accountability mechanisms are the institutional arrangements that are required to make the system work.
• The essence of a good system of rights is having good mechanisms of accountability directly available to the claim holders.
• If they do not have real, explicit opportunities to pursue their own rights, it is not a proper system of rights.
• Claim holders thus need to know their rights, as much as they need to know what they can do to assure that their rights are respected.
3. But beware, not all rights are human rights. Some rights, such as property rights for example, have little relation to human rights. The key distinguishing features are that HR are about matters essential to human dignity, and they are universal. Rights that are established only within a particular country, perhaps by its constitution, are sometimes described as civil rights.
4. The human rights-based framework emphasizes that in pursuing key social objectives, it is not only the ends (the outcomes), but also the means (the processes) that must respect HR. The objectives must be met in ways that are transparent and open to broad participation by the intended beneficiaries.
5. Among other, this has implications for foreign aid and its relation to HR: Development cooperation should, but does not contribute enough to the development of capacities of duty bearers to meet their obligations and/or development cooperation should, but does not, contribute enough to claim holders claiming their rights.
6. For development projects/programs to be human rights-based, their planning, programming and execution must be anchored in a clear articulation of who has which rights and who has which duties, as well as anchored in mechanisms of accountability designed with the view of a workable and effective implementation.
7. Local dialogues with claim holders and duty bearers on the meaning, on the relevance and on the application of human rights-based strategies is a critical starting point for the HR-based approach. This, because HR have to come from within, not from without.
8. So, for HR workers, supporting the HR cause is about facilitating the internal learning and the self-empowering processes of the people they work with (Equalinrights 2007).
Claudio Schuftan, Ho Chi Minh City
cschuftan@phmovement.org