Two critical documents exist within the existing international system that position the right to development within the human rights discourse – the 1986 Declaration on the Right to Development (DRD) and the 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. Together, these two statements address the concerns of many members of the international community regarding “the existence of serious obstacles to development”
(DRD Preamble, 1986) and declare that the RTD is a fundamental and inalienable human right “which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population
and of all individuals…[in] a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in [the UDHR] can be fully realized” (DRD Preamble 1986).
The Declaration on the Right to Development was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 4, 1986, claiming that the RTD “entitles every human person and all persons to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy development, in which all human rights can be fully realized” (de Feyter 2013, 2). Although the RTD had surfaced in international political dialogue some thirty or forty years prior primarily by the global South, it was not until the 1986 Declaration that an official statement on its supposed inalienability was made (Kirchmeier 2006). That being said, the Declaration on the Right to Development provides one of the first – and the most concise – definitions of development within the United Nations system within the first two articles of the Declaration:
1. The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to, and enjoy economic, social, cultural, and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized.
2. The human right to development also implies the full realization of the right of peoples to self-determination, which includes, subject to the relevant provisions of both International Covenants on Human Rights, the exercise of their inalienable right to full sovereignty over all their natural wealth and resources. (Art. 1, § 1
& 2)
This definition, as established by the Declaration, is thus comprised of several elements:
“the right to self-determination, the right to an international economic order, [and] the right to sovereignty over resources…” (Özden 2004, 8). But what is most important of the right to development is that both individuals and states have a prerogative and
responsibility to ensure that this very right is realized. Stated in the last line of the Declaration’s Preamble, “…equality of opportunity for development is a prerogative both of nations and of individuals who make up nations” (DRD 1986, Preamble). Hence, the Declaration establishes that the individual is not only the subject and agent of the right to development, but its beneficiary as well (Art. 2, § 1). States, however, have the sole responsibility of creating favorable and justifiable conditions for the RTD’s recognition (Art. 3, § 1).
Yet the DRD was met with distinct opposition. Although adopted by the United Nations with a vote of 146 member countries in favor, there were eight abstentions and one vote against – the Untied States. The abstentions comprised of countries conventionally considered under the umbrella of the “West” – Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Israel, Japan, Sweden, and the UK. However, with the adoption of the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action in 1993, some argue that a broader global consensus regarding the RTD has been reached, particularly due to its unanimous approval by member states despite its reference to the RTD. “The right to development,”
the Vienna Declaration reiterates, “requires effective development policies at the national level, as well as equitable economic relations and a favorable economic environment at the international level” (Art. 10). The motivation behind the RTD lies in the notion that within the unjust international economic system of today’s global structure, people are prevented from working out their development policies, further perpetuating inequality and deteriorating any hopes of development on all levels (Özden 2005, 22). Nonetheless, it can be assumed that the states who previously opposed or abstained the DRD had simply adopted to the Vienna Declaration due to its overall advancement of UN efforts,
reinforcement of important international principles, and affirmation of the indivisibility and universality of all human rights. In a statement made on the 20th anniversary of the Vienna Declaration’s adoption, the current UN Security-General Ban Ki-moon referred to it as an “important milestone in humanity’s quest for universal human rights” (Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action: 20 Years Working for Your Rights 2013).
While the discourse surrounding the RTD is overwhelmingly present and important in both of these Declarations, an additional component of the right to development is referenced: the “right to subsistence.” The “right to subsistence,”
conventionally interpreted as the right to a basic living standard and the ability to have access to basic means of existence (Tomalty 2012), is advocated for by developing countries. As discussed in the following subsection, China does in fact actively promote for this specific right’s inclusion within existing human rights discourse, characteristically alongside the right to development. Within the Declaration on the Right to Development, Article 8 alludes to this right to subsistence with the following:
States should undertake, at the national level, all necessary measures for the realization of the right to development and shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources, education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income (Art 8, § 1).
Moreover, we see this right reiterated in the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights:
The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect
the essential importance of international cooperation based on free consent (Art. 11, § 1).
Throughout the remainder of this paper, the right to subsistence will be included under the umbrella of the RTD.
Due to the overarching nature of the Vienna Declaration on a multitude of issues facing the international community and the human rights regime, this document is widely affirmed by nations around the world. The DRD, however, is not. Instead, the Declaration is the target of fierce criticism from scholars, politicians, and governments – predominately from the United States and the West – regarding the validity and definition of the principles it gives voice to. Therefore, while the Declaration was adopted into the international human rights discourse, it has predominately remained at the outskirts of the human rights norms regime due to disagreements from the prevalent global players of the West regarding its implementation and necessity. The following section turns to this debate between Western powers and developing states surrounding this right to development with focus primarily given to the US and China.