Rights Corner
Right to freedom from poverty: From a human rights perspective
Farah Ashraf
“ Wherever we lift one soul from a life of poverty, we are defending human rights.
And whenever we fail in this mission, we are failing human rights.”
--Kofi Annan, United Nations Secretary-General.
The struggle against poverty is conventionally viewed as an ethical, social, political and economic issue, but further than these aspects, poverty is also defined as a violation of human rights. It can be defined not only as lack of material resources considered essential for an adequate standard of living, but also a denial of other related facilities and opportunities, such as education and physical well-being, as well as other factors such as lack of dignity, self-respect, freedom or access to power. One early description of poverty from a human rights perspective was proposed by Father Wresinski, the founder of ATD Fourth World, in 1987:
“ The lack of basic security connotes the absence of one or more factors enabling individuals and families to assume basic responsibilities and to enjoy fundamental rights. The situation may become widespread and result in more serious and permanent consequences. The lack of basic security leads to chronic poverty when it simultaneously affects several aspects of people's lives, when it is prolonged and when it severely compromises people's chances of regaining their rights and of reassuming their responsibilities in the foreseeable future.”
Although “poverty” is not specifically mentioned in the human rights instruments, but is covered by several related rights. Both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights refer to the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living, including adequate food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services. In 2001, the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights reached agreement on the definition of poverty as: “a human condition characterized by sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other civil, cultural, economic, political and social rights.” Furthermore, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 25) states that “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”
But what does the practical scenario say? The statistics shows that out of a total 6350 million human beings, 1000 million have no adequate shelter, 800 million are under nourished, 1000 million have no access of safe water, 2400 million lack access of basic sanitation, 2000 million are without electricity, 880 million lack access to basic health services and 876 million adults are illiterate (UNDP). The violation of the right to life is illustrated by the fact that “nearly one third of all human deaths some 18 million per year or 50, 000 daily are due to poverty-related causes.”
What are the states obligations in this regard? World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002 (Human Rights, Poverty Reduction and Sustainable Development) recognizes that all human rights impose three types of obligations on States parties: the obligations to respect, protect and to fulfill. The obligation to respect requires that States parties refrain from interfering directly or indirectly with the enjoyment of the rights in question. This obligation would be violated, for example, if the State arbitrarily deprived an individual of his/her land in a case where the land was the individual's physical means of securing the right to food. The obligation to protect requires State parties to prevent third parties from interfering in any way with the enjoyment of the rights. Third parties include individuals, corporations and other entities as well as agents acting under their authority. The obligation includes adopting the necessary and effective legislative and other measures. The obligation to fulfill requires States parties to adopt the necessary measures directed towards the full realization of the rights. The obligation to fulfill (facilitate) means that States must proactively engage in activities intended to strengthen people's access to and utilization of resources and means to ensure their livelihood. And it is only when individuals or groups are unable, for reasons beyond their control, to enjoy, for example, the right to adequate food by the means at their disposal, that States have the obligation to fulfill that right directly.
In order to assess the moral perspective of human rights violations, we can consider Pogge's understanding of poverty as a violation of human rights. He claims that agents should not act in manners which deprive people from enjoying basic necessities. He also argued that the present global economic order is causing poverty by violating human rights and that governments of rich countries concentrate on self-interest and create a global economic order that produces poverty. An example of this phenomena is the provision of resource privileges to rich countries and non-beneficial loan agreements for developing nations. Powerful institutions such as the IMF and World Bank, backed by Western countries bear a great deal of responsibility for burdens placed upon the poor in developing countries as a result of their policies of liberalization and privatization.
At International level, the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) aim to cut poverty by half by the year 2015. However, some experts argued that the MDGs are not clearly phrased in a human rights language, reflecting more generally the continued distance between development and human rights. They are sometimes presented as identical to the international human rights framework, by drawing on their origins in the international UN conferences of the 1990s. Others note the differences in particular, the MDGs are pragmatic and political commitments rather than legally binding obligations for states; they are global, quantitative targets rather than an attempt to achieve the full realisation of individual rights; they do not include civil and political rights; they are too ambitious and unrealistic and at the same time lower some existing international commitments (Alston, 2004).
From a human rights perspective we fully recognize that poverty is a violation of human dignity and states are liable to fulfill this obligation. But do we have any responsibility to the people who are unable to protect their right to free them from poverty? At least we must respect the rights of others….the right to be free from poverty. We undeniably owe moral obligations to poor people, therefore the fight against poverty is the shared responsibility for all of us. Perhaps the words of Leandro Despouy, Special Rapporteur on human rights and extreme poverty( 1996) the most appropriate with which to end : "This is an age of unprecedented contrasts. On the one hand there are people lapping up the wonders of technological progress, culture, the information revolution, and the thrilling promises of the space age. On the other, there are vast numbers leading lives of indigence, adversity and neglect. For one part of mankind, change is gathering pace; for the other, it is marking time or losing ground. This fateful decline lies at the root of the most disturbing knowledge in our possession: for what matters most is not that those who are progressing are few, or may be becoming fewer by the day, but that every day more people fall behind, and do so with terrifying speed.”
The author is currently doing her LL.M in International Human Rights in UK.
