Towards a Just Institutional Order: A Commentary on the First Session of the UN Task Force on the Right to Development
| Author | Margot E. Salomon |
| Published date | 01 September 2005 |
| Date | 01 September 2005 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/016934410502300305 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
TOWARDS A JUST INSTITUTIONAL ORDER:
A COMMENTARY ON THE FIRST SESSION OF THE UN
TASK FORCE ON THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
MARGOT E. SALOMON*
Abstract
A novel mechanism that brings together human rights experts with the representatives of the
international development, finance and trade institutions was recently established within the
United Nations (UN) under the auspices of the Working Group on the Right to Development. At
its first session, this High-Level Task Force adopted a range of recommendations on challenges
to the Millennium Development Goals and on the importance of human rights impact
assessments. In so doing, it took some initial steps towards integrating the international law of
human rights, including the framework provided by the 1986 UN Declaration on the Right to
Development, into the priority areas of these other international actors. The aim of this
commentary is to provide insight into the conclusions adopted by the Task Force and to highlight
the contribution of the human right to development to the topics under its consideration. It also
seeks to reflect on the significance of human rights law to issues that were tabled, such as,
accountability for human rights at the international level, international cooperation, economic
growth, and trade-offs in the allocation of resources. In concluding that the Task Force must
face head on the impediments to the realisation of human rights posed by the institutional
arrangements for the governance of the international economic order, the article ends by offering
suggestions for its future work.
1. THE TASK FORCE: ITS STRUCTURE AND MANDATE
The United Nations High-Level Task Force on the Implementation of the Right to
Development
1
met for the first time from 13-17 December 2004. The Task Force was
established by the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) at its 60th session in 2004
as a subsidiary body of the intergovernmental Working Group on the Right to
Development.
2
Beset by a history within the UN of entrenched polarised views
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 23/3, 409-438, 2005.
#Netherlands Institute of Human Rights (SIM), Printed in the Netherlands. 409
* Lecturer in Human Rights, Centre for the Study of Human Rights and Department of Law, London
School of Economics and Political Science; Ph.D. (LSE), LL.M. (London), M.A. (Amsterdam), B.A.
(Concordia U., Montreal). The author participated in the session of the Task Force as an expert
invited by the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. She extends her gratitude
to Joseph K. Ingram, World Bank Special Representative to the UN and WTO, H.E. Ambassador
Ibrahim Salama (Egypt), Chair, Working Group on the Right to Development, and Sabine von
Schorlemer, Member of the High-Level Task Force on the Right to Development for their valuable
comments on a draft of this article. Sincere thanks also to Deborah Hirt of Franciscans
International for her updates and insights from Geneva. The views expressed in this article are
attributable to the author only.
1
Hereinafter, the Task Force.
2
CHR Res. 2004/7, para. 9.
410
between Northern and Southern States on elements central to the right to
development,
3
the Task Force was given a limited mandate of one year, subject to
review, along with the mandate of the Working Group itself.
4
Despite this discordant
legacy, the first Task Force session was a success, albeit a qualified one. Significantly,
many of its conclusions were endorsed by the Working Group,
5
and the Working
Group’s conclusions and recommendations were subsequently endorsed by the
Commission on Human Rights at its 61st session in 2005. The mandates of both the
Task Force and the Working Group were renewed.
6
The Task Force was an innovative construct, since it sought to bring together,
under the formal auspices of a UN human rights mechanism, human rights experts
7
and representatives of the international development, finance and trade institu-
tions.
8
The objective was to strengthen the global partnership for development by
bridging diverse perspectives. The outcome was intended to produce the start of a
shared workable vision offering operationally constructive suggestions to the
Margot E. Salomon
3
While most if not all States agree that the right to development has both national and international
dimensions, Northern States tend to place considerable emphasis on the fulfillment of human
rights, including good governance and anti-corruption measures, in developing countries, while
Southern countries emphasise the need for an international economic environment conducive to
being able to develop economically, socially and culturally. So acrimonious were the debates at the
4th session of the Working Group on the Right to Development that it failed to adopt conclusions
and recommendations, as it had done annually since its first session in 2000. In a final effort to save
the Working Group and to make it a constructive deliberative forum able to produce meaningful
recommendations, the Commission on Human Rights mandated the Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to convene, prior to the 5th session of the Working
Group, a High-Level Seminar on the Right to Development. The Seminar focused on the theme of
Global Partnerships for Development (CHR Res. 2003/83, para. 5). In relative terms, the High-
Level Seminar represented the art of the possible. It was an interesting, engaging, professional
exchange between human rights experts and States and attended by the international financial
institutions, specialised agencies and representatives of bilateral development agencies. Papers were
commissioned by the OHCHR on a range of pertinent themes which informed the discussion. The
goodwill generated by the Seminar spilled over into the session of the Working Group that followed
bringing with it a willingness among States to engage. At the same time a new and able Chair was
elected and the diplomatic skills of Ambassador Ibrahim Salama proved pivotal in facilitating
widespread agreement on recommending the establishment of the Task Force.
4
CHR Res. 2004/7, para. 10.
5
Report of the Working Group on the Right to Development, 6th session, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/25, paras
35-38, 54(h) and 58. Australia, Canada and the USA chose to disassociate themselves from the
conclusions and recommendations of the Working Group, but they did not block the consensus.
Report of the Working Group, para. 32.
6
CHR Res. 2005/4, paras 4 and 11. The USA requested a roll-call vote. Of the 53 States members of
the Commission, 48 voted in favour of the resolution on the right to development, Australia and
the USA voted against it and Canada and Japan abstained (Gabon was not in the room).
7
The Task Force human rights members were: Silvio Baro Herrera (Cuba); Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson
(Liberia), Chairperson; Stephen P. Marks (United States of America); Sabine von Schorlemer
(Germany); and Arjun Sengupta (India).
8
World Bank, IMF, UNCTAD, UNICEF, UNDP, WTO. Note that the exact formation of the Task
Force is somewhat ambiguous. While both the named human rights experts and the representatives
of multilateral institutions (MLIs) constitute the Task Force in a general sense and it is that group
as a whole which adopted the conclusions (Report of the High-Level Task Force on the Implementation of
the Right to Development, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2005/WG.18.2, para. 29), technically, it is only the human
rights experts that are noted as ‘members’ (Report of the High-Level Task Force, para. 7). The
representatives of MLIs ‘participated as experts’ (Report of the High-Level Task Force, para. 8). The use
of the term Task Force herein refers to the group as a whole.
To continue reading
Request your trial