The ¡®human rights-based approach¡¯ has become a commonly accepted term in development circles. It is included in the policy statements of every UN development agency - the UN Common Understanding on the Rights-based Approach is widely promoted - and it appears in the policy statements of virtually all donors among the industrialized world. Even the World Bank has a working group tasked with exploring the implications of the approach. While there are some governments who have not adopted it as policy, the Government of Australia stands alone in having explicitly rejected the human rights-based approach to development.

This outright rejection of the approach is somewhat ironic given the fact that it was the private Australian NGO, the Human Rights Council of Australia Inc (HRCA) that played a key role in researching, formulating and exploring the approach from a very early stage around 1993-4. This was a time when the Australian Government was still active at the international level in human rights standard-setting and in the promotion of human rights world-wide, and the Council¡¯s project proposal was supported by the then Minister for Development Cooperation.

When the Council engaged in looking at the links between human rights and development back in the early 1990s, it assumed that considerable theoretical work already existed and that HRCA¡¯s role would be to explore and elaborate ways by which the theory could be put into practice. To the Council¡¯s surprise, there was in fact very little conceptual material available then on the link between human rights and development, and the little that did exist was almost exclusively focused on the pros and cons of conditionality.

The publication of The Rights Way to Development: The human rights approach to development assistance provided the Council with the opportunity to promote the approach with most donor agencies - the Council presented its findings in Amsterdam, Brussels, Copenhagen, Geneva, Oslo, Ottawa, New York, Paris, Stockholm, Washington and Tokyo - but it was the UN that proved most receptive and which was among the first to begin to develop the programmatic implications of the approach. However, it is only in the last few years that concrete steps have been taken to implement what has now become policy for many donors. To assist this process, the Council published The Rights Way to Development Manual in 1998 with programmatic suggestions on how to implement the approach.


The question arises as to why the Australian donor agency has been so reluctant to encompass the human rights approach even under the former Labor administration. One possible explanation lies in the demands of the project cycle. Aid bureaucrats - and this is not restricted to Australia alone - need to demonstrate successes in order to secure renewed funding. Given the yearly budget cycle, they feel that they do not have the luxury to apply an approach which may take years to take effect - even though it is through the human rights approach that sustainability of the development effort can best be assured. Since the conservative Coalition came into power in Australia in 1996, human rights have been downgraded by the Government both at home and internationally and ODA is increasingly perceived as a tool for promoting Australian trade in goods and services.

By contrast, a number of development NGOs have been exploring the human rights approach, not only as it applies to their support programmes, but also as it applies internally. Care International and the Save the Children Alliance have been among the pioneers in these endeavours. Surprisingly, human rights NGOs have only relatively recently become active in exploring the links between their own activities and development. This is due in part to their previous focus on civil and political rights with too little attention paid to economic, social and cultural rights. With the increased focus on the realization of economic, social and cultural rights - a key element of the approach - through the activities of such international NGOs as ESCR-Net, Business and Human Rights and Forum Asia, more organizations are taking on board the human rights-based approach.
While Australia is explicit about its rejection of the approach, there are other government donors that are unsympathetic. The US with its general objection to accepting economic, social and cultural rights as human rights, is foremost among these. While the Nordic agencies are foremost proponents of the approach, the Europeans have only recently begun to integrate it in their policies. However, it is the rapidly developing countries in the Asian region that present the greatest challenge.

The exponential growth in China¡¯s economy and its relentless need for commodities and markets are transforming China from an aid recipient country into a donor (although the World Bank and the UN still have large programs there). However, China¡¯s assistance program is very traditional in that it ties its aid to the provision of Chinese goods and labour and uses the aid almost exclusively to further its geopolitical ambitions. There is no recognition of the human rights dimensions of development and China¡¯s heavy handedness in the delivery of a number of programs in Africa has resulted in protests and demonstrations, as well as criticism from the international community. In this way, China has joined the list of nations that are happy to sign human rights treaties to improve their image internationally, but then ignore their implication for their development policies.


With the equally rapid development in South Korea and India, these countries also have a number of development assistance programs targeting certain significant countries in their region. Neither has explored the implications for their aid program of the human rights instruments they have ratified. And neither has considered the application of the approach to their own domestic scene.

The evolution of the human rights framework since the Second World War was not advanced solely through the good will of governments. It is true that it was governments who created the United Nations and who came to an agreement about the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the 1940s. But human rights standard-setting on various themes and sectors has been the result of struggle and the activism of non-governmental organizations and academic experts to pressure government to act. The latest human rights Convention on disabilities is a case in point. It has been the product of activism by disabled groups world-wide, and without their campaigning and years of lobbying it is doubtful that such a Convention would have come into being.
The same holds true for the human rights-based approach. We have seen that many governments and inter-governmental bodies have adopted the approach in their policies. This would not have happened without pressure from civil society. But we have also seen that few programs translate the policies into concrete actions by governments. Even among international NGOs the rhetoric is there but the implementation lags behind.

Throughout Asia and the Pacific NGOs are using human rights standards to pressure governments and others to protect and promote human rights. Like any campaign this requires familiarity with the details of the human rights standards and norms and the mechanisms of accountability available. This is followed by the design of strategies appropriate to the circumstances and context. The same holds true for the human rights-based approach to development. First, comes understanding of what it means in practice. Then the building of constituencies that can claim their rights. A realistic campaign design is key. Finally, comes the recruitment of allies and supporters domestically and internationally.

The human rights approach to development is not simply about the law. It¡¯s about the human rights implications of economic, development, trade and environmental policy. These policies impact on people and on their rights. Governments in Asia and the Pacific have been persuaded to become active members of the world community by becoming party to the various human rights instruments. They must be held accountable for their commitments to the human rights framework. This doesn't depend on words but on actions. And it is pressure from civil society that can bring this about.