Issue Paper on Development, Poverty, and the Environment
Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group
on a Draft United Nations Declaration on the Right to Peace,
first session (18-21 February 2013)
Geneva,
February 20, 2013
Thank you Mr. Chairperson.
We would like to take this opportunity to offer some general views on the inclusion in the Advisory Committee’s draft declaration of provisions related to several points. In addition to development, addressed in Article 9 which we are discussing now, I will touch on the draft’s provisions regarding poverty (which is in Article 2(7)), and the environment (Article 10).
These three topics (and several other topics the Declaration seeks to address) are each inappropriate for discussion in this Working Group — first, because these topics are appropriately and principally addressed in other forums; and second, while each does have a human rights dimension, those human rights dimensions are already under discussion in the Human Rights Council. We see no benefit to duplicating those other discussions or, even worse, interfering with them.
Let me first outline the ways in which the Human Rights Council is already seized with the human rights dimensions of these issues.
With respect to development, as we have repeatedly said, we remain prepared to discuss development at the Council, but any such discussion needs to focus on aspects of development that relate to human rights, i.e. those of individuals, including civil and political as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Further, with respect specifically to the right to development, much theoretical work remains to be done to explain how the right to development is a human right – i.e., a universal right that every individual possesses and may demand from his or her government. But again, these issues are under active discussion in another forum – namely, the Working Group on the Right to Development, which will hold its fourteenth session in the next few months. And while there may remain differences of views on the substance, the issue of mechanisms for incorporating aid recipients’ voices in aid programming and evaluation is one of the sub-criteria that may be discussed at the next session of that Working Group.
Furthermore, we note that draft Article 9 reiterates a number of economic, social and cultural rights. These appear to be derived from the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, as such, States Parties to that Covenant undertake to take steps with a view to achieving progressively its full realization. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but we are pleased to address these human rights issues in other fora where they are already discussed, and we see no benefit, and in fact potential for harm, in reopening the same issues here.
With regard to poverty, the draft Declaration states that “mechanisms should be developed and strengthened to eliminate . . . poverty.” But just a few months ago, the Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles on extreme poverty and human rights as a useful tool for States in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication programs, as appropriate. While there were characterizations of human rights law within the report of the Special Rapporteur with which we disagreed, discussions under those auspices were and are robust and detailed. We fail to see why the same set of issues needs to be discussed here as well.
Finally, with regard to the environment, we note that the broad issue of the relationship between human rights obligations and the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is squarely within the purview of the new Independent Expert created by the Human Rights Council to address, and in fact the issue will be discussed at the next session of the Human Rights Council in connection with the presentation of the IE’s first report.
But while each of these three issues has a relationship with human rights, they are principally not human rights issues, and they are being primarily addressed outside of human rights bodies. For instance, poverty is a focus of the MDGs. And we all know about the discussions surrounding the post-2015 development agenda.
And, finally, many of the issues that draft Article 10 purports to address with regard to the environment are not the purview of the Council to address. They are being actively negotiated in other UN bodies of jurisdiction. The language here on this topic is incorrect in many respects, including in article 10(2) the misrepresentation that a State’s responsibility is derived from its historical contribution to climate change, that its responsibility is subject to “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities” (article 10(1) and 10(2)), and a mischaracterization of a States’ responsibility for providing assistance to the common challenge of adapting to climate change. We also object to importing the phrase “common but differentiated responsibility” into a process that deals with human rights — an issue that is common across States, but is not differentiated. It does not contribute to our common work to craft an ambitious and effective climate change agreement to re-characterize the same issues in this forum, particularly when countries in the UNFCCC are currently in the process of negotiating a new agreement for the post-2020 world that will be applicable to all Parties.
To sum up, Mr. Chairperson, we are very concerned that the draft Declaration (1) risks serious interference with work already underway in the Council and (2) confuses issues, by conflating those aspects of certain topics that are appropriate for discussion at the HRC with those that are not. We see this as a fundamental flaw in the draft Declaration.
[Issue Paper on Development, Poverty, and the Environment
Delivered Wednesday, February 20, 2013]
Thank you Mr. Chairperson.
We would like to take this opportunity to offer some general views on the inclusion in the Advisory Committee’s draft declaration of provisions related to several points. In addition to development, addressed in Article 9 which we are discussing now, I will touch on the draft’s provisions regarding poverty (which is in Article 2(7)), and the environment (Article 10).
These three topics (and several other topics the Declaration seeks to address) are each inappropriate for discussion in this Working Group — first, because these topics are appropriately and principally addressed in other forums; and second, while each does have a human rights dimension, those human rights dimensions are already under discussion in the Human Rights Council. We see no benefit to duplicating those other discussions or, even worse, interfering with them.
Let me first outline the ways in which the Human Rights Council is already seized with the human rights dimensions of these issues.
With respect to development, as we have repeatedly said, we remain prepared to discuss development at the Council, but any such discussion needs to focus on aspects of development that relate to human rights, i.e. those of individuals, including civil and political as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Further, with respect specifically to the right to development, much theoretical work remains to be done to explain how the right to development is a human right – i.e., a universal right that every individual possesses and may demand from his or her government. But again, these issues are under active discussion in another forum – namely, the Working Group on the Right to Development, which will hold its fourteenth session in the next few months. And while there may remain differences of views on the substance, the issue of mechanisms for incorporating aid recipients’ voices in aid programming and evaluation is one of the sub-criteria that may be discussed at the next session of that Working Group.
Furthermore, we note that draft Article 9 reiterates a number of economic, social and cultural rights. These appear to be derived from the economic, social and cultural rights contained in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and, as such, States Parties to that Covenant undertake to take steps with a view to achieving progressively its full realization. The United States is not a party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, but we are pleased to address these human rights issues in other fora where they are already discussed, and we see no benefit, and in fact potential for harm, in reopening the same issues here.
With regard to poverty, the draft Declaration states that “mechanisms should be developed and strengthened to eliminate . . . poverty.” But just a few months ago, the Human Rights Council adopted the Guiding Principles on extreme poverty and human rights as a useful tool for States in the formulation and implementation of poverty reduction and eradication programs, as appropriate. While there were characterizations of human rights law within the report of the Special Rapporteur with which we disagreed, discussions under those auspices were and are robust and detailed. We fail to see why the same set of issues needs to be discussed here as well.
Finally, with regard to the environment, we note that the broad issue of the relationship between human rights obligations and the enjoyment of a safe, clean, healthy, and sustainable environment is squarely within the purview of the new Independent Expert created by the Human Rights Council to address, and in fact the issue will be discussed at the next session of the Human Rights Council in connection with the presentation of the IE’s first report.
But while each of these three issues has a relationship with human rights, they are principally not human rights issues, and they are being primarily addressed outside of human rights bodies. For instance, poverty is a focus of the MDGs. And we all know about the discussions surrounding the post-2015 development agenda.
And, finally, many of the issues that draft Article 10 purports to address with regard to the environment are not the purview of the Council to address. They are being actively negotiated in other UN bodies of jurisdiction. The language here on this topic is incorrect in many respects, including in article 10(2) the misrepresentation that a State’s responsibility is derived from its historical contribution to climate change, that its responsibility is subject to “the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities” (article 10(1) and 10(2)), and a mischaracterization of a States’ responsibility for providing assistance to the common challenge of adapting to climate change. We also object to importing the phrase “common but differentiated responsibility” into a process that deals with human rights — an issue that is common across States, but is not differentiated. It does not contribute to our common work to craft an ambitious and effective climate change agreement to re-characterize the same issues in this forum, particularly when countries in the UNFCCC are currently in the process of negotiating a new agreement for the post-2020 world that will be applicable to all Parties.
To sum up, Mr. Chairperson, we are very concerned that the draft Declaration (1) risks serious interference with work already underway in the Council and (2) confuses issues, by conflating those aspects of certain topics that are appropriate for discussion at the HRC with those that are not. We see this as a fundamental flaw in the draft Declaration.