Development Project And Human Rights Violation In India Pdf


By Manville C.
In and pdf
27.04.2021 at 16:21
9 min read
development project and human rights violation in india pdf

File Name: development project and human rights violation in india .zip
Size: 19997Kb
Published: 27.04.2021

This report aims to critically examine legal remedies, both judicial and non-judicial, available under Indian law to victims of human rights abuses by companies.

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

Poverty and human rights: from rhetoric to legal obligations a critical account of conceptual frameworks 1. Email: fernandadozcosta hotmail. There is still lack of conceptual clarity in the notion of poverty as a violation of human rights. This is a problem for human rights practitioners that take the indivisibility of human rights seriously, understand the centrality of poverty in the plight of many human rights victims and want to work professionally, through binding internationally recognized human rights obligations, in the fight against poverty.

This paper tries to clarify the conceptual gap. It presents a critical summary of the most important attempts to conceptually clarify the connection between poverty and human rights from an international human rights law perspective. It analyzes different conceptual frameworks, their strengths and weaknesses. The paper identifies three different models for linking both concepts: 1 theories that conceive poverty as per se a violation of human rights; 2 theories that conceptualize poverty as a violation of one specific human right , namely the right to an adequate standard of living or to development; and 3 theories that conceive poverty as a cause or consequence of human rights violations.

The paper concludes that the third approach is the most useful in the current state of development of international human rights law and jurisprudence, but that the second approach has a lot of potential to push the poverty and human rights agenda forward and it should be developed further. This world, that offers a banquet to all and closes the door in the noses of so many, is, at the same time, equalizer and unequal: equalizer in the ideas and the customs that it imposes, and unequal in the opportunities that it offers.

Eduardo Galeano 2. The often quoted statement that " poverty itself is a violation of numerous basic human rights ", 3 expresses the moral intuition that, in a world rich in resources and the accumulation of human knowledge, everyone ought to be guaranteed the basic means for sustaining life, and that those denied these are victims of a fundamental injustice.

This fallacy calls every situation of deprivation i. The extent to which it does, is an underdeveloped conceptual discussion in the human rights literature and practice. This gap has a historic and ideological reason. Immediately after the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights -which proclaimed both freedom from want and freedom from fear- the human rights and the poverty reduction -or development- movement proceeded on separate conceptual tracks. This was strongly influenced by cold war politics.

Human rights and development experts worked through parallel sets of intergovernmental institutions without overlapping and so did the majority of non-governmental organizations in both fields. Since the mid s, there has been increasing recognition of poverty as a human rights problem. The human rights movement has begun to take economic, social and cultural rights seriously and to recognize the centrality of poverty and their worst consequences in many human rights violations.

The development movement on the other hand, have adopted rights-based approaches to their work. Within the United Nations UN this happened particularly after the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in , where the indivisibility, interdependence and interrelation of all human rights were affirmed.

However, these were very broad claims that did not help to clarify the complex problem of classifying poverty or extreme poverty as a violation of human rights. Consequently, UN materials are mainly addressed to poverty reduction and development officials explaining how the mainstreaming human rights approach should apply to their real life job.

Is it a rhetorical declaration expressing moral condemnation or is it a legal claim? If the latter, what would be the legal consequences for states and other duty holders? Can the denial of certain rights be described as poverty? Are those rights codified under human rights law? Do they entail binding obligations for identified duty-bearers? Are those duties of plausible compliance?

All these questions are complicated, and if they cannot be solved both in theory and practice, "the notion of poverty as a violation of human rights cannot be taken as more than an empty and ineffective slogan".

There is a notable lack of literature addressed to human rights defenders and practioners to help them in their work. This paper tries to clarify this conceptual gap, presenting a critical summary of the most important attempts to conceptually clarify the connection between poverty and human rights from a human rights law perspective.

Its objective is to analyze different conceptual frameworks, their strengths and weaknesses and to suggest which one is the most accurate approach from an international human rights law perspective. Chapter I will address definitions of poverty and human rights, as a first step to build conceptual clarity. Chapter II will explore the conceptual frameworks developed to explain poverty as a human rights violation or denial and will give a critical account of each of them.

These are going to be divided into three groups for reasons of clarity. The first group will contain the theories that conceive poverty as per se a violation of human rights. The second group will include the conceptualization of poverty as a violation of one specific human right , namely the right to an adequate standard of living or to development. Here I will divide the claims between moral and legal human rights.

Finally, the third group will include those theories that conceive poverty as a cause or consequence of human rights violations. I will conclude that the third approach is the most useful in the current state of development of international human rights law and jurisprudence, but that the second approach has a lot of potential to advance the human rights and poverty agenda forward and should be developed further.

Towards conceptual clarity: the notions of poverty and of human rights. At a conceptual level, one can define the work towards poverty reduction and towards human rights protection with a sufficient degree of abstraction as to be virtually identical.

In this section I will analyze the main possible meanings of both terms that should be taken into account by human rights practioners when analyzing and understanding the three different approaches to poverty and human rights that will be developed in the next section.

Some of the most eminent social scientists have been trying to define poverty for more than years. When some people talk about poverty they refer to income poverty , others to capability deprivation and others to social exclusion. Poverty has been conventionally viewed as the lack of income or purchasing power. They are chronically hungry, unable to access health care, lack the amenities of safe drinking water and sanitation, cannot afford education for some or all of the children, and perhaps lack rudimentary shelter and basic articles of clothing, such as shoes.

Unlike moderate and relative poverty, extreme poverty occurs only in developing countries. Moderate poverty generally refers to conditions of life in which basic needs are met, but just barely. Relative poverty generally construed as a household income level below a given proportion of average national income.

The relative poor, in high income countries, lack access to cultural goods, entertainment, recreation, and to quality health care, education, and other prerequisites for upward social mobility".

In the last two decades, the poverty discourse has moved much beyond the income criterion to the concept of well being. This approach relates the notion of poverty to the notion of "impoverished lives"and to deprivations in the basic freedoms that people can and do enjoy.

These deprivations include the freedom to be adequately nourished, the freedom to enjoy adequate living conditions, the freedom to lead normal spans of life, and the freedom to read and write.

Another difficulty when trying to clarify the links between poverty and human rights is the confusion between referring to human rights in the moral or in the legal sense. This is of the outmost importance for human rights practioners. Although the rhetoric of human rights is very powerful, most of their work is based on emphasizing the legally binding obligations of states and other actors regarding international human rights law.

However, the human rights movement is much broader than the international legal arena. There is an increasing trend to use human rights language as a legitimating moral discourse that evokes universality and consensus of fundamental values among otherwise competing traditions on a shared minimum standard of human dignity. Although both notions of human rights can coexist in harmony, it is clear that the consequences of calling poverty a violation of human rights in the moral or in the legal sense are different.

The discrepancies are often recalled with regard to economic and social rights discussions, mainly because of the well known position of the USA and other international actors who haven't accepted economic and social rights as legally binding rights, despite the several international declarations of the indivisibility of all human rights and the legally binding Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ESCR among other legally binding instruments.

However, most of the institutions and states that do not accept such legally binding obligations do not deny the morality of these claims as ethical entitlements of all civilized members of the community.

While poverty can not be seen as a denial of economic and social rights exclusively because also civil and political rights are compromised , its connection with human rights is mainly addressed through them.

As a consequence, the discussions about whether economic and social rights create legal or moral obligations are particularly relevant to the poverty and human rights discussion. Unfortunately this is not always clear in the positions of those who worked on the issue, particularly in the UN context.

Those positions often mix political declarations with legal binding norms when referring to the links between poverty and human rights, creating more confusion than clarification. Thus, it is important to keep in mind that confusion when analyzing the different approaches to poverty as a human rights violation.

The link between poverty and human rights: three conceptual frameworks. When experts and scholars refer to links between poverty and human rights, they hardly ever refer to poverty as exclusively "lack of income", but to a complex concept of poverty which also involves "capability deprivation". This is so because the 'capability approach' is widely recognized as the conceptual "bridge"between poverty and human rights, since it incorporates new variables to economics that reflect the intrinsic and instrumental value of fundamental freedoms and human rights.

While exploring the literature on poverty and human rights, I found different approaches that can roughly be classified into three conceptual frameworks. One is to consider poverty per se as a violation of all or several human rights. The second is to consider freedom from poverty as an independent human right. Finally, poverty is seen as a cause or consequence of the violation of some human rights.

These three approaches are not incompatible. In fact, sometimes they overlap. However, there are clear differences among them, especially in relation to the legal obligations of states and other actors. Thus, for the sake of conceptual clarity, I have considered it useful to divide their analysis into three categories. Poverty itself as a denial or violation of human rights. This approach sees poverty as incompatible with human dignity. Given that human dignity is the foundation for human rights, poverty is therefore a denial of all human rights.

In Mary Robinson's words:. You don't vote, you don't participate in any political activity, your views aren't listened to, you have no food, you have no shelter, your children are dying of preventable diseases - you don't even have the right to clean water. It's a denial of the dignity and worth of each individual which is what the universal declaration proclaims. The OHCHR argues that the widespread use of Sen's "capability approach"is an appropriate conceptualization of poverty from a human rights perspective and that there is a " natural transition from capabilities to rights ".

Consequently, being freedom the common element that links the two approaches, there is a conceptual equivalence between basic freedoms or basic capabilities and rights, according to them.

I find some difficulties in this theoretical correspondence. First, the concept of basic capabilities is contingent i. Second, the content of each basic capability is also contingent i. According to the OHCHR "since poverty denotes an extreme form of deprivation, only those capability failures would count as poverty that are deemed to be basic in some order of priority".

The "capability set"that each society will list as basic can't be equivalent to human rights; because the universality of the catalogue of human rights is beyond any political discussion and communities preferences. The OHCHR implicitly recognize this conflict arguing that although there is some degree of relativity in the concept of poverty; from empirical observation it is possible to identify certain basic capabilities that would be common to all.

Anticipating some of these criticisms, the OHCHR argues that the human rights definition of a social phenomenon does not need to be made in reference to all human rights in order not to violate the principle of indivisibility. This is perfectly logical. But this is precisely another reason to avoid considering the concept of basic capabilities as equivalent to the notion of human rights. In my opinion, the proposed conceptual equivalence between basic capabilities and human rights is both inaccurate and too risky.

Having a contingent definition of the basic capabilities that constitute poverty is acceptable.

Western Shoshone Homelands

Our land is not for sale. The United States thinks it can do whatever it wants, but we know and our children and grandchildren will know that we never sold our land. Carrie Dann Speech, November 7, In the time since the Inter-American Commission issued its final report in , the United States has done nothing to attempt to remedy its human rights violations. Instead, the United States has intensified its tactics to intimidate and threaten the Western Shoshone people. In addition to our international advocacy, we worked to inform and mobilize other tribes that have land rights concerns similar to the Western Shoshone. Subscribe to Indigenous Notes for the latest news from the Center.

What are Human Rights? Why are Human Rights I mportant? Human Rights Characteristics. Where do Human Righ ts Come From? Wh o is Responsibile for Uholding Human Rights? How do Rights Become Law? Q: What are Human Rights?

Human rights in India

Poverty and human rights: from rhetoric to legal obligations a critical account of conceptual frameworks 1. Email: fernandadozcosta hotmail. There is still lack of conceptual clarity in the notion of poverty as a violation of human rights. This is a problem for human rights practitioners that take the indivisibility of human rights seriously, understand the centrality of poverty in the plight of many human rights victims and want to work professionally, through binding internationally recognized human rights obligations, in the fight against poverty.

These findings contribute to an increasing body of knowledge that informs policy questions about the accountability of Indian security forces for past human rights violations. This scientific analysis reveals that these statements given by the Indian government regarding the nature and extent of these violations are implausible given the available evidence. The report draws on more than 20, records from independent sources and analyzes them using accepted statistical methods. Human rights organizations have collected extensive qualitative evidence about the types of abuses committed by Indian security forces and the impunity that persists in Punjab. Until now, human rights groups have lacked the capacity to conduct quantitative research to analyze these violations and definitively challenge explanations put forward by the Indian government.

Human rights in India is an issue complicated by the country's large size and population, widespread poverty, lack of proper education, as well as its diverse culture, despite its status as the world's largest sovereign , secular, democratic republic. The Constitution of India provides for Fundamental rights , which include freedom of religion. Clauses also provide for freedom of speech , as well as separation of executive and judiciary and freedom of movement within the country and abroad. The country also has an independent judiciary [1] [2] as well as bodies to look into issues of human rights. The report of Human Rights Watch accepts the above-mentioned facilities but goes to state that India has "serious human rights concerns.

This article offers an overview of the human rights violations that have been taking place in Brazil as a result of the implementation of mega development projects. Using the emblematic cases of the World Cup and the Belo Monte hydroelectric complex as a backdrop, it aims to demonstrate that there is a pattern of violations that is being repeated, whether in the forests, the countryside or in the cities.

Human rights are a set of principles concerned with equality and fairness. They are not a recent invention - ideas about rights and responsibilities have been an important part of all societies throughout history. Since the end of World War II, there has been a united effort by the nations of the world to decide what rights belong to all people and how they can best be promoted and protected. Explore the sections below to find information about the important human rights questions:. Every person has dignity and value.

It is the product of almost two decades of research and includes analyses, chronologies, historical documents, and interviews from the apartheid and post-apartheid eras.

0 Comments

Leave a Reply