Human Rights Assessment of the December 2001 Facilitator’s Draft Final Document for the International Conference on Financing for Development

In this short note we will focus our analysis on the draft final document of December 4^th, 2001, (“the Draft” or “the current Draft”) of the International Financing for Development Conference (“the Conference”)[1]. As in our earlier analysis, we will present an assessment of the Draft, taking as our starting point that development is an inherent human right. We will follow the format of the draft, indicating its positive elements as well as our recommendations for every topic to be touched upon by the March 2002 conference.

The draft – and in particular the difference in focus between this and earlier drafts – indicates the direction of the negotiations. This direction is profoundly worrisome.

In particular in the context of the sad events in Argentina during the last weeks of 2001, the necessity for the focus on the human being, and for the control and oversight of multilateral development institutions from a inalienable human rights perspective has become clear.

As for an alternative draft document, we support the version developed by WEDO, as a minimum demand.

The concepts used

Before we embark on a more in-depth analysis of the Draft, we shall present the concepts and principles that form the basis for our position. It is important to note that we have not chosen or invented these concepts and principles at will – they are established by international conventional and customary law.

Principle number 1: Development is a Human Right

The international community has recognized the development process as an individual human rights, and defined the human being both as central subject and principal participant to development. [2] At the same time, the human development process – a concept that encompasses much more than mere improvement of economic conditions – is a fundamental goal of the fulfillment of other human rights.

Principle number 2: Development is not an Exclusively Economic Process – It Is Part of a Set of Indivisible and Interdependent Human Rights

The preamble to the Declaration on the Right to Development defines development as “a comprehensive economic, social, cultural and political process, which aims at the constant improvement of the well-being of the entire population and of all individuals on the basis of their active, free and meaningful participation in development and in the fair distribution of benefits resulting therefrom.” This broad definition is fleshed out in the operative Articles of the declaration, making clear the tight link to other human rights: the declaration contains a reiteration of the international commitment to human rights in general, and a new definition of the lack of fulfillment of human rights as a central obstacle to development.[3]

It is clear that in the understanding of the UN, the right to development forms part of the whole of indivisible and interdependent human rights, wherefore development does not happens without full enjoyment of human rights in general.

Principle number 3: Human Rights are a Priority for International Cooperation

The UN Charter, which since 1945 has constituted the principal framework for all international cooperation, establishes as an objective of all international relations inter alia the respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. [4] In Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter, UN members commit themselves firmly to international cooperation for the promotion of the same rights. Therefore, the protection of human rights must be given priority in other types of “international cooperation” not mentioned in the Charter – such as for example structural adjustment policies – and these other types of cooperation cannot be used as a justification for the violation or late satisfaction of a specific human right. In the specific context of international economic policies, the UN Human Rights Commission has edited several guidelines for international cooperation, one of which is to “give priority in the implementation [of policies] to humane conditions, in particular to living standards, health, food, education, and employment.”[5]

Principle number 4: The Minimum Level of Human Rights Compliance is Not Negotiable

The UN entity charged with the surveillance of the rights enunciated in the International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural rights has clarified “that a minimum core obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum levels of east of the rights is incumbent upon every State party” and continuesthat “a State in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of essential [necessities] is, prima facie, failing to discharge its obligations under the Covenant.”[6] Similarly, we note that though international law recognized the need to be able to restrict the enjoyment of certain rights in the limited manner in specific situations and for previously determined reasons, [7] the entities that seek to protect human rights have never accepted as legal an absolute limitation of rights, since such a limitation would violate not only the right in question, but morever the basic concept upon which all post WWII international cooperation is built: the concept of inviolable human dignity.

Principle number 5: State Obligations Are Binding Both for Internal Acts and for Collective Acts

In the current context of multilateral and global interdependence, States acting individually are no longer the only actors in the international community. In many cases, they are not even the most important actors. It is a fact that international financial institutions (IFIs), multinational corporations, and regional and global intergovernmental organizations all make decisions with notable consequences in the territories of supposedly sovereign States. In this context, the obligations incurred through international conventions for the protection of human rights are valid both in terms of the acts and decisions made by the State within its own territory, and in terms of  those made by the State through its participation in various international institutions and organizations. The “extension” of state obligations to its collective and international acts is necessary to give effect to the objectives of human rights conventions -- those objectives being protection of the human dignity inherent in each individual human being -- and therefore to comply in good faith with the purpose of ratifying these conventions. [8] If it were not so, the conventions would lose their raison d’etre, as any actions a State may take domestically to protect human rights in many cases would be neutralized by actions of the same State, taken collectively in the context of an international organization of intergovernmental forum.

Principle number 6: Human Rights are not Public Goods

As a consequence of being rooted inseparably in the human being, human rights are not negotiable public goods. Certain human rights are important enough to be considered erga omnes obligations, that is obligations held toward the international community per se. These rights include the eradication of slavery, genocide, and torture.

Principle number 7: Human Rights Must Be Fulfilled Without Discrimination

The prohibition of direct and indirect discrimination is a part of the universal content of human rights. This is to say that non-discrimination is a fundamental element in the application of all human rights. The two international covenant that form the core of the international human rights charter demand that the State Parties guarantee equal enjoyment of all rights for men and women. [9] The Universal Declaration of Human rights declare human rights for all “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion”, [10] and the Declaration on the Right to Development clarifies, in the context of the development process, that “all States should cooperate with a view to promoting, encouraging and strengthening universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for all without any distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.” [11] International conventions specifically focused on the eradication of discrimination clarify that the international consensus prohibits both direct and indirect discrimination. [12] It is therefore clear that all domestic or international measures taken towards the fulfillment of one or several rights (such as for example this Conference) must anticipate and correct beforehand for its potential discriminatory consequences.

I. Confronting the Challenges of Financing for Development: A Global Response

This part of the current Draft seeks to express a joint understanding of the problems related to the financing of development. In contrast to the earlier draft, the current text fails to define a joint concept of development as such, and of the principles that should be followed in the definition of global economic and social policies.

Positive Aspects

The Draft acknowledges the need for a participatory and holistic approach to meet the challenges of financing development, though it does not express a commitment to this effect (par. 5).The Draft add a new and important basic principle (accountability) to those included in the former draft (equity, participation, ownership, transparency), but it does not define the implications of these principles, nor does it include those principles most closely linked to development as defined in international law: solidarity and collective responsibility.

The concern for gender-sensitivity is positive and very important, as is the people-centred development concept (Par. 5), and the continued inclusion of the commitment to make of the United Nations the central entity for coordination and monitoring of international cooperation (Par. 6).

Recommendations

According to the Draft, the purpose of the Conference no longer is equitable and inclusive globalization, but rather “to combat poverty and achieve sustained growth” (Par. 1), and the solution is no longer solidarity and collective responsibility, but rather the individual economic acts of each country. In other words, the Draft has degenerated to the point of expressing an exclusively economicist view of development.

The explicit commitment to accept the leadership of the United Nations in terms of international cooperation is very positive (Par. 6). However, the draft lacks specific definition of this cooperation and of the principles it should follow.

We recommend, as a minimum, the inclusion of what in the former Draft was paragraph 4: the explicit definition of the basic principles, including the principle of respect of internationally recognized human rights. We reiterate our earlier recommendations with regard to the central importance of the protection and promotion of human rights for international cooperation  and for the work of the United Nations, which is why no Draft should be accepted without an explicit support of the global commitment towards human rights. This commitment should be included in the principles for consolidating the global economic system. 

The terminology used in the first paragraph denies, to a certain extent, the importance of the human being as focus for the development process: the development process must center on “peoples”, according to the Draft (Par. 5). In focusing on “peoples” and not individuals, the Draft ignores the importance of equality inside and between countries. In order for this paragraph to be in conformity with international human rights law, it must explicitly present the human being as central subject of development.

The tragic events in Argentina during the last weeks of 2001 have put in evidence the importance and influence of multilateral financing institutions in terms of the economic stability of countries that are not even amongst the most impoverished, and in terms of the fulfillment of all human rights for all – including the right to development. We are of the opinion that the recognition of the United Nations as the organization coordinating the efforts directed towards a more equitable globalization (Par. 6) could result moot if it is not accompanied by an explicit recognition of the resulting subordination of the financial institutions to the UN Charter.

II. Leading Actions

Mobilizing domestic financial resources for development

Positive Aspects

The current Draft specifies with quite some detail the conditions necessary – in the Facilitator’s view – for mobilizing domestic resources for development. The expansion of this part of the Draft with regard to earlier versions has various positives consequences from the perspective of an effective protection of human rights.

First of all, the Draft mentions the need to respect both human and labor rights (Par. 8 and 9), and stresses the importance of social security (Par. 13).

Similarly, the Draft places emphasis on solving some of the most serious problems with regard to the development process: corruption (Par. 10), the debt crises, and debt management (Par. 17), and the informal sector (Par. 16). As we live with the memories of so many human rights violations caused by corruption and bad management, we congratulate the Facilitator for including a strong commitment to negotiate, as soon as possible, a convention against corruption  (Par. 10).

We see the explicit mention of full employment as a central goal for sound macroeconomic policies as not only positive but essential for compliance with international law (Par. 11). We congratulate the Facilitator for including a gender sensitive perspective (Par. 13), and for focusing attention on capacity building in gender budget analysis (Par. 17).

We very much agree with the strong commitment made in Par. 17 to build capacities in various interest areas for the effective protection of human rights. In this connection, we find the focus on the most vulnerable countries particularly positive.

Recomendations

In order to give full effect to the explicitly noted concern with the informal sector as needing particular protection (Par. 16), the Draft should extend its concern with labor rights (Par. 9) to a concern with all human rights. Moreover, international law identifies several legal guarantees as necessary for the fulfillment of labor rights. These guarantees include the human right to a fair trial, the prohibition of torture, and the right to life.

We find it problematic that the text avoids making any firm commitments with regard to the positive aspects mentioned above. In this manner when the Draft addresses the protection of vulnerable groups (Par. 16), the development of pension systems (Par. 9), and the approach needed for sound macroeconomic policies it speaks of “necessary measures” and of normative desirability but not of fulfillment

International law protects the rights to an adequate living standard, to work, and to just working conditions, with an explicit mention of the need for international cooperation.[13] At the same time, the definition of the right to development includes the notion of an active subject that – for example through employment – contributes to a large degree to his or her own development. The definition therefore implies that development is more than merely an economic process. To be in conformity with these concepts, the Draft must qualify its definition of “sound” macroeconomic policies so that they explicitly include the creation of dignified employment, (professional) education, and the protection of fundamental freedoms.

In this connection, it is particularly important to subordinate economic growth to poverty eradication. Economic growth, price stability, and fiscal balance are only tools that may or may not lead to eradication of poverty and underdevelopment, depending on the context. Full employment is, however, a human rights, and as such goal for the development process. It is extremely important that the Draft reflect this difference.

Though the recent developments in Argentina have demonstrated the relevance of exchange policies for financial stability, the requirements for “prudent” fiscal and monetary policies and “appropriate” exchange rate regimes (Par. 11) must explicitly clarify that all fiscal and economic policies have to be subject to an in-depth analysis of their impact on human rights, and that each country can and should choose its own economic model freely and democratically, without outside pressure.

Similarly, we find the Draft ambiguous with respect to notions of sovereignty and domestic independence in connection with the definition of economic, social, and financial policies. First, the Draft mentions market oriented policies as a necessary precondition for development (Par. 8), and immediately thereafter it acknowledges that the specific mix between market and state intervention approaches depends on the circumstances of the country (Par. 9). To clarify this point, we find it necessary to reiterate, explicitly, the commitment contained in Article 2(1) of the Charter of the United Nations.[14]

Moreover, if States insist on the inclusion of the call for “fiscal discipline” in the Declaration, this call should explicitly note that it is not meant as an implicit pressure to privatize or to implement budgetary cuts that affect the fulfillment of basic levels of human rights.

Mobilizing international resources for development: foreign direct investment and other private flows.

Positive aspects

This part of the Draft correctly identifies the vital importance of the private sector as actor in the development process, and the central role played by investments (domestic or foreign) for economic growth and job creation. From this perspective, the call for corporate social responsibility (Par. 21) and long term investments (Par. 18) are positive.

Recomendations

Though it acknowledges the desirebility of stable long term investments, the chapter does not explicitly and in due measure take into account the negative consequences of non-productive, short term, volatile, or socially irresponsible investments on the fulfillment of human rights. Similarly, the provisions of the text do not address and much less make an effort to correct the existing inequalities in terms of access and enjoyment of the economic benefits derived from foreign direct investment.

The notion of requiring “special efforts” to “protect investments” (Par. 19) is particularly worrisome. The jurisprudence resulting from NAFTA Chapter 11 cases has demonstrated the negative consequences of protecting investments and investors at the cost of the public interest. According to NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions a foreign investor can sue a government for loss of actual and potential profits it the investor considers that the losses are (were) caused by government measures, regardless the legality and legitimacy of these measures.

This “investor protection” is very destructive to the development process. The principal problem with extending to investments the principles of national treatment and most favored nation treatment springs from a concern with investments in local development, and from capital flight. Industrial activity and thus economic development, particularly in developing countries, depends to a certain extent on recycling internal capital, that is: on domestic investments. By extending the above mentioned principles to investments, one prohibits a host of policies that might have been used for economic reactivation, and that might in fact be a precondition for the development process.

Moreover, NAFTA Chapter 11 style investment protections proscribe conduct requirements. Conduct requirements are, for example, laws that require a certain degree of domestic content or that prohibit the sale of products resulting from the investment. Once again, the result of this kind of provisions is a reduction in national sovereignty to solve problems of local development and industrial reactivation.

All NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions are subject to a conflict resolution procedure with binding effect and power to demand financial compensation. As a result, a foreign investor can avoid domestic laws designed to protect labor rights and the environment – laws that are closely linked to the concept of equitable and sustainable development – and, if the State decides to demand the same responsible conduct of all companies operating in its territory, the foreign investor has a right to monetary compensation for loss of future potential profits… in other words, for loss of profits the company has never made.

In the end, this kind of “investment protection” may well result in the following situation: a citizen from a developing countries has to pay a foreign investor from a developed country – through his or her tax contributions – for legislation that protects labor rights and the environment.

Till date, 15 investors have filed cases under the NAFTA Chapter 11 provisions for a total of US$ 2921 millions in reparations (an average of US$195 millions per case). Though the reparations demanded by the courts probably will be less than those filed for, the consequence of this kind of case could be disastrous for any country and in particular a developing country.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the inclusion in the Draft of any mention of investor protections that is not conditioned by a recognition of internationally agreed upon human rights, in particular the right to development.

Moreover, the Draft needs several substantial changes in order to reflect consciousness on human rights, and in order to give effect to the central objective of the Draft established in it first paragraph: combat poverty to obtain a equitable economic system. In addition to the recommendation made above, we would suggest the inclusion in this part of multilateral commitments already consensed upon such as the implementation of the International Labor Organization’s Tripartite Declaration on Corporate Social Responsibility.

International trade as an engine for development

Positive aspects

This chapter emphasizes the creation of an “open, equitable, rule-based, predictable, and non-discriminatory” multilateral trading system as a precondition of the full enjoyment of the benefits of development (Par. 25), and it acknowlegdes the need for a fuller participation of developing countries (Par. 31) and for focusing the activities of the WTO in the needs of these countries (Par. 23). We agree with the need to “prevent abuses” (Par. 26.a) and we congratulate the Facilitator on the inclusion of a commitment to recognize traditional knowledge and respect the health needs of developing countries (Par. 26.c).

Recomendations

We are very concerned with the terminology and approach of Par. 23-31 in terms of human rights protection and in terms of the coherence of the Draft itself. We recall that Par. 6 of the Draft establishes the basic principles for good social-economic governance: equity, participation, ownership, transparency, and responsibility, and that Par. 1 establishes as the goal of the document the need to work towards a more equitable system.

Our biggest worry is the omission of the recognition – though minimal – contained in the former Draft of concern for labor and environmental protection. This omission is accompanied by the lack of recognition of solidarity, joint responsibility, and respect of human rights in the entire Draft. In order to reflect the existing commitments of the international community in this respect – commitments contained in the Charter of the United Nations – the document needs to be rewritten considerably.

First, all mention of further trade liberalization in the agricultural sector must recognize the vital importance of protecting subsistence farmers, mostly women.

Second, the text should include an explicit and firm commitment to protect just and equitable working conditions and the environment. We consider the unqualified mention of further liberalization of labor-intensive industries particularly offensive (Par. 26.b). We would like to recall principles 3 and 4 from above:

• Principle 3: Human Rights are a Priority for International Cooperation
• Principle 4: The Minimum Level of Human Rights Compliance is Not Negotiable

Third, we do not see the Draft’s vision of immediate elimination of tariffs as compatible with the intention to ensure that developing countries in particular benefit from tariff policies. When tariffs no longer exist, Generalized Systems of Preference for example lose their raison d’etre.

Fourth, we consider the terminology used in connection with the strengthening the developing countries’ participation in multilateral trade negotiations (Par. 31) very inadequate. To affirm that the effective participation of these countries deserves “attention” and that the financing of technical assistance should be “more secure and predictable” does con constitute a solution to the extremely worrying situation of unequal participation lived at, for example, the WTO and the FTAA processes.

Increasing international financial cooperation for development
Revitalizing ODA

Positive aspects

This section acknowledges the fundamental role of Official Development Assistance (ODA) and establishes doubling of the ODA as an urgent priority (Par. 32). The call for a global information and advocacy campaign for the millennium goals (Par. 35) is also positive, though we would warn that the document should not charge civil organizations with responsibilities that belong to the State.

We find the effort to give more influence to developing countries in the design of aid programs positive (Par. 36.d), though this effort should be extended to other fora and ought to begin with full participation in fundamental debates regarding development policies (as foreseen in the previous Draft).

Recomendations

We understand the necessity to be realists in the call for ODA contribution. However, we consider 0.7% of industrial countries’ GNP inacceptable. Many developing countries pay more than 10 or 20 times this percentage annually to service private and public debts incurred in dubious situations. We believe the Draft should establish, as a minimum, the doubling of ODA as a firm commitment (and not just a desirable priority, Par. 34).

While we see as very positive the idea of giving “recipient countries more influence over the design of technical assistance programs” (Par. 36.d), we are seriously opposed to the omission of the commitment made in the earlier Draft to give preference to domestically designed development projects.  To be in conformity with the right to self determination, the Draft must include stronger and firmer commitments than at present.

Global public goods financing

Positive Aspects

The paragraph regarding global public goods is very positive as it establishes links between the development process and certain principles of general concern. In this connection, the acknowledgment of a need for a participatory process in the definition of these global public goods is particularly important (Par. 37).

Recomendaciones

In order to define global public goods in a collective manner, we recommend the inclusion of a firm commitment to an equitable participation in the definition process. The list of global public goods should include, at a minimum, those basic principles enunciated in the introduction of the previous Draft that by their nature can be considered as such. These principles include gender equality, social justice, and the eradication of poverty. As mentioned above, human rights are not a global public good that can be negotiated. The protection of internationally recognized human rights is a sine que non for international cooperation.

Innovative sources of multilateral development financing

Positive aspects

The Draft acknowledges the necessity to find new sources of multilateral financing for development.

Strengthening multilateral development banking

Positive aspects

We find it positive that the Draft acknowledges the need for direct participation of developing countries for lending effectiveness (Par. 40) and that it makes a commitment to expand this participation. Similarly, we agree with the emphasis on long and medium term financing (Par. 40) and on regional and local financing (Par. 39).

Recommendations

We are convinced that the Conference on Financing for Development is a very opportune moment to introduce the promotion and protection of all human rights into the mandate of multilateral and bilateral financial institutions. In fact, through linking the financing for development system firmly to the UN, the Draft acknowledges that multilateral financing institutions are subject to the UN Charter – which is a very positive development. To properly reflect this situation, the Draft must make it explicit.

Sustainable debt financing and external debt relief

Positive aspects

The Draft acknowledges the necessity to avoid the accumulation of insustainable debt (several paragraphs) and the importance of implementing rapid solutions in cases of natural disasters (Par. 44). It also calls for flexible policies (Par. 44) and for an equitable distribution of the costs of adjustment situations (Par. 45).

Recommendations

However, the current Draft marks a negative development with regard to the previous Draft in terms of its lack of acknowledgement of the negative effects of external debt on the protection of human rights. We find it extremely important to at least acknowledge the role of external debt in diverting domestic funds away from productive investment and its tendency to restrict funds for basic necessities that should be given priority.

The Draft does not specify solutions that seem to be part of a just and equitable development process, nor does it specify in what way the accumulation of public and private debt should be avoided. The Draft only makes a minimal call for institutions to propose relief measures in natural disaster situations.

To be in conformity with international law, the Draft should include, at a minimum, a human rights protection clause as well as a firm commitment to relieve – or cancel – unsustainable debt in all situations.

Addressing systemic issues: enhancing the coherence and consistency of the international monetary, financial, and trading systems in support of development

Positive aspects

The explicit commitment to reform the global financial structure and to reiterate the leadership position of the UN could create a very useful framework for a more holistic vision of the development process.

Recommendations

Notwithstanding the acknowledgement of the need for coherence between the international monetary, financial, and trading systems, the Draft focuses more on domestic coherence and coordination than on the necessary international reform (Par. 46). We find this national focus unhelpful in a document meant to coordinate international cooperation.

Reforming the international financial architecture

Positive aspects

The Draft implicitly acknowledges that the financial system needs a structural reform (Par. 47). The Draft does not specify the nature of this reform, though it does mention some positive reference points: the respect for domestic processes (Par. 50) and for developing countries’ needs (Par. 51); the eradication of money laundering (Par. 54); the strengthening of economic stability (Par. 49); the reduction of exchange rate volatility (Par. 48); and the implementation of early warning systems (Par. 49).

Recommendations

In comparison with the earlier draft, the current Draft has lost all reference to social justice, equity, and the protection of human rights as basic principles for reforming the international financial system. This is a serious step backwards. The Draft limits itself to mention “important international efforts” that “should be supported” (Par. 47), without specifying neither the content nor the nature of these efforts. While it might be difficult or even unhelpful to refer in detail to the content of these efforts in the Draft, we find it extremely important to make a firm commitment with respect to their inclusive and equitable nature. In this regard, we suggest the inclusion of an equitable participation clause, specifying the need to include in the reform negotiations developing countries’ representatives, women, and minority groups,

We find the mention of the tragic September 11th events curious in connection with the need for international cooperation to avoid volatility and economic crisis (Par. 48). Considering the focus of this paragraph, it might be more relevant to mention the tragic events in Argentina and to acknowledge the negative role played by the IMF in this regard. In fact, the notion that the IMF should “continue” to give priority to crisis prevention (Par. 49) is almost offensive in the current context.

Improving global economic governance

Positive aspects

This section emphasizes the need for all countries to participate in global decision-making processes in order to construct sound policies (Par. 56 and 57), and the need to consult with civil society (Par. 56), thus improving the democratic aspect of the decision-making. The importance of “effective” participation is mentioned (Par. 57), implicitly acknowledging that until now participation has not been optimal.

The necessity for representativeness in both official and non-official decision-making fora is acknowledged (Par. 57 and 58) which could lead to a more human rights centred vision of development and of international cooperation.

We see the desire to better the institutional relationship between the WTO and the UN as positive (Par. 58.a). Similarly, we congratulate the Facilitator for the inclusion of an –albeit limited – commitment to give the ILO the capacity to implement its agreed standards (Par. 58.b) and the explicit desire to mainstream gender issues into economic and development policies (Par. 58.c). We think these commitments constitute a positive step on the way towards full effectiveness of human rights and a less discriminatory globalization process.

The Draft gives priority to the strengthening of the UN and reaffirms the position of the General Assembly as the maximum international normative agent (Par. 59), which constitutes an important element for global stability and the protection of human rights as basis for international cooperation.

Recommendations

The lack of representativeness in global decision-making is not only due to a lack of participation from developing countries, but also and to the same degree to a lack of women’s participation or minority participation. The earlier Draft underlines the need for full participation and non-discrimination in its guidelines and principles, and we consider the explicit inclusion of these principles essential for the conformity of the Draft with international law.

In general, we feel that this Draft has taken many steps backwards with regard to the earlier version. It no longer includes the commitment to create a coordination and coherence seeking organ at the UN, nor does it specify a socially aware definition of development.

We are very much concerned with notions of strengthening the UN system, focused on the World Bank and the IMF, without any explicit mention of the relationship these institutions should have with the UN Charter. We consider an explicit clarification of the subordinate situation of the international financial institutions, including the WTO, with regard to the UN Charter of the utmost importance, since this would specify their subordinating to human rights protection.

As for an expansion of developing countries’ participation in the IMF and the World Bank (Par. 57.a), we consider the mention of real economic weight unhelpful. The lack in participation on behalf of the countries that suffer the consequences of international financial institution policies is precisely a result of the principle of giving weight only to countries with large economies. We find it important in this connection to support, explicitly, the active participation of all countries and of all groups in society, since development is a right of the individual. This would also help the coherence of the Draft itself as it puts forward a notion of international cooperation borrowed from the UN, setting forth the General Assembly (which functions by a one country-one vote system) as maximum normative entity.

The idea of “peer” dialogues on macroeconomic policies (Par. 58.e) could be in conflict with notions of inclusiveness and non-discrimination. The sentence could refer to peers (equals) in terms of persons equal in responsibility, or in terms of countries equal in development level. In the latter case, the phrase would violate the inclusiveness explicitly desired in the first paragraph of the Draft. The Draft should therefore include an explicit commitment to inclusiveness at this point.

Staying engaged

Positive aspects

The Draft reflects a commitment to inclusiveness and development which could show very positive for the promotion and protection of all human rights for all. This commitment goes hand in hand with an explicit call for the necessary support to be able to carry out the program launched in the text (Par. 63).

Recommendations

While the previous Draft called for more inclusive debates, the current Draft establishes a series of interactions between international financial and development institutions (Par. 62.d). We find the lack of inclusion of civil society in these interactions very concerning. Though the forum planned for 2005 will be open to “all private and public stakeholders” (Par. 61), the vision of the Draft is minimalist. In fact, the 2005 Forum is defined as a dialogue between economic authorities at the highest level, though the definition of development in international law includes social, political, and individual aspects, as well as the economic aspects. In order to be in conformity with international commitments already made, the Draft should therefore project a broader vision.

With regard to the necessary support in order to carry out the initiative, the Draft neither specifies financial or material support, nor does it extend to the subscribing States. We believe the direct and economic involvement of all governments in proportions to their abilities is extremely important for the effective implementation of the Declaration.

A last recommendation

In our analysis we have noted that the official Spanish version and the official English version of the text contain radically different commitments due to less than accurate translations. To give full effect to the Declaration’s provisions and to ensure its equitable and inclusive implementation, a careful revision of all translations is important, as is a final clause that legitimizes all linguistic versions.