Bottom-up rights and ethical globalization.

Anthony Ravlich
Chairperson
Human Rights Council Inc. (New Zealand, Asia-Pacific Region)
10D/15 City Rd.,
Auckland City.
New Zealand.
Ph: (0064) (09) 302 2761
(Revised, July 15, 2009)

The ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights are those which the discontented, particularly the independent peoples (e.g. small business) and the most disadvantaged, need to struggle for to have included in domestic and international human rights law.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach simply comprises those rights left out of the UN human rights instruments which come under international law. This is most evident in the Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009. It is apparent that the excluded rights were considered incompatible with neo liberalism and political globalization. (These rights exclusions are verifiable using original UN sources and the reports of the NGO Coalition (see my book below)).

The ‘bottom-up’ approach entails an ethical globalization and, in my view, constitutes a major challenge to neo liberalism and political (or economic) globalization with respect to achieving the aspirations of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Ethical globalization means that a State ensures core minimum obligations are immediately implemented domestically and where necessary helps other States achieve theirs – this is by right, under international law, not charity especially as neo liberalism and globalization has prevented the poor from helping themselves.

Not only is the ‘bottom-up’ approach a far more ethical approach than neo liberalism it is also more relevant as the numbers of hungry in the world are expected to reach an historic high this year and with 90million more people suffering extreme poverty. Failure to address the worst violations renders human rights as irrelevant.

Because of the exclusion of these rights Obama’s promotion of democracy in the Arab States and Africa cannot be taken seriously because it is an elitist democracy - it pits a ‘we are all in this together’ establishment against the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged. Why couldn’t core minimum obligations with respect to democracy be devised e.g. a national referendum where the people could state their approval or otherwise for an autocratic regime?.

The ‘bottom-up’ approach constitutes an ethical base immediately ensuring the core minimums while higher levels are addressed progressively. By dealing with the most serious violations and those empowerment rights which allow those suffering extreme violence to help themselves any belief system, organization, or State would have little credibility if they ignored them. Consequently, the ‘bottom-up’ approach can be driven by NGOs but also form the ethical base of various ideologies, such as liberalism and socialism, or religious States, political parties could become ethical parties, and discontented States, perhaps in poorer regions, could promote these core minimum obligations. In fact, the discontented in the world could unite to encourage neo liberalism to adopt such an ethical base.

The ‘excluded rights’ in the OP are the core minimum obligations of the State (as defined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights), the empowerment rights to development and human rights education and non-retrogression. This is particularly the case given that the global elites at the UN after four years of discussions concluded by a huge majority that civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights were of equal status. Consequently given this decision America’s major objection to the right to development (i.e. the inclusion of economic, social and cultural rights) should not have prevented its inclusion.

Also the UN and the global elites by failing to recognize that equal status also applies at the level of core minimum obligations gives States an ‘out’ whereby they can focus on the human rights of elites and overlook the most disadvantaged. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that without such core minimum obligations the covenant loses its ‘raison d’etre’ (General Comment No.3). In my opinion, the same would also apply to civil and political rights but the UN Human Rights Committee has not determined such core minimum obligations with respect to this set of rights consequently the civil and political rights of the most disadvantaged were overlooked in previous human rights instruments.

Lexington Books, my publishers, asked me if I would write an article on the ‘Bottom-Up’ Approach to Human Rights which formed the basis of my book, ‘Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights’ – this coincided with the release of the paperback on June 28, 2009. Chapter 5 deals with the Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The three articles below are from the Rowman and Littlefield Blog.
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Blog

Independent Books for Independent Minds

June 30, 2009

The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART ONE


By Anthony Ravlich


The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, shows the neo liberal dominated global elites at the UN are prepared to deny a number of human rights to further neo liberalism and globalization.


The rights excluded by the OP are the core minimum obligations of the State, the empowerment rights and non-retrogression. However in the exclusion of these rights the global elites have provided a more ethical ‘bottom-up human rights approach’ for the discontented to struggle for and have included in domestic and international law.
Those groups most affected by the exclusion of these rights are the most disadvantaged and the independent peoples. The exclusion of these rights indicates that social control and old ideas represented by the Corporations are much more preferred to new ideas, independence and going forward.


In addition, the exclusion of these rights allows States to ignore the most disadvantaged and focus on the usually lesser violations of human rights suffered by elites. This has also been the case with previous human rights instruments.
The ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights also includes core minimum obligations with respect to civil and political rights as their exclusion in previous human rights instruments have left the poor voiceless and discriminated against. The ‘bottom-up’ approach, based on my work in the community, anticipated the exclusions of the OP and is described in full in my book, Freedom from our social prisons: the rise of economic, social and cultural rights (Lexington Books).


For sixty years economic, social and cultural rights have been held out often by the liberal elites at the international level as a hope for the poor but the present OP now disinherits them. For example, the core minimum obligations of the State includes the right to food, water, shelter, basic health and education and are defined by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states that without these core minimums the covenant loses its ‘raison d’etre’ (General Comment No.3) i.e. if the most serious violations are ignored then human rights become irrelevant.


Also excluded is the empowerment right to development which means that neo liberal States can disregard small business which means people will be less able to help themselves through developing their talents, gifts and new ideas. It also means much higher unemployment. The other empowerment right excluded is human rights education. If educated in both sets of rights the people would be able to hold the domestic and global elites to account at election time. In addition, non retrogression was also excluded enabling the State to curb or reduce human rights at its discretion.


Independent NGOs and even States dissatisfied with neo liberalism can struggle to have the ‘bottom-up’ approach included in domestic and international law.


Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.

Posted at 09:36 AM in Current Affairs, International Relations, Political Science and Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 01, 2009

Part II: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’.

PART TWO


By Anthony George Ravlich


The Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which will be open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009, excludes such core minimum obligations as the right to food and also the right to development so the world’s hungry will be reliant on the insecurity of charity and the vagaries of the market.


World hunger is projected to reach an historic high in 2009 with 1.02 billion people going hungry every day, according to the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (June 22, 2009). The inclusion of core minimum obligations in the above OP would have ensured that the hungry could have their rights to food and development as the State is ultimately responsible for human rights. Without the right to development there is no assurance the poor will be permitted to help themselves. Kanayo Nwanze, President of the International Fund for Agricultural Development states: "For most developing countries there is little doubt that investing in smallholder agriculture is the most sustainable safety net, particularly during a time of global economic crisis”.


The excluded rights are included in the ‘bottom-up’ approach to human rights which can be struggled for by NGOs to have included in domestic and international law. Part Three argues that the ‘bottom-up’ approach is ethically far superior to neo liberalism. The ‘bottom-up’ approach is discussed in my book, Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Lexington Books).


The recent ideological shift at the UN was from right wing (Bush administration) to left wing neo liberalism (adopted by Obama). What both approaches have in common is the exclusion of the above rights. However, while the right wing curbed civil liberties as a means of social control the left wing is ensuring social control (e.g. silence in return for ‘safety’) by adopting a ‘we are all in this together’ approach with a consensus between the liberal and trade union elites.


The establishment will oversee the growing unemployed who may get health insurance and infrastructure jobs but without the right to development they will have little chance of making use of their talents and gifts. For instance, the American Small Business League state: “This year small businesses have lost about $48 billion dollars in federal small business contracts to large corporations. To date, President Obama has not honored his campaign promise to stop the diversion of small business contracts to corporate giants”. In addition, without core minimum obligations in place, for small entrepreneurs failure can not be an option.


However, I consider the main purpose of the ‘we are all in this together’ approach is internationally where the elite consensus further supports the West’s promotion of democracy to empower liberal forces within autocratic regimes. In addition, the West’s social model which involves the subjugation of the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged may also meet foreign elite approval.


Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Posted at 11:47 AM in Current Affairs, International Relations, Political Science and Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

July 07, 2009

Part III: The More Ethical ‘Bottom-Up Approach to Human Rights’

PART THREE


By Anthony George Ravlich

The ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, whose core minimum obligations, non-retrogression and empowerment rights are considered by the global elites at the UN as incompatible with political globalization, promises instead an ‘ethical globalization’.
It’s a world in trouble – according to the United Nations ‘the global recession has pushed up to 90 million more people into extreme poverty’ (Reuters, July 6, 2009). Because of its massive denials of liberal rights I consider that neo liberalism has lost legitimacy.
The ‘bottom-up’ approach includes the rights excluded by the Optional Protocol (OP) for the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (as well as past human rights instruments). It is not a matter of if these rights will be included but rather it is a matter of when.


The OP is open for ratification by States on September 24, 2009.The ‘bottom-up’ approach forms the basis of my book, ‘Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ (Lexington Books).


While the ‘bottom-up’ approach, driven by NGOs and perhaps some States, promotes the inclusion of the excluded rights in domestic and international law it can also act as an ethical counterbalance to neo liberalism and, particularly, inform the independent peoples and the most disadvantaged who are those most affected by the excluded rights.
Ethical globalization requires the core obligations etc. to be included in domestic and international law. Where other States require assistance it would be by way of right not charity because the desperate state of the poor is a consequence of neo liberalism.
In terms of the empowerment rights to development and human rights education micro credit, televised human rights debates as well as a ‘voice for the poor’ indicates these rights are attainable while other core minimum obligations can be fulfilled by the State and small business development with the increased employment giving people better access to their rights.


If ethical globalization is implemented the liberal elite could refocus its promotion of ‘freedom and democracy’ at the international level by ensuring liberal rights at the domestic level and thereby regain lost legitimacy. Although, in my opinion, people are not yet aware of the true extent of the denials of liberal rights which now could be said, to a large degree, only to constitute the privileges of elites.
The ‘bottom-up’ approach is inclusive as it requires that the most serious violations to be immediately addressed while the lesser violations usually at higher levels are dealt with progressively. Consequently the ‘bottom-up’ approach is far more ethical approach than neo liberalism which excludes core minimum obligations and economic, social and cultural rights at the domestic level.


Western liberal elites, in particular, are preoccupied with ‘safety’ and establishment unity. Also the narrow liberal perspective is very likely to prove inadequate in dealing with the complex problems of a troubled world. Consequently it is left to NGOs to ‘speak out’ on behalf of the oppressed and exploited and also to promote the more ethical, ‘bottom-up’ human rights approach, with its much wider perspective of human rights, with a view to their inclusion in domestic and international human rights law.



Anthony George Ravlich is founder and chairperson of the Human Rights Council Inc. in New Zealand and the author of Freedom from Our Social Prisons: The Rise of Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights.
Posted at 09:29 AM in Current Affairs, International Relations, Political Science and Economics | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)