It’s been a busy and challenging Human Rights Week for IntLawGrrls. December 9 marked the 60th anniversary of the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (see Diane Marie Amann's post here) and December 10 marked the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (see a post on the history of its drafting and adoption by Stephanie Farrior here and other IntLawGrrls' commentary on the UDHR here ). Despite the longstanding view endorsed by the international community that all human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social, or cultural, “are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated,” (Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action), economic and social rights are still dismissed or viewed with suspicion in some circles (see Human Rights & the Global Marketplace: Economic, Social, and Cultural Dimensions 
by Jeanne M. Woods (photo right) & Hope Lewis).
A remark recently overheard at a UDHR celebration illustrates the continuing misperceptions. The speaker dismissed ESC rights as alien to an “Anglo-American tradition.” This, despite the fact that no less American a figure than U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for the indivisibility of rights (freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and belief, freedom from want, and freedom from fear) in his famous 1941 “Four Freedoms” speech to Congress.
The various celebrations commemorated how far the international human rights movement has come, but they also shed light on how far we have to go. The standards outlined at the UN will constitute only empty promises without the political and economic commitment to back them up.
Genocide, mass killings and sexual violence, poverty, labor abuses, war, crimes against humanity, political and economic migration, human trafficking, the over-incarceration and under-education of minority youth, discrimination against indigenous peoples and racial, religious, sexual, and disability minorities and women, and environmental destruction caused by carbon emissions, unregulated mining and dumping of toxic industrial and electronic waste—all are, or are related to, continuing and massive violations of international human rights.
It is a time of global crisis, with almost every economic system and country feeling the effects. No one, including politicians, economists, and development experts, seems to have “the solution”. I don’t either (although, as a former U.S. securities regulator, I suspect that wholesale financial deregulation played an important role in the mess). (Disclaimer: The latter is solely my opinion, and does not necessarily reflect that of the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission or its staff.)
I do know this. A human rights perspective requires states, the international community, and each of us as members of society to protect fundamental human rights as a matter of priority. Some such efforts may even save some governments money, since the apparatus necessary to imprison political dissidents, torture detainees, and engage in unwise military adventures is often expensive.
Still, the protection of human rights, whether civil, political, economic, social, or cultural does require financial investment and political commitment.
Private donors, foundations, and charitable organizations do what they can to support vulnerable populations (see, for example, a recent press release on grants to 33 developing country NGOs by the Disability Rights Fund).
But governments have explicit moral, political, and legal obligations to make an investment in human rights on a much broader scale. (Note, for example, their commitment to the Millennium Development Goals and the recent International Review Conference on Financing for Development). A paradigm-shift toward human rights and human development is more likely to produce longer-term and more widely distributed benefits than failed neo-liberal paradigms have left us so far.
Like industries that are now considered “too big to fail,” individual governments and the international community simply cannot afford to consign millions to unemployment, unsafe working conditions, poverty, hunger, discrimination, and lack of access to health care.
As world leaders grapple with the global effects of financial and environmental shocks, the needs and rights of those who are most vulnerable and who will be most adversely affected must be front and center. Such an approach is not only just, compassionate, and legally-required; it’s crucial domestic and international policy.
