ABSTRACT
At the time of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) the international community comprised 56 states; today there has been nearly a fourfold increase. However, alongside this increase there has been a growing disparity between rich and poor. Many new states suffer from debt, low incomes, illiteracy, low investment, low economic growth and political instability. In contrast, many of the richer states have experienced steady increases in levels of income, health care, education and capital investment. In these circumstances, there has been a growing demand by poorer states that richer states are under an obligation to assist. Indeed, some poorer states argue that the right of development is derived from the principle of self-determination. The argument is advanced that individual human rights cannot prosper in conditions of economic backwardness and instability. To this, a number of points require to be made. First, a considerable number of international institutions do exist and have been functioning since 1945 with the object of redressing economic disparities; these are examined in the chapter entitled International Economic Law. Secondly, it is a separate question as to whether the poorer states are entitled to claim a distinct right to development. This is disputed by Western states on the grounds that for the most part the western tradition of human rights is directed to individual rather than collective rights. Thirdly, it is argued that matters of such an economic nature are not susceptible of being reduced to the legal language of rights and obligations. Fourthly, it is not without relevance that the right began to be asserted in the early 1970s after western states having decolonised were reluctant to enter into continuing obligations towards former colonies. The right in question was first acknowledged by the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1977 and it received its most tangible manifestation in the UN Declaration on the Right to Development in 1986, but it is the subject of controversy and criticism; some argue that it is inconsistent with General Assembly guidelines as to the creation of new human rights.216
