Welcome to the United Nations 
OHCHR 
Press releases Treaty bodies
COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS CONCLUDES DISCUSSION ON COOPERATION WITH INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
07 May 2001
Share
CESCR
25th session
7 May 2001
Afternoon
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon concluded its day-long “international consultation” on development activities of international institutions by focusing on possible advances in economic, social and cultural rights.
Committee Expert Philippe Texier said there was major overlap between States which had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Member States of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the financial institutions and the World Trade Organization. It could be concluded from this that the provisions of the International Covenant then should be a part of the specialized agencies. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, specifically, should give further consideration to human rights, particularly concerning debt forgiveness. Human rights needed to be taken into account in all policy-making processes.
But Francois Gianviti of the International Monetary Fund explained that the IMF was not legally bound by the Covenant. In fact, he said, articles within the Covenant said that specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
Mr. Gianviti said that when the Covenant was being negotiated, the specialized agencies were asked to participate. The IMF had declined to participate because the limits set on the IMF's activities did not appear to cover this field of work. The Fund saw itself as an agency which relied on technical and economic considerations, rather then political or economic rights of individuals. It dealt with Governments, not individuals. The Fund was allowed to enter agreements with other agencies, but only so long as the agreements were consistent with its principles.
Fantu Cheru, the Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on structural adjustment and foreign debt, and Miloon Kothari, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on the right to adequate housing, both disagreed with Mr. Gianviti. Mr. Cheru said the IMF should not embrace isolationist policies, while Mr. Kothari said decision-makers at the Fund, and at the World Bank, as well, needed to be taught about human rights. A lesson taught by the Covenant, he said, was that vulnerable groups needed to be protected.
Also speaking during the debate was Carlo Trojan of the European Commission; Simon Munzu of the United Nations Development Programme; Catherine Lalumiere of the High Council for International Cooperation (France); Hoe Lim of the World Bank; Kishore Singh of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; Nyameko Barney Pityana of the South African Human Rights Commission; Waleed Sa’di of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Paul Hunt of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Alfredo Sfeir-Younis of the World Bank; Kenneth Osborne Rattray of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Gustave Massiah of the High Council for International Cooperation.
The Committee is expected to meet in closed session until Friday 11 May to draft its conclusions and recommendations on the reports that it has considered.
Discussion
PHILIPPE TEXIER, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said there was major overlap between States which had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Member States of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the financial institutions and the World Trade Organization. It could be concluded from this that the provisions of the Covenant then should be a part of the specialized agencies. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, specifically, should give further consideration to human rights, particularly concerning debt forgiveness. Human rights needed to be taken into account in all policy-making processes. Non-State actors, including international organizations, had responsibilities in combatting poverty.
Mr. Texier said the Commission on Human Rights last month had passed a resolution saying that the fundamental rights in debtor countries, including the rights to housing, food, health and education, could not be made subordinate to structural readjustment policies. There were other resolutions from both the Commission and the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that followed along the same lines. Rapporteurs and Independent Experts had also reached similar conclusions.
He said the international institutions had implemented positive changes lately. UNDP had considered human rights in a number of its programmes, and the World Bank had resolved to address the problem of poverty throughout the world.
FRANCOIS GIANVITI, of the International Monetary Fund, said speakers were asking if the IMF was legally required to give effect to the Covenant? When the Covenant was being negotiated, the specialized agencies were asked to participate. The IMF had declined to participate because the limits set on the IMF's activities did not appear to cover this field of work. The Fund saw itself as an agency which relied on technical and economic considerations, rather then political or economic rights of individuals. It dealt with Governments, not individuals. The Fund was allowed to enter agreements with other agencies, but only so long as the agreements were consistent with its principles.
Mr. Gianviti said what should be recognized was that the activities of the Fund had evolved. In the 1960s, there was a recognition that although the members of the Fund had an equal right to use its resources, there could be different types of requirements for the different uses of the Fund. For example, some States used the Fund for short-term assistance, while others used it for medium-term and long-term assistance. These differences were designed to help developing countries. Here also grew a recognition that the least developed countries deserved special attention. A third change was the evolution of the role of the Fund from the guardian of exchange rates to the guardian of the international monetary system and its Member States' exchange rates. This got the Fund involved in the domestic policies of its member countries.
He said there were three objections to the IMF recognizing the applicability of the Covenant. The first one was obvious -- the Fund was not a party to the Covenant. Another reason was that the Covenant only dealt with obligations of States, not international institutions. And finally, the Covenant in its own articles recognized that the specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
Mr. Gianviti said there was a theory that the IMF was bound to the Covenant. The theory held that the Fund was a UN organization. But the Fund was not a UN agency, it was a specialized agency within the meaning of the UN Charter. The Fund had a cooperation agreement with the UN which recognized that the Fund was to operate as an independent organization. And there was also a theory that the members of the Fund were also party to the Covenant, and therefore the Fund was a party to the Covenant. There were States that were not part of the Covenant. The Covenant in its own articles said that specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
When the Fund provided assistance to a country, it was not only to benefit the country, he said. When a country was helped, it would be able to continue participating in the international monetary system. The Fund's intervention was also guided by the needs of the international community.
CARLO TROJAN, of the European Commission, said that in a world with economic globalization, there had to be a global responsibility for the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the right to development. The EU's policy for development was based on the principal of respect for human rights. It would be counter-productive to challenge the rules that expanded global markets. But there needed to be global poverty reduction programmes, and more concerted actions to implement social development programmes.
For some, he said, the World Trade Organization lacked in taking action in situations where labour, environment and health standards were concerned. The WTO was known as an efficient body dominated by affluent countries. In fact, the WTO was far weaker and far more ineffective than the United Nations or the Bretton Woods institutions. Moreover, where trade could have a negative impact on human rights, the WTO generally provided scope for Governments to ensure that rights were protected. While it was true that they could do more to contributing toward the full enjoyment of human rights, it could not be the job of the WTO alone to eradicate poverty. The WTO was not the organization that could or should handle the larger issues of Governments. It was there to settle trade disputes. Coordination among the international agencies was not easy -- every agency had its own plan of action, and there were no plans to ensure consistency.
SIMON MUNZU, of the United Nations Development Programme, said advances in economic, social and cultural rights were inherent within the mandate of UNDP. From the implicit fulfilment of human rights through development activities, UNDP opted for a programme of human rights through its social development policies. Practically implementing the rights-based approach to human development was challenging. Progress was made, but much remained to be done. Through its programmes and projects, UNDP sought to reduce poverty and give access to housing, food, employment, and health, among other things. It aimed to promote gender equality, eliminate racism, and promote the rights of children, refugees and people living with HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Munzu said human rights and sustainable development were independent but inextricably linked. UNDP endorsed the 1986 Declaration of the Right to Development, which recognized that development was a human right. But UNDP was aware that it was working in a context made up of several elements. Both sustainable human development and human rights had to take place in an environment that needed to be enabling. That was why non-governmental organizations were integrated into UNDP's development policy.
CATHERINE LALUMIERE, of the High Council for International Cooperation (France), said it was important to enhance coordination in order to promote consistency. Traditionally, States agreed that the matter of human rights -- including economic, social and cultural rights -- should be entrusted to specialized bodies. But they became marginalized. But things were beginning to change. The Security Council, which in principle did not deal with human rights, had began to get involved. It was welcome to see all the international organizations today that wanted to be involved in human rights. Human rights needed specialists, certainly, to advance doctrine in law. But the effectiveness of human rights also called for an interiorization of this matter by everybody -- it had to penetrate every policy.
Ms. Lalumiere said it was important to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights were binding throughout the world. Many questions remained. She asked if structural adjustment policies would be halted because they infringed on the rights of a certain group? In respecting human rights, was there a hampering of economic development? It was thought not. Economic development was seen to be all the better when the country respected human rights and development rights.
HOE LIM, of the World Trade Organization, said the WTO's objectives did not differ greatly from the Covenant. The WTO was not a development organization, although development was very important to it. It was an institution used by Governments to develop multi-lateral trade agreements. It was also a forum for negotiating multi-national trade rules, and for settling multi-national trade disputes. It had a difficult task in trying to conceptualize rights.
Mr. Hoe said that it was not the WTO's secretariat that needed to be convinced about a rights-based approach toward trade negotiations, it was the Governments. If this was not demonstrated, the debate would not move very far. There was a need for common terminology. Many Governments and organizations used the same words, but meant very different things. The WTO needed to do a better job explaining itself, but the human rights community needed to do the same. The WTO was a weak organization with strong agreements. They were strong because Member States felt strongly about the agreements, often because of self-interest. There were many things that linked the work of the WTO and the work of the human rights community. But these similarities were often overlooked because of conflicts and disagreements.
KISHORE SINGH, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said UNESCO had been promoting human rights since its foundation. It was essentially part of its mandate. Raising the debate of the right to education would help in the fight against poverty. Education, illiteracy and poverty intersected. UNESCO was committed to empowering people through education. Making education accessible to children who lived in poorer families was a priority.
NYAMEKO BARNEY PITYANA, Commissioner of the South African Human Rights Commission, said there was a broad acceptance about the need for the mainstreaming of human rights, using all the systems to achieve some common aims that benefitted the well-being of society. It was important for national commissions to be framed and developed with an international framework. That was why the application of international norms was critical.
FANTU CHERU, Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on structural adjustment and foreign debt, said he was a bit astounded by the argument made by the IMF about why the Fund should not embrace a human rights discourse. It was unacceptable. The Fund should not embrace the isolationist policy that it voiced this morning. The Fund was involved with development.
MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to adequate housing, said the presentations heard from the World Bank and IMF seemed to indicate the principles of the Covenant were difficult to grasp. The Committee needed to teach the decision-makers at the Bank and the Fund what human rights were all about. A lesson taught by the Covenant was that vulnerable groups needed to be protected.
WALEED SA’DI, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said he took issue with the statement by the IMF. About 145 countries had ratified the Covenant. Application of the Covenant was quite universal, and when that kind of document achieved this kind of universality, it enjoyed a type of international law.
PAUL HUNT, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the statement of the IMF wondered if a State party to the Covenant was obliged to take into account its duties under the Covenant when entering into discussions with the IMF. The Committee's view on this issue was very clear. It was well-established that a State party to the Covenant did not jettison its legal responsibility when it walked into IMF's boardroom.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said the Bank was not able to get involved into a situation where there was no Government, for example in post-conflict situations. In the case of human rights, there were fundamental issues to which the Bank had provided input. Economic values were human values. To say economic values themselves would not help create the hoped outcome needed to be examined. The Bank was here today because it was involved in human rights issues. This Committee was about economic, social and culture rights, and one of those rights was not above the others.
MR. GIANVITI said the IMF did not dispute the obligation to cooperate with State parties to the Covenant. The question was whether the provisions of the Covenant superseded the charter of the IMF. The IMF's view was that it did not. It was possible for the members of the Fund to take into account the agreements within the Covenant. But the Fund had to ensure that resources were not used for purposes for which they were not approved.
KENNETH OSBORNE RATTRAY, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said there was a need to recognize that international organizations were bound by human rights covenants. There was a need for a global compact among the international organizations. Globalization was discussed extensively -- and there was recognition about the need to have basic rights respected in a globalized world. Living in absolute poverty was probably the most effective way to ensure that human rights would be violated. An integrated approach was needed, and civil society would play an important role.
GUSTAVE MASSIAH, of the High Council for International Cooperation (France), said there were two basic tasks -- to organize an international discussion, and to think in terms of proposals that would help the situation. It was necessary to find a middle ground between economic and political and social rights.
* *** *
25th session
7 May 2001
Afternoon
The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights this afternoon concluded its day-long “international consultation” on development activities of international institutions by focusing on possible advances in economic, social and cultural rights.
Committee Expert Philippe Texier said there was major overlap between States which had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Member States of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the financial institutions and the World Trade Organization. It could be concluded from this that the provisions of the International Covenant then should be a part of the specialized agencies. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, specifically, should give further consideration to human rights, particularly concerning debt forgiveness. Human rights needed to be taken into account in all policy-making processes.
But Francois Gianviti of the International Monetary Fund explained that the IMF was not legally bound by the Covenant. In fact, he said, articles within the Covenant said that specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
Mr. Gianviti said that when the Covenant was being negotiated, the specialized agencies were asked to participate. The IMF had declined to participate because the limits set on the IMF's activities did not appear to cover this field of work. The Fund saw itself as an agency which relied on technical and economic considerations, rather then political or economic rights of individuals. It dealt with Governments, not individuals. The Fund was allowed to enter agreements with other agencies, but only so long as the agreements were consistent with its principles.
Fantu Cheru, the Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on structural adjustment and foreign debt, and Miloon Kothari, the Special Rapporteur of the Commission on the right to adequate housing, both disagreed with Mr. Gianviti. Mr. Cheru said the IMF should not embrace isolationist policies, while Mr. Kothari said decision-makers at the Fund, and at the World Bank, as well, needed to be taught about human rights. A lesson taught by the Covenant, he said, was that vulnerable groups needed to be protected.
Also speaking during the debate was Carlo Trojan of the European Commission; Simon Munzu of the United Nations Development Programme; Catherine Lalumiere of the High Council for International Cooperation (France); Hoe Lim of the World Bank; Kishore Singh of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization; Nyameko Barney Pityana of the South African Human Rights Commission; Waleed Sa’di of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Paul Hunt of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; Alfredo Sfeir-Younis of the World Bank; Kenneth Osborne Rattray of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; and Gustave Massiah of the High Council for International Cooperation.
The Committee is expected to meet in closed session until Friday 11 May to draft its conclusions and recommendations on the reports that it has considered.
Discussion
PHILIPPE TEXIER, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said there was major overlap between States which had ratified the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Member States of the specialized agencies of the United Nations, the financial institutions and the World Trade Organization. It could be concluded from this that the provisions of the Covenant then should be a part of the specialized agencies. The World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, specifically, should give further consideration to human rights, particularly concerning debt forgiveness. Human rights needed to be taken into account in all policy-making processes. Non-State actors, including international organizations, had responsibilities in combatting poverty.
Mr. Texier said the Commission on Human Rights last month had passed a resolution saying that the fundamental rights in debtor countries, including the rights to housing, food, health and education, could not be made subordinate to structural readjustment policies. There were other resolutions from both the Commission and the Subcommission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights that followed along the same lines. Rapporteurs and Independent Experts had also reached similar conclusions.
He said the international institutions had implemented positive changes lately. UNDP had considered human rights in a number of its programmes, and the World Bank had resolved to address the problem of poverty throughout the world.
FRANCOIS GIANVITI, of the International Monetary Fund, said speakers were asking if the IMF was legally required to give effect to the Covenant? When the Covenant was being negotiated, the specialized agencies were asked to participate. The IMF had declined to participate because the limits set on the IMF's activities did not appear to cover this field of work. The Fund saw itself as an agency which relied on technical and economic considerations, rather then political or economic rights of individuals. It dealt with Governments, not individuals. The Fund was allowed to enter agreements with other agencies, but only so long as the agreements were consistent with its principles.
Mr. Gianviti said what should be recognized was that the activities of the Fund had evolved. In the 1960s, there was a recognition that although the members of the Fund had an equal right to use its resources, there could be different types of requirements for the different uses of the Fund. For example, some States used the Fund for short-term assistance, while others used it for medium-term and long-term assistance. These differences were designed to help developing countries. Here also grew a recognition that the least developed countries deserved special attention. A third change was the evolution of the role of the Fund from the guardian of exchange rates to the guardian of the international monetary system and its Member States' exchange rates. This got the Fund involved in the domestic policies of its member countries.
He said there were three objections to the IMF recognizing the applicability of the Covenant. The first one was obvious -- the Fund was not a party to the Covenant. Another reason was that the Covenant only dealt with obligations of States, not international institutions. And finally, the Covenant in its own articles recognized that the specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
Mr. Gianviti said there was a theory that the IMF was bound to the Covenant. The theory held that the Fund was a UN organization. But the Fund was not a UN agency, it was a specialized agency within the meaning of the UN Charter. The Fund had a cooperation agreement with the UN which recognized that the Fund was to operate as an independent organization. And there was also a theory that the members of the Fund were also party to the Covenant, and therefore the Fund was a party to the Covenant. There were States that were not part of the Covenant. The Covenant in its own articles said that specialized agencies were subject to their own charters.
When the Fund provided assistance to a country, it was not only to benefit the country, he said. When a country was helped, it would be able to continue participating in the international monetary system. The Fund's intervention was also guided by the needs of the international community.
CARLO TROJAN, of the European Commission, said that in a world with economic globalization, there had to be a global responsibility for the enjoyment of human rights, particularly the right to development. The EU's policy for development was based on the principal of respect for human rights. It would be counter-productive to challenge the rules that expanded global markets. But there needed to be global poverty reduction programmes, and more concerted actions to implement social development programmes.
For some, he said, the World Trade Organization lacked in taking action in situations where labour, environment and health standards were concerned. The WTO was known as an efficient body dominated by affluent countries. In fact, the WTO was far weaker and far more ineffective than the United Nations or the Bretton Woods institutions. Moreover, where trade could have a negative impact on human rights, the WTO generally provided scope for Governments to ensure that rights were protected. While it was true that they could do more to contributing toward the full enjoyment of human rights, it could not be the job of the WTO alone to eradicate poverty. The WTO was not the organization that could or should handle the larger issues of Governments. It was there to settle trade disputes. Coordination among the international agencies was not easy -- every agency had its own plan of action, and there were no plans to ensure consistency.
SIMON MUNZU, of the United Nations Development Programme, said advances in economic, social and cultural rights were inherent within the mandate of UNDP. From the implicit fulfilment of human rights through development activities, UNDP opted for a programme of human rights through its social development policies. Practically implementing the rights-based approach to human development was challenging. Progress was made, but much remained to be done. Through its programmes and projects, UNDP sought to reduce poverty and give access to housing, food, employment, and health, among other things. It aimed to promote gender equality, eliminate racism, and promote the rights of children, refugees and people living with HIV/AIDS.
Mr. Munzu said human rights and sustainable development were independent but inextricably linked. UNDP endorsed the 1986 Declaration of the Right to Development, which recognized that development was a human right. But UNDP was aware that it was working in a context made up of several elements. Both sustainable human development and human rights had to take place in an environment that needed to be enabling. That was why non-governmental organizations were integrated into UNDP's development policy.
CATHERINE LALUMIERE, of the High Council for International Cooperation (France), said it was important to enhance coordination in order to promote consistency. Traditionally, States agreed that the matter of human rights -- including economic, social and cultural rights -- should be entrusted to specialized bodies. But they became marginalized. But things were beginning to change. The Security Council, which in principle did not deal with human rights, had began to get involved. It was welcome to see all the international organizations today that wanted to be involved in human rights. Human rights needed specialists, certainly, to advance doctrine in law. But the effectiveness of human rights also called for an interiorization of this matter by everybody -- it had to penetrate every policy.
Ms. Lalumiere said it was important to ensure that economic, social and cultural rights were binding throughout the world. Many questions remained. She asked if structural adjustment policies would be halted because they infringed on the rights of a certain group? In respecting human rights, was there a hampering of economic development? It was thought not. Economic development was seen to be all the better when the country respected human rights and development rights.
HOE LIM, of the World Trade Organization, said the WTO's objectives did not differ greatly from the Covenant. The WTO was not a development organization, although development was very important to it. It was an institution used by Governments to develop multi-lateral trade agreements. It was also a forum for negotiating multi-national trade rules, and for settling multi-national trade disputes. It had a difficult task in trying to conceptualize rights.
Mr. Hoe said that it was not the WTO's secretariat that needed to be convinced about a rights-based approach toward trade negotiations, it was the Governments. If this was not demonstrated, the debate would not move very far. There was a need for common terminology. Many Governments and organizations used the same words, but meant very different things. The WTO needed to do a better job explaining itself, but the human rights community needed to do the same. The WTO was a weak organization with strong agreements. They were strong because Member States felt strongly about the agreements, often because of self-interest. There were many things that linked the work of the WTO and the work of the human rights community. But these similarities were often overlooked because of conflicts and disagreements.
KISHORE SINGH, of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said UNESCO had been promoting human rights since its foundation. It was essentially part of its mandate. Raising the debate of the right to education would help in the fight against poverty. Education, illiteracy and poverty intersected. UNESCO was committed to empowering people through education. Making education accessible to children who lived in poorer families was a priority.
NYAMEKO BARNEY PITYANA, Commissioner of the South African Human Rights Commission, said there was a broad acceptance about the need for the mainstreaming of human rights, using all the systems to achieve some common aims that benefitted the well-being of society. It was important for national commissions to be framed and developed with an international framework. That was why the application of international norms was critical.
FANTU CHERU, Independent Expert of the Commission on Human Rights on structural adjustment and foreign debt, said he was a bit astounded by the argument made by the IMF about why the Fund should not embrace a human rights discourse. It was unacceptable. The Fund should not embrace the isolationist policy that it voiced this morning. The Fund was involved with development.
MILOON KOTHARI, Special Rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the right to adequate housing, said the presentations heard from the World Bank and IMF seemed to indicate the principles of the Covenant were difficult to grasp. The Committee needed to teach the decision-makers at the Bank and the Fund what human rights were all about. A lesson taught by the Covenant was that vulnerable groups needed to be protected.
WALEED SA’DI, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said he took issue with the statement by the IMF. About 145 countries had ratified the Covenant. Application of the Covenant was quite universal, and when that kind of document achieved this kind of universality, it enjoyed a type of international law.
PAUL HUNT, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said the statement of the IMF wondered if a State party to the Covenant was obliged to take into account its duties under the Covenant when entering into discussions with the IMF. The Committee's view on this issue was very clear. It was well-established that a State party to the Covenant did not jettison its legal responsibility when it walked into IMF's boardroom.
ALFREDO SFEIR-YOUNIS, of the World Bank, said the Bank was not able to get involved into a situation where there was no Government, for example in post-conflict situations. In the case of human rights, there were fundamental issues to which the Bank had provided input. Economic values were human values. To say economic values themselves would not help create the hoped outcome needed to be examined. The Bank was here today because it was involved in human rights issues. This Committee was about economic, social and culture rights, and one of those rights was not above the others.
MR. GIANVITI said the IMF did not dispute the obligation to cooperate with State parties to the Covenant. The question was whether the provisions of the Covenant superseded the charter of the IMF. The IMF's view was that it did not. It was possible for the members of the Fund to take into account the agreements within the Covenant. But the Fund had to ensure that resources were not used for purposes for which they were not approved.
KENNETH OSBORNE RATTRAY, Expert of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, said there was a need to recognize that international organizations were bound by human rights covenants. There was a need for a global compact among the international organizations. Globalization was discussed extensively -- and there was recognition about the need to have basic rights respected in a globalized world. Living in absolute poverty was probably the most effective way to ensure that human rights would be violated. An integrated approach was needed, and civil society would play an important role.
GUSTAVE MASSIAH, of the High Council for International Cooperation (France), said there were two basic tasks -- to organize an international discussion, and to think in terms of proposals that would help the situation. It was necessary to find a middle ground between economic and political and social rights.
* *** *
VIEW THIS PAGE IN: