Rights or Obligations, and So What?

Gaston Meskens

Much of the focus of Rio+20 has been on ‘goals, aspirations and shared visions’ to eradicate poverty and use our environment sustainably.

According to Gaston Meskens, of the Centre for Ethics and Value Inquiry, this approach is too weak.

Goals and aspirations actively obscure the best way to achieve the goals of eradicating wealth disparity and over-exploitation of the environment.

Instead, a rights-based approach that places human beings at the core of all institutions, agreements and laws should be at the centre of Rio+20.

This approach directly draws on the ‘Rio Principles’ from twenty years ago at the 1992 Earth Summit. The Rio Principles emphasise rights which imply obligations, instead of goals which imply aspirations.

The focus on basic rights is under attack by states, according to Paul Quintos of IBON International. Quintos sees a consistent attempt to delete or bracket (a UN formality that often leads to deletion of text) rights.

Preparatory negotiations reflect this to its core.

The wealthier are questioning language that implies any obligation and are seeking instead to reaffirm the spirit of the original Rio Principles without committing to anything in particular.

Back in March the “right to water and basic sanitation” was being bracketed by Canada. They have since back-tracked after civil society pressure, but the “right to food and nutrition” remains bracketed.

The Group of 77 Developing Countries (G77) has been clear in the negotiations that they don’t want to simply “re-write old rules”.

According to Quintos, another technique employed by wealthier nations is to substitute a “right” with “access” in the final agreement. It sounds positive, but it is actually a backwards step.

Uchita de Zoysa spoke passionately about how this process of “bracketing” is ruining any chance of a meaningful international treaty.

“Why do we have to struggle to get rights on the agenda at Rio+20? The hypocrisy not only continues but grows in a mountainous way,” Zoysa demands.

The reasons for stalling are threefold:

1) Some states resist the very notion of accountability and representative democracy.

2) Wealthier states are reluctant to agree to anything that would obligate them to commit finances.

3) They won’t agree on a resolution that mentions rights as this would entail a commitment to enforce them via some institution using finances.

As states will likely fail to agree to anything at the moment, civil society has to take charge of ensuring sustainable development. Activists need to lobby municipal governments, corporations, and the rest of society in a bottom-up approach. Eventually, nation states will reflect this mood and implement a top-down agreement.

Civil society, NGOs, youth groups and even faith groups should promote a rights-based approach to sustainable development, and pick up the baton where nation states have fallen behind.

As with basic human rights like freedom to life and liberty, freedom to a healthy environment is a worthy right. It should be enshrined in a document and enforced by institutions that reflect its inimitable value.

By Lachie McKenzie.