Dialogue in Pursuit of Development - Are you looking for one of ...

230
with ideological and political value), formulating standards both generally
and in relation to specific rights.
One obvious advantage of these instruments is that, in principle, they
apply to every state in the world, and therefore presume to have legitimacy
in relation to every society on earth – in short, the argument for universality.
This is particularly the case with such a document as the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights from 1948, probably the closest we come to a
valid source of universal human rights. However, we have often seen this
instrument rejected as such, primarily based on the (contested) claim that
few or none of the states outside Western Europe and North America which
are now struggling through the process of development, actually participated
in the process of its formulation (Lindholt, 1997).
The drawback of these instruments in general is that their formulations
reflect many different agendas, that they are very much subject to a process
of negotiation and compromise, and that, as a consequence, their formulations
are relatively imprecise and limit themselves to stating the main aspects
and limitations of key human rights principles. Especially in relation
to economic, social and cultural rights the documents often use formulations
such as ‘best attainable state’ and operate on the basis of progressive
realisation, i.e. states are obligated only as far as they are capable of fulfilling
the rights. In later years this lack of precision has, to some extent, been
alleviated through interpretative decisions from quasi-judicial bodies and
through the process of formulation of General Comments. All of this gives
us a better, but still far from satisfactory, basis for measuring state compliance.
In addition, attempts have been made to formulate indicators simplifying
the exercise and, for instance, allowing for a shift in focus from ‘result’
(as too vulnerable to fundamental conditions and outside factors) to ‘conduct’
i.e. how states actually behave in relation to specific human rights
(The Danish Centre for Human Rights, 2001).
Given this rather contested field, we must conclude that the global instruments
have their strengths when it comes to establishing a feeling of
common ground between states in various parts of the world. Provided, of
course, that the partners engaged in the dialogue have not only sufficient
knowledge but also willingness (i.e. can generate enough political support)
to operationalise these instruments, their provisions can serve as a good
basis for constructive approaches to an improvement of the human rights
situation. On the other hand, the debate surrounding their ‘true’ universality
may be used less constructively to sideline substantial discussion on the
basis of these instruments – and so, as always, the success ultimately depends
on whether the parties are committed to constructive dialogue, in which
case the international instruments may be considered a tool rather than a
guarantee in themselves.