Background

Hi everybody! We are here again in order to continue with our aim to understand properly the concept of economic conditionality in he field of Human Rights. 

We have just discussed the concept itself but in order to get a wide view of the concept, we are going to look at the background of this important concept. 

Why is Economic Conditionality important? How has it become an important aspect in Human Rights? 

The discourse of conditionality as a mechanism for the promotion of democracy and human rights in international relations is a novelty, alluded to, directly or indirectly, in numerous documents since the dawn of the 1990s. However, the use of conditionality, in international relations is not an idea born in the 1990s, but rather the concept reproduces the tradition left by certain experiences maintained by the foreign policy of some States since the middle of the 20th century, mainly in the field of help or cooperation with less developed countries.

Indeed, after the communist revolution of 1949 in China and the military conflict of 1950 in Korea, the US and the USSR began to use economic aid to establish friendly relations with the new States, which, after completing their process of decolonization, they had to face the serious problems arising from their economic and social underdevelopment. In these aid decisions, conditionality has always been present through the consideration of political, economic, ideological and strategic criteria in order to make the decisions concerning the identity of the subject receiving aid, its quantification, its modification and the withdrawal of it. 

However, this pattern of action in the foreign policies of some States was considered, already in its beginnings, as a source of problems of a political and legal nature, as described by MONGENTHAU:

"Of all the apparent and real innovations that the modern age has introduced into the practice of foreign policy, none has demonstrated to be more disconcerting, for its understanding and exercise, than foreign aid."

The debate did not question the State's competence to grant economic aid to a third country, as well as its increase, decrease, or withdrawal, since it is understood as a unilateral and discretionary competence, bordered within the external competences that a State has by virtue of its sovereignty. 

The debate, on the other hand, confronts the defenders and detractors of foreign aid mechanisms, in terms of the nature of the objectives followed, and in terms of the effectiveness of the instruments. 

The discussions became bigger when aid began to be used as an instrument of a State's foreign policy, linked to specific political criteria such as respect for human rights in the country receiving the aid.

• As an example of this new line of action of foreign policy, highlights the US military and economic aid program, which has explicitly included the consideration of human rights as a criterion that informs that program. Since 1973, the US Congress adopts a series of reforms to establish the prohibition or restriction of aid to any government that seriously dishonors internationally recognized human rights: "No assistance shall be granted under these provisions to the government of a country responsible for serious violations of internationally recognized human rights, including torture, inhuman treatment or punishment ... unless such assistance directly benefits the needy population of that country."

This positioning of US foreign policy, as the largest donor country, in the areas of bilateral or multilateral aid, will have a great influence on reinforcing this new line of external action in other countries. However, this also reveals many of the problems suggested before, which will inherit the discourse of conditionality of the 1990s, namely: ethnocentrism in terms of the parameters used by the donor country for lack of coherence, the doubtful legality of the donor country's performance and the possibility of stimulating a "misdirected sanction".

Here we lend you some news about this subject that are really interesting. 

https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jul/11/us-aid-to-pakistan

http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/united-states-gives-military-and-economic-aid-to-communist-yugoslavia

Now we are going to look to the infomation given from different points of view in order to try to resolve all possible doubts and to have a properly view of the concept.

- From the philosophical-political point of view, the accusation of ethnocentrism opens the discussion regarding the parameters by which the country grants, modifies or withdraws aid, and, in response to the debate on the universal or particular nature of human rights, its legitimacy is raised to demand a particular ideology.

The lack of coherence that arises in the face of the proof that the applications of this foreign policy mechanism do not meet the expectations, showing the difficulty of maintaining a coherent foreign policy of human rights and not emphasized by the other interests of the State.

- From a legal-international perspective, the problem of the international legality of the action of the donor country, points to the question of whether public international law establishes any limit to the reduction or withdrawal of aid; that is, whether or not it can qualify, this activity of the donor country, as an intervention in the internal affairs of the State, prohibited by the international legal order.

- From a practical point of view, the "misdirected sanction" suggests another controversial point such as the production of consequences, in the country receiving the aid, different from the objetives pursued by the donor country. The reduction or termination of aid to a country seeks to pressure its government to change its behavior in relation to human rights, but, in effect, there is a risk of producing, in practice, a perverse effect on the population of the country, as it goes to suffer equally the effects of this decision of the donor country. 

Now we are going to focus more in the scope of Human Rights. Here we are going to differentiate two main parts: democracy and development. 

The starting point to understand the current conception of human rights is to establish that the principle of state sovereignty, stronghold of international law, previously considered unquestionable, has been, in the words of CARRILLO SALCEDO, destroyed and relativized "by the normative development that has followed by the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations in the matter of Human Rights ".

 Indeed, the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice admits “erga omnes” obligations such as the "obligations of States towards the international community as a whole".

Finally, it can be concluded with the consensus statement at the Vienna Conference of 1993,: "Human Rights and fundamental freedoms are inalienable rights of all human beings, their protection and promotion is the first responsibility of governments.The promotion and protection of all human rights is a legitimate concern of the international community. "

Defined the legal-political status of  human rights, we are interested in the material configuration of the conditionality discourse, interrelated with the vector of democracy.

Secondly, taking about development, the existence of developed and less developed communities goes back to the appearance of the first organized human groups. However, the mechanism of aid or develop cooperation, as an organized and systematic assistance aimed at developing countries, arises in the twentieth century.

The concept of aid or cooperation to the development has been considered under different points of view, nevertheless, the most relevant question is the double transformation of the concept of development. 

In this sense, on the one hand, a change of nature is pointed out, thus the development aid traditionally considered a simple obligation of a moral nature, which the richest States have to assist the population of poor countries, is subject to a process of evolution that tends to turn it into a kind of legal obligation of the these rich States. 

On the other hand, there is a change in the content of the concept of development itself, so that its current definition is characterized by new elements that have led to the overcoming of the classic conception of the 70s, which defines the development as a mere synonym of economic growth. This definition corresponds to an ambitious meaning, which includes aspects such as the quality of life, and the promotion and protection of the human rights of the population affected by a development process.

A new example of the new conception of development, as an integrated and multidimensional concept, can be found in many of the texts adopted in the UN forum, in the 90s. They all trace the axes that design the new dimensions of development and reaffirm “the role of the United Nations in the task of laying the foundations of a universal culture of development´´.

The current conception of development constitutes one more step within the constant evolutionary process that affects both its nature and its content, and whose broad lines we consider convenient to bring up.

Based on legitimating elements contained in the Charter itself, the so-called public international law between 1960 and 1975. This expression contained, according to a sector of the most advanced doctrine, two meanings:

- Reference to a legal technique designed to normatively implement the fight against underdevelopment. Consequently, this International Law of Development was an essentially finalist Law, through which the transformation of international society and the struggle of all against poverty, dependence, and ignorance were sought. In parallel, a part of the doctrine began to consider, including that "international law had gone beyond the recognition that they have a mere interest in development. Admitting that this interest has, by its very nature, a special title for its legal protection, international law had covered it as a subjective right, with all the consequences that derived from it. 

For these authors, therefore, the right to development could be qualified as a right of all countries, especially the least developed ones, and of peoples seeking their structuring as a sovereign State, to guarantee their political independence and territorial integrity; in correlation to this subjective right of collective nature, the legal duty of the international society, or rather, of the developed countries, was established. However, they also recognized that the right to development lacked the full forcibility of the legal norms of domestic law, although, in their opinion, this did not withdraw from its legal nature. 

Finally, all these efforts failed in their attempt to legally base what was called the "New International Economic Order".

- The right to development can be a subjective right, not only of the States, but of the human person, which, as GROS ESPIELL explains, "is the consequence of recognition, both internally and internationally, of the economic, social and cultural rights of man, and, especially, of the right to life, which necessarily implies the right to live, fully and completely".

Finally, we must mention, the most important text within this evolution, the Declaration on the Right to Development of the UN General Assembly of 1986, whose article 1 expressly confirms the multidimensional nature of the right to development:"The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which all human beings and all peoples are entitled to participate in an economic, social, cultural and political development in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully realized, to contribute to that development, and to enjoy it".

Here we show you  photo of the UN General Assembly of 1986 that will have you to have a better vision of what it was. 

And, it adds some important details, in terms of its configuration as a material vector of the discourse of conditionality: 

• the human as the central subject of development that must be the active participant and the beneficiary of the right to development.
• obligation of behaviour to the States, such as the creation of favourable national and international conditions for the realization of the right to development, as well as the adoption, individually and collectively, of measures to formulate adequate international development policies in order to facilitate the full realization of the right to development.

Regarding the value of this Declaration, we can easily affirm its undoubted political importance, and, although it did not immediately have the character of a source of international legal obligations, it represents the most outstanding international normative instrument in the search and establishment of a new consensus of the International Community on development and its realization.

However, some authors have proposed a further step in this development of the right to development, pointing to its classification as a normal one of ius cogens.

As a conclusion, it is convenient to refer, again, to the "A Development Program" Report in order to extract the elements for the conditionality discourse. In this sense, the Report determines the five dimensions enclosed in the notion of development:

• The economy as an engine of progress in development.
• Justice as a basic pillar of civil society in development.
• The environment to ensure sustained development.
• Peace as the foundation of development.
• Democracy as the system of good governance.

To end up we can say that the discourse of conditionality was conceived, and practiced by certain States, as a specific unilateral and discretionary exercise, within the scope of its external sovereign powers, consisting in the free concession, modification and termination of aid destined to third States, based on some criteria adopted in its domestic legislation, among which is the respect of human rights in the third State.

We leave you an interesting video of the 20th anniversary of the Vienna Conference of 1993 which explains the challenges of the past 20 years and the successes of this Conference:

Here we end up with the background information about the subject that we think is necessary to understand properly the concept. We hope you have enjoy it and we have reached our objective of making you understand the importance of this concept.