THE RIGHT TO been infected with malaria,3 and a hundred and

seventy people would have died due to poverty

DEVELOPMENT AS A HUMAN
related conditions4. People from the developed
RIGHT: a critique with reference to GA countries can take comfort in the fact that
Resolution 41/120 majority of these events would not have taken
in their countries, and it will be hard for them
to dispute the notion that these events are less
Dr Faisal Saeed MBBS, LLM (University of
likely to occur in these countries because of the
Liverpool)
developed systems of healthcare, education and
other infrastructure that would enable its
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
people to be enjoy their right to health to its
A. Introduction



1
fullest. And it is not only their right to health
B. HumanRights



2
that they are fully able to realise; their right to
C. The Right to Development as a human right 4
D. Identifying rights and obligations
8 education, work, property, rest and leisure etc.,

E. International Support

10 are all ensured. And their ability to exercise
F. Conclusion



11 their rights to civil and political liberties
ensures that they can demand these rights.
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
Even though the Universal Declaration
A. Introduction of Human Rights (UDHR) provides that
During the ten minutes it will take an “[e]veryone is entitled to a social and
average reader to complete reading this essay, international order in which the rights and
across the globe about seven women will have freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be
died due to complications of pregnancy and fully realised” 5, it is a reality that is mostly
childbirth1, about seven children below five confined to those living in developed countries.
years would have died due to infectious It is this right to realise “all human rights and
diseases 2, four thousand people would have fundamental freedoms” 6 by everyone that a

1 <www.who.int/gho/en/> (accessed 1st june 2011)

2 <http://www.who.int/gho/child_health/en/index.html> accessed (1st june 2011)
3 World Health Organization, World Malaria Report 2010

4 <http://www.poverty.com/> (accessed 1st june 2011)

5 Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 28

6 Declaration on the Right to Human Development General Assembly Resolution 41/28 (1986).

1
Right to Development demands and seeks to
achieve. And even though the right to
development is seen as a human right, and is
used widely in international documents,
debates have continued on its conceptual
framing and on the difficulty in
implementation. 7 The aim of this essay is to
critique the notion of the human right to
development, with reference to the guidelines8
provided by UN on setting new human rights
standards.
B. Human Rights
“Human rights are rights which human
beings possess simply in virtue of being
human, however widely they differ.” 9 The right
to, life, liberty and freedom, or to health and
education for instance are self-evident and
natural rights that any person anywhere in the
world are to have irrespective of their
nationality, race, gender, class or community.
This intension has remained without much
change since the end of the Enlightenment10
and its pronouncements are seen in the
American Declaration of Independence as
‘inalienable rights’, in the French Declaration
of ‘the rights of man’ and more recently in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
its (UDHR).11 Article 1 of the UDHR sets out the
philosophical foundations in similar terms:
“All human beings are born free and equal in
dignity and rights.” What gives all human
beings this equal worth is the equal intrinsic
value of their freedom and well-being, which
form the two necessary conditions for human
action that consists in the voluntary pursuit of
goals that one values12. Human rights are also
grounded in the protection of personhood;
which is seen in terms of the person’s
autonomy, the conception of a good life and
being able to pursue it, and the freedom from
the interference of others.13 It is from this
notion of personhood that the conventional list
of human rights (civil and political, economic
social and cultural and other rights) can be
derived14 and have continued to emerge.

7 B Ibhawoh “The Right to Development: The Politics and Polemics of Power and Resistance” (2011) 33 76-104 Human Rights
Quarterly p87
8 Member States and United Nations bodies should bear in mind the following guidelines in developing international instruments in

the field of human rights; such instruments should, inter alia: a) Be consistent with the existing body of international human rights
law; b) Be of fundamental character and derive from the inherent dignity and worth of the human person; c) Be sufficiently precise to
give rise to identifiable and practicable rights and obligations; d) Provide, where appropriate, realistic and effective implementation
machinery, including reporting systems; e) Attract broad international support
9 T Honderich (ed) The Oxford Companion to Philosophy (2nd Edition OUP Oxford 2005) p403
10 J Griffin, On Human Rights (OUP Oxford, 2008) p2
11 A Sen , The Idea of Justice (Penguin Book, London 2009) p357
12 Borchert, D.M., (chief ed) Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, 2nd Edition, Macmillan Reference USA, 2006 p474
13 ibid.,
14 J Griffin, 2008 p33

2
 Such philosophical foundations are
necessary in understanding why human rights
are important and how to develop them15 . And
the importance of freedom and well-being will
be utilised to justify that the right to
development is derived from the “inherent
dignity and worth of the human person” 16. This
is one of the ‘quality controls’ that is set out by
the UN and need to be applied to the emerging
range of human rights that continue to follow
since the adoption of the UDHR in 1948.
The emergence of human rights is
described in terms of ‘generations’ of human
rights.17 The first-generation rights are the civil
and political rights, the ‘negative’ human rights
that enjoin states to abstain from interfering
with personal freedom. The second-generation
rights are the ‘positive rights’ that belong to the
social and economic group of rights. The
subject of this essay, the right to development
belongs to the third-generation ‘solidarity’
rights 18. Although such classification
appealing in its simplicity19 , it does not reflect
the coexisting mutual support one set of rights
has for the other.20 This relationship between
these rights is particularly important in the
context of the right to development. While
progress can be made in the social and
economic rights without the full set of civil and
political rights, they cannot be achieved in full
as it is the civil and political rights that
empower people to claim their rights for food,
housing, education, work, and health care21 .
Conversely, abandoning economic and social
rights can undermine civil and political
rights.22 Equitable economic and social policies
therefore have direct connections to the
sustenance of civil and political liberties.
However, when the social and economic rights
were first given provision in the UDHR they
were not conceived in terms of development.23
And when studies on development emerged it
was in the context of pursuing economic
growth rather than achieving human rights.24
While both development and human rights
share a commonality in their vision and
purpose to secure freedom, well-being and
is dignity for all human beings, they were on
parallel tracks and converged with the
emergence of the right to development.

15 A Clapham, Human Rights A Very Short Introduction (OUP Oxford 2007) p23
16 General Assembly Resolution 41/120
17 S Marks, “The Human Right to Development: Between Rhetoric and Reality” (2004) 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal p138
18 H J Steiner et al International Human Rights in Context Law Politics Morals (3rd edition OUP Oxford 2007) p 1442

19 S Marks, “The Human Right to Development: Between Rhetoric and Reality (2004) 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal

20 C Tomuschat, Human Rights Between Idealism and Realism (2nd edition OUP 2008) p26

21 UNDP, Human Development Report 2000, p85

22 ibid

23 B Ibhawoh (2011) p81

24 ibid

3

C. Right to development as a human right
The existence of a right to development
was first asserted in 197725. Following many
years of debate26 , that was centred on the
conceptual differences regarding the right and
the political differences of states that reflected
the cold war tensions27, the General Assembly
adopted the Declaration on the Right to
Development (DRD) in 1986, proclaiming that:
“The right to development is an
inalienable human right by virtue of
which every human person and all
peoples are entitled to participate in,
contribute to, and enjoy economic,
social, cultural and political
development, in which all human rights
and fundamental freedoms can be fully
realized.”28
And in 1993, it was declared that the right to
development is “a universal and inalienable
right and an integral part of fundamental
human rights”. 29 And nowadays, references to
the right to development are seen in all major
UN documents. The right includes: full
sovereignty over natural resources, self-
determination, popular participation in
development, equality of opportunity and the
creation of favourable conditions for the
enjoyment of other civil, political, economic,
social and cultural rights.
The right to development, by
incorporating all human rights and recognizing
that all rights and freedoms are indivisible and
interdependent, is presented as a fusion of all
human rights and fundamental freedoms.30 It is
these rights and freedoms that protect our
dignity as human beings,31 and the enjoyment
of all human rights is facilitated through the
right to development. 32 There is universal
consensus that development is important to
humanity 33 as it would enable every person in
the world to enjoy their rights and freedoms–
civil and political, economic, social and

25 C.H.R. Res. 4 (XXXIII), U.N. ESCOR, Comm’n on Hum. Rts (21 Feb. 1977)
26 S Fukuda-Parr, “Human Rights and Politics in Development” in M Goodhart Human Rights Politics and Practice (OUP 2009)
p168
27 A Sengupta, “The Human Right to Development” (2004) 32:2 179 Oxford Development Studies p179
28 Article 1 Declaration on the Right to Development GA Res.41/128(1986)
29 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, part 1, s.10 UN A/CONF. 157/24(1993) (hereinafter Vienna Declaration)
30 M E Salomon, A Sengupta, “The Right to Development: Obligations of States and the Rights of Minorities and Indigenous

Peoples” (Minority Rights Group International 2003) p 6

31 A Levine “Human Rights and Freedom” in A S Rosenbaum (ed) The Philosophy of Human Rights: International Perspectives

(Aldwych Press, London 1980) p138)

32 Vienna Declaration part 1.§10
33 M Mutua, “Standard Setting in Human Rights: Critique and Prognosis” (2007) 29 Human Rights Quarterly 547, p574

4
cultural as well as other specified rights and to opportunity through the lack of freedom is
pursue what they value. humiliating and takes away her human dignity.
There is the lack of opportunity to get oneself

This idea is not only “appealing”34 , but educated, to seek medical help when infected

is the primary objective and the means of with HIV, the lack of choice of work, or to
escape the freedom of starvation. To develop
development.35 When the fundamental
therefore, means the removal of this lack of
freedoms are ensured, people are empowered,
freedom “…that leave people with little choice
through their human rights, to “…resist torture,
and little opportunity of exercising their
arbitrary incarceration and racial
reasoned agency. The removal of substantive
discrimination to demanding an end to hunger
unfreedoms…is constitutive of
and starvation, and to medical neglect across
development.” 40
the globe.” 36 Freedom is essential to the
realisation of these rights as to be “free is to be
The right to development would
unrestrained by others in the pursuit of one’s
therefore ensure the eradication of the various
ends”,37 and freedom is valuable because it
constraints that lock humans in
provides opportunities to pursue our objectives
impoverishment and deprivation, in terms of
and things that we value.38 It also ensures that
material goods and the ability to exercise their
one is not forced into something because of
rights. Specific reference to the cooperation to
constraints imposed by others.39 Consider a
eliminate the obstacles to development is
person in a least developed nation who wants
therefore made in the Vienna Declaration,41
to pursue her dream of becoming a doctor, but
and Article 28 of the UDHR which state that
have to give up on that dream because she is
“Everyone is entitled to a social International
denied even the basic education, due to the
order in which the rights and freedoms set forth
lack of schools in her village. When she grows
in this declaration can be fully realized” could
up she is forced to resorting to prostitution as a
be inferred to imply a right to the removal of
means of survival. While this may (or may not)
the impediments to development.42
bring in money, the lack of choice and

34 A Sen, (2009) p355

35 A Sen, Development as Freedom (OUP Oxford 1999) p38
36 A Sen 2009 p355

37 A Levine (1980) p138

38 A Sen, 2009 p228
39 ibid

40 A Sen, 1999 xii

41 Vienna Declaration part 1.§10

42 J Donnely, “In Search of the Unicorn: The Jurisprudence and Politics of the Right to Development” (1985) 15 Calif. Western Int.

L. 473 at 487
5

Interpreted in this way, the developed
community could act not to deny the rights of
those who are unable to realise their rights due
to lack of development. The UDHR reminds
that “Everyone owes duties to the community”
and this community is not only
neighbouring countries, but is also the global
community.43 For Rawls, a decent society or
community is one that honours the basic
human rights that respect the humanity of its
members, and these rights includes among
others, a minimum right to the means of
subsistence.44 A decent people does not let its
members die of starvation. 45 The rights to
education or health would be less useful as
rights that respect human dignity when there
are no ways of realising them through the
availability of schools or hospitals. And the
rights to freedom of assembly, speech, and
political participation matter little when daily
life is a struggle for survival.
The realization of these rights, and a
life in dignity then require an adequate
standard of living. 46 “A fully human life
cannot be achieved…if the availability of
social goods is so reduced that life itself
becomes nothing more than a struggle to
survive.” 47 And development, as “a
comprehensive economic, social, cultural and
the political process, …aims at the constant
improvement of the well-being of the entire
population and of all individuals…” 48 This
improvement would entail a standard of living
adequate for the health and well-being 49 and
development would mean improvement in this
well-being, which can be described as the level
of realization of the fundamental rights. 50
The right to development could then be
seen to derive from the inherent dignity of the
human person because it helps to attain both
freedom and wellbeing, which is what gives
the humans their equal worth. As content of the
right to development is founded on the Bill of
Human Rights 51, the legal basis for the right to
development can therefore be derived from the
UDHR, the Covenants on Civil and Political

43 M Robinson, A Voice for Human Rights (University of Pennsylvania Press 2006) p143
44 S Freeman, Rawls (Routledge 2007) p429
45 ibid

46 A Eide, “Adequate Standard of Living, in D Moeckli, S Shah, S Sivakumaran (eds) International Human Rights Law (OUP 2010)

p234
47 A Levine p141

48 Declaration on the Right to Development Preamble, emphasis added

49 as is set out in Article 25(1) of the UDHR

50 A Sengupta (2004) p182

51 F Kirchmeir “The Right to Development-where do we stand?” Occasional Papers, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2006 p11 available at

<http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/iez/global/50288.pdf> (accessed 5th June 2011)

6
Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural
Rights.
However, not everyone is satisfied with
that there is any moral or legal basis for the
right to development. Much in the same
manner that human rights have been denied as
some to exist and that belief in them equals
belief in witches and unicorns 52, the right to
development has also been said to be nothing
more than a mythical unicorn.53 Criticism is
levelled at the right to development as it being
meaningless, dangerous,54 and catastrophic and
a total failure55 , in that states will be unable to
fully realize all of its components. But it is
worth noting that something cannot be both
equally meaningless and dangerous because
that which is meaningless is unlikely to be
dangerous.56
As mentioned earlier, the right to
development is one of the third generation
rights and Donnelly sees that the use of the
term ‘generation’ is dangerous because it
would mean that the solidarity rights would
replace the already established preceding
generation of rights.57 But this interpretation is
52 T Papadopoulos “Human Rights, Truth, Macintyre, and Putnam’s Pragmatism” in B M Leiser, T D Campbell (eds) Human Rights
in Philosophy and Practice (Ashgate Publishing Company 2001) p17
53 J Donnelly, (1985) p473
54 J Donnelly p478
55 B Ibhawoh (2011) p77
56 W Mansell, J Scott, “Why bother about a right to development?” (1994) 21:2 Journal of Law and Society 171 p 177
57 J Donnelly p492
58 C Tomushchat (2008)p26
59 W Mansell, J Scott (1994) p176
60 J Donnelly (1985) p501
erroneous as generations of rights do not make
each other obsolete but add upon each other58
and the right to development derives its basis
from the interconnected of all the rights and
development is needed to realize of these
rights. It is this striking feature of the right to
development in asserting the unity of all
human rights, that its rejection equates to the
rejection of even some of the other basic
rights.59
Another contention that Donnelly finds
to be dangerous is the claim to be developed,
as distinct from a right to pursue
development.60 But the right to development
does not assert that the human individual
should be fully developed or that it is the end
the right is seeking to achieve. It asserts that
we have a right to pursue development, to the
base on which one can construct a meaningful
life through freedom and well-being. As noted
above, it forms the means as well as the ends.
Furthermore, the realisation of rights does not
have to be in full or may end up not being
fulfilled, even in the case of civil and political
rights where it would seem that resources play
little role. But no state can afford a police force
7
adequate enough to secure the right to life of
every citizen. 61
However, the aspect of Donnelly’s
argument that continues as one of the
challenges to the right to development is the
difficulty in determining who is to exercise the
right62 . As with all third generation rights, it is
uncertain of its holder and the duty-bearer.
D. Identifying rights and obligations
In the context of human rights in
general, the human individual is the right-
holder (of civil, political, social and economic
rights for instance) and the duty bearer is the
nation state of that individual. As the duty-
bearer, the state has a negative duty that
obliges it not to violate human rights, a
positive duty to protect the individuals from
violation of human rights, and a duty to fulfil,
which requires the state to create frameworks
that enables the realization of human rights.63
In the context of the right
development, it is the people and their human
rights that are at the subjects and are at the
61 D M Borchert, (2006) p472
62 J Donnelly (1985) p498
63 F Kirchmeier (2006), P12
64 Article 2 GA Res 41/128
65 M E Saomon, “Legal Cosmopolitanism and the Normative Contribution of the Right to Development” in S P Marks, (ed)
Implementing the Right to Development (Freidrich-Ebert-Stiftung 2008) p23
66 K Iqbal, “The Declaration on the Right to Development and Immplementation” (2007) 1:1 Political Perspectives p10 citing
Bedjaoui (1991)
centre of the development process. The human
person is the central subject and is the active
participant and the beneficiary of the right to
development.64 And the duty-bearers are
identified by the Declaration as the nation and
the international community at the same time.
The role of the state and of the international
community and their duties are given in the
Declaration on the Right to Development;
Article 3(1) provides that it is the states that
have the primary responsibility for the creation
of national and international conditions
favourable to the realization of the right to
development; Article 3(3) refers to the duty of
all states to cooperate with each other in
ensuring development and eliminating
obstacles to development. Article 4 follows to
refer to the duty of all states to take steps to
formulate international development policies in
order to facilitate the full realization of the
right to development. The states are therefore
duty bearers not only at the national level but
at the international level as well. 65 The states
are interdependent on each other in order to
fulfil these duties, and the right to development
to of the people would extend to that of the state,
and even more meaningful if the state’s rights
take dominance over that of the individual.66
8
Because when the right is conditioned on the
prerogative that both the state and the people
have the opportunity to develop 67, it is difficult
to identity who is to be developed and who is
to do the developing.
However, human rights are ethical
pronouncements of what should be done, and
demand acknowledgement that something
needs to be done for the realization of such
rights.68 And it is not necessary to specify who
is charged with bringing about the fulfilment of
the rights. These obligations although
unspecified, are not equal to no obligations at
all69, and a claim can be made to anyone who
is in a position to help. The Declaration does
outline the actions to be taken, and calls for
international co-operation in achieving these
rights. In this instance, it is the developed
countries that are in the position to help, and
the right to development focuses on the
obligations of these countries to provide
assistance in terms of aid, technology and debt
relief.
Moreover, a recent case that was
decided by a regional institution that has a
treaty obligation on the right to development
may provide an answer to these uncertainties
surrounding the issue as to who is to bear the
right and obligations. The Endorois Welfare
Council v Kenya communication decided by
the African Commission on Human and
People’s Rights, reflects the first time a
violation of the right to development has been
found70. A complaint was filed by the Centre
for Minority Rights Development and Minority
Rights Group International on behalf of the
Endorois Community. The complainants
alleged violations resulting from the
displacement of the Endorois community, an
indigenous community, from their ancestral
lands, the failure to adequately compensate for
the loss of their property, violations of the right
to practice their religion and culture as well as
the overall process of development of the
Endorois people. They were evicted from their
land to create a game reserve and were denied
anything approaching the definition of the right
to development for forty years. The decision
found Kenya to be in violation of its treaty
obligation under article 22, the right to
development, of the African Charter of Human
and People’s rights and called upon the
government of Kenya to restore the land rights
and to provide them with compensation. In
doing so it has identified the indigenous people
as the agents who are able to claim the right,
and turned a putative moral right into an
enforceable right. 71

67 Theo van Boven, “Categories of Rights” in D Moeckli et al (eds) International Human Rights Law (OUP 2010), p177
68 A Sen (2009) p356-357
69 A Sen (2009) p374 ibid

70 Centre for Minority Rights Development (Kenya) and Minority Rights Group International on behalf of the Endorois Welfare

Council v Kenya, African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Communication no. 276/2003 (2010).
71 M Salomon, 25 Years of the Right to Development: Achievement and Challenges, Conference note, (Friedrich Ebert Stiftung,

Berlin 2011) available at <http://www.fes.de/GPol/pdf/Salomon_Core_Norm.pdf> (accessed 5th June 2011)

9

There is variation of views in the
international community regarding
obligations of states in helping to achieve the
right to development for the developing
countries. Germany, for instance, emphasizes
that the right to development does not
necessarily focus on the international
cooperation, but that the primary responsibility
lies with the sate in creating the enabling
environment. 72 The US is willing to discuss
the right as an individual right to development
as opposed to a nation’s right to development.73
It also rejects the development of a legally
binding instrument on the matter. The UK
position, that exemplifies the EU position is
that, while it may take an action in line with
the right to development, it would be so on a
voluntary basis so as to protect themselves
from further demands by developing
countries.74
E. Does it attract broad international
support?
When it was finally proclaimed in the 1986
Declaration, a large majority accepted it with
the the US casting the only negative vote, and with
eight other countries abstaining.75 The US
accepted it only in 1993 at the Vienna World
Conference on Human Rights 76 where full
international consensus was obtained. As a
result of this, it can now be accepted as having
broad international support and also said to
have legal force as its constituent rights are
recognized in treaties such as the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights and
the International Convention on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights77. It is well received
by those in the South while the North has
remained sceptical of it.78 Most developing
countries use the right to development to raise
concerns about the negative impacts certain
aspects of international trade, the unequal
access to technology and the burden of debt
that continue to have on them.79 And despite
the call for obligations to facilitate
development by the developing countries 80,
there is no consensus among the developed
countries, and they have been unable to come
up with a treaty that would legally bind

72 F Kirchmeir p13-14
73 F Kirchmeir p14 ibid
74 ibid

75 S Marks, “The Human Right to Development:: Between Rhetoric and Reality (2004) 17 Harvard Human Rights Journal p138

76 C Tomuschat (2008) p55

77 A Sengupta (2004) p180

78 B Ibhawoh (2011) p87

79 S P Marks, “Poverty” in Moeckli et al (2010) p 618

80 Ibid.,

10
states.81 The US was clear even during the
drafting stage that it would not allow the
Declaration to impose obligations for the
transfer of resources under the guise of a right
to development.82 The discussion on the right
to development has continued to be a “prisoner
to political controversy,” 83 with a North-South
divide on the issue.
Human rights is the language of victims
and the dispossessed and human rights claims
are usually invoked when they want to alter
legal or political practices. 84 In its discourse,
developing countries advance the right to
development to both rationalize their political
agendas at home, and to demand change in the
international economic order, 85 because the
current economic and political order pose
obstacles to the enjoyment of the right to
development for its people. In the meantime,
the biggest fear of developed countries is that
such a change would create a demand for a
“right to everything”, and be a source of claims
against rich nations for the fulfilment of what
developing countries deem as necessary to the
enjoyment of the right to development.86
81 Fukuda-Parr (2009) p168
82 S Marks (2004) p 143
83 M Robinson (2006) p125
84 J Donnelly, International Human Rights (3rd edition, Westview Press 2007) p22
85 B Ibhawoh (2011) p78
86 F Kirchmeir p12
87 S Marks (2004) p 146
88 B Ibhawoh (2011) p95
In refusing its support to the right to
development, the US occasionally says that the
right to development is invoked by some
developing countries to violate civil and
political rights.87 Several states like China has
sough to prioritize development rights over
other rights, and such discourse seem to reflect
a political agenda that seeks to strengthen the
state that to empower communities or
individuals. In other instances the right is
invoked in order to resist pressures of domestic
reforms and to reject criticism of human rights
violations.88 In the face such politicization of
the right to development, there is growing
preference for the right-based approach to
development rather than the right to
development by the Northern States.
F. Conclusion
The above critique has shown that the right to
development can be consistent with the
international human rights law, that it is a right
that is derived from the inherent dignity of the
human person, with somewhat identifiable
11
right-holders and right-bearers, depending on
the view of a particular state. Even though
there is broad international support, difficulties
in its implementation arise in the absence of a
legally binding instrument due to the lack of
key support from the donor countries.

When a man in Tunisia recently set himself on

fire because he had lost his livelihood and
hope89 , the event sparked a wave of discontent
and popular uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt,
Bahrain, Libya and Yemen. According to the
UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Navi Pillay, the root cause of this uprising was
undoubtedly the denial of people’s right to
development90 in these countries. The denial of
this right is not limited to these political
uprising, but also leaves more than one billion
people around the world locked in the jaws of
poverty. As the Declaration on the Right to
Development marks 25 years since its
adoption, there is much to be done to make the
right to development a reality for everyone.

89 R Abouzied , “Bouazizi: The man who set himself and Tunisia on fire” (TIME Magazine Jan 2011) available at <http://
www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2043557,00.html> accessed 5th June 2011)
90 Delivering the Keynote Speech at Symposium marking “25 years of the Right to Development” 24th February 2011 Berlin,

Germany, available at http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10759&LangID=e (accessed 5th

June 2011)

12