Developed countries have extraterritorial obligation in eradicating poverty!

In today's world, poverty has become one of the serious issues which must be considered with broader outlooks. For few years, the discussion of the 'human rights' and 'poverty' have come close to each other and are being discussed extensively. This write-up aims to consider whether the developed countries carry an extraterritorial obligation to work for the 'eradication of the poverty' in the under-developed and developing countries.
Certainly, under-developed and developing countries have financial setbacks to implement and to ensure economic social and cultural rights guaranteed under different international treaties such as International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Indisputably, it is not practically possible for the signatory states with fewer resources to fulfil ICESCR's obligations that are to ensure the guaranteed rights through taking progressive approaches.

Therefore, in order to make those underdeveloped and developing countries capable of ensuring the rights guaranteed under the international instruments a global extra-territorial participation is needed to be established. However, in practice, this concept raises different controversies and opens many questions. At least, no one can deny the obvious question that why a third country ought to deal and work to resolve another State's poverty?
The Guiding Principles on Poverty suggest that the States and non-state actors have the duty and obligations to work through 'aid and assistance' to eliminate the poverty in cross-border issues particularly to protect the people who are living under poverty.
This principle was also incorporated in the Maastricht Principles where it clearly states that the States have the duty to protect and fulfil all human rights including socio-economic rights 'extraterritorially'. In addition to that, all countries committed to work individually as well as 'jointly' with UN to fulfil the goals enunciated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Yet after, no one can reject the practical issues arise in dealing with the nature of obligation such as- whether such obligations are binding on the States! Or whether these rights are merely moral rights thus have no binding effect. In the context of international development and the alleviation of world poverty, the term 'international community' use narrowly and limited to only those States who are in position of power and influence over the international economic order.
 
Those countries deny that they have any 'legal obligations' to work extraterritorially. Even if at times they offer some assistance to alleviate the poverty in a third country, however they do it in the name of morality, self-interest (political stability) and solidarity not for the reason that they are legally obliged to do so.

As regards to the nature of the obligation, special rapporteur strongly argued that, each and every country has some extra-territorial 'positive obligations' to deal with third-state's economic social and cultural rights. Further, Salomon in her book argued that, international law imposes a 'global duty of care' on States to achieve development goal. She further added that, only a shared endeavour from international community can reduce the poverty globally.

Moreover, global poverty eradication and 'right to development' as human rights claim to have a well-founded link. Indeed, in a way the purposes of both projects are same. In 1986 through a Resolution UN established the 'right to development' as 'fundamental human rights'. This right is subsequently also recognized by the Vienna Declaration.
 
Yet, in the one hand the under-developed and developing countries urges for application of such rights at global level, whereas, developed countries mostly opposes such notion on the other. Therefore, the UN and other international organizations should come forward and first clarify the extent to which a country with well resource have an extra-territorial obligation to work for the eradication of the poverty and second, the working group should strictly monitor and ought to impose appropriate sanctions in cases where they fail to comply with the obligations they previously agreed to be complied with.

Briefly, it can be placed that, there are multiple international human rights instruments subsist in recognizing the economic, social and cultural rights. However, the structures of those instruments are not capable of addressing the poverty in most cases. This is due to the complications of financial burden related to the application of those treaty rights.

Therefore, the extraterritorial obligation, universalism, collective responsibilities and 'right to development' are supportive notions (though not fully effective) to resolve the resource crisis thus the poverty at global level. Accordingly, the international community, INGOs and developed countries with strong economies, non-State actors should accept their cross-border obligations and come forward to ensure and stop violation of the ESCR rights taking place around the globe.

The writer is a barrister-at-law and a Member of the Human Rights Lawyers Association, UK