The implementation of economic, social and cultural rights may be viewed as a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of civil and political rights. A person without any form of social security will not find much meaning in freedom and personal autonomy. The State of the World’s Children Report of 1999 states: “Nearly a billion people will enter the 21st century unable to read a book or sign their names and two thirds of them are women. And they will live, as now, in more desperate poverty and poorer health than those who can.”[1] This report refers to a sixth of humanity for which rights such as freedom of expression mean little more than abstract lines jotted down on paper. Can we say that the solution for this sector of the world’s population does not lie in ensuring them conditions that would make their personal development and therefore the exercise of their civil and political rights meaningful? It is especially in extreme cases that we see how the establishment of economic and social rights forms a necessary precondition for the enjoyment of most other rights.

Phenomena such as poverty must be seen in relation to human rights. “The victims of poverty are in fact denied almost all rights – not only to adequate food, health care and housing, but also to participation in political processes; access to information and education; fair legal treatment and the normal benefits of citizenship.”[2] Yet, such phenomena as poverty are usually linked to scarcity of resources and the economic situation of the region concerned. Our dedication to protecting human dignity, however, must not stop on the conclusion that a region is poor and has been throughout history and is thus simply less lucky than other parts of the globe. If we are concerned with humanity in a wider context, as we should be, then we should strive to overcome the barriers of geography.

It is a well-known fact that there are more than enough resources for the realization of economic and social rights worldwide. Thus, the failure to implement these rights is not a reflection of the physical shortage of resources, but rather of political decisions. “For example, there is more than enough food in the world to feed everyone; widespread hunger and malnutrition exist not because of a physical shortage of food but because of political decisions about its distribution.”[3] Figures show that in the developing world twenty percent of the population is afflicted by hunger and lives without basic human needs for survival such as drinkable water.[4] These people are marginalized from society and have very little prospect of partaking in the political life of the community. In order to improve the living conditions of these societies it would be necessary to develop strategies which would “ensure for them an opportunity to take charge of their own destiny, which is often blocked by the more powerful and assertive members of society.”[5]

The moment of realizing that the underdevelopment of certain societies, or of a part of social space of one society, is frozen and maintained by the existence of more powerful societies is the moment economic, social and cultural rights gain their proper recognition. The understanding of this cause and effect relationship and the identification of conflict is a necessary precondition for this. In such a light, these rights are completely comparable to civil and political rights, in so far as both groups have as their goal the protection of the weak from the stronger and ultimately equality between human beings.

The justification for economic, social and cultural rights does not lie only in their creating the necessary conditions for the enjoyment of other rights. Inherent in the implementation of these rights is their humanism and their consideration for the physical and mental integrity of every individual. Thus, we can say that “such rights may be considered universal human rights in so far as they relate to fundamental elements of the individual’s physical nature, whether that be their physical needs or their ability to enjoy social goods.”[6]

Failing to recognize basic human material and social needs from a human rights viewpoint is also impractical if we seek the protection of human dignity. A simple charity approach to the underprivileged will have negative consequences in the long run. It also establishes a kind of hierarchical relationship between the giver and the recipient, where the hungry becomes a passive victim. The economic, social and cultural needs of every individual “should not be at the mercy of changing governmental policies and programmes, but should be defined as entitlements.”[7] Only in this way will the change of consciousness of the abjectly poor occur and empower them as citizens. Recognition of their humanity must be the first step to be made and it can be done only with the identification of fundamental needs as rights. It is through the recognition by others of us as dignified human beings that we become aware of ourselves as such beings.

The former asserts that what is to be properly understood as the source of human rights is the natural law theory, “which is concerned with individual autonomy and freedom, and provides a justification for civil and political rights but not for economic, social and cultural rights.”[1] In this sense, the demand for the status of human rights for the economic, social and cultural rights works against the basis of human rights, namely individual autonomy and freedom. As Steiner and Alston summarise it, this view claims that “treating them as rights undermines the enjoyment of individual freedom, distorts the functioning of free markets by justifying state intervention in the economy, and provides an excuse to downgrade the importance of civil and political rights.”[2] The latter argument, on the other hand, claims that, since economic, social and cultural rights are specific to a distinct group of people, they are not universal human rights and cannot in any way be universalized in practice due to factors such as scarcity of resources.

The first argument is refutable even on the grounds on which it is based. If we claim that the modern concept of human rights is solely derived from the writings of natural law theorists such as John Locke, we must have an extremely narrow approach to the subject. The International Bill of Rights was not agreed upon by States simply because they all suddenly decided to agree upon one ideology. What resulted in the International Bill of Rights was an attempt to deal with serious problems and seek solutions for the protection of human dignity. “Human rights, in this sense, is a name given to ‘plural and divergent ideologies’, such that a search for an immutable or universal foundation is bound to fail.”[3] We can thus say that the various ideologies combined in the International Bill of Rights have similar bases, namely the ideas of human dignity, equality, tolerance, etc. Therefore, far from emphasizing only individual autonomy and freedom, the Preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) asserts the determination “to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom.”[4]

The protection of human dignity must, on the other hand, be viewed as an end in itself. A world in which it is seen as a means to economic prosperity and even subordinated and infringed upon for the sake of this prosperity depicts a sad state of affairs. The relationship between economic prosperity and human dignity must reveal a hierarchy in which economic prosperity is pursued insofar as it is conducive to the dignity of all human beings. Human rights are thus a vehicle for the protection of human dignity. If abstention on the part of the state from infringements on the autonomy of the individual were adequate to ensure that human beings live a dignified life, then the narrowly understood concept of human rights would be sufficient to reach the desired ends. However, threats on human dignity appear from many sides and the relationship between the state and the individual is no longer the only sphere where human dignity is confronted by an antithetical force.

That this is so is nothing radically new in the human rights field. The Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action adopted at the World Conference on Human Rights in Vienna in 1993 clearly states: “All human rights are universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated. The international community must treat human rights globally in a fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis.”[1] The need to realise in practice the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of human rights is seen as one of the main priorities in the human rights field and also as one of the greatest challenges in the global protection of human dignity.