HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

HUMAN RIGHTS SOCIETY

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBO
Colombo 03, Sri Lanka.
hrslawcmb@gmail.com.

20.02.2008

Publication of the HRS Resolution, 2007/2008

We hereby declare and publish the Resolution, 2007/2008 titled “The Failure of Human
Rights Mechanism in the face of Liberal Market Economy and the Need for new
Dimensions” of the Human Rights Society of the Faculty of Law, as was passed by its
Executive Committee on 19th February 2008.

President. Secretary.

1
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008
Forward

I
t’s the struggle of the people in the history and the present all around the world,
their sweat and blood and tears that have been recognized as human rights in the
charters of the universal acceptance and also in many other statutes of civilized
countries. Human rights is the story of those people who suffer each day because of
many forms of violence, pain, suffering, frustration, injustice, poverty and death. Its also
the grave story of those who were brutally killed, tortured; it’s the story of those who
were buried half alive, those of our sisters who were raped brutally by the military in
front of their parents and lovers; of the children who were left abandoned destitute
because of useless wars all around the world; of the people left alone like dust in the
streets whose lives have no value for the rest of the humanity; Its also the story of the
oppressor, the exploiter, the imperialist and the capitalist; of the disparities between
the rich and the poor, the inequalities in each aspect of life- all these cry out loud of
those who were deprived of their rights and freedoms throughout the world.

What matters is not the black letter of the law, but what actually people experience and
if the law doesn’t provide for the needs, aspirations, justice and equality of the people
the law either is to be interpreted to mean them or the law should be reformed
fundamentally, and it should be practically guaranteed and implemented. The law does
not come from the sky; it comes and must come from the earth.

If the law reformers don’t look around the world in its practicality, in the light of
multidimensional perspectives, through various disciplines of social studies including
sociology, history, politics, economics, and ethics it’s obvious that those law reforms
would never adequately respond to the pressing problems of the humanity. Law is
never something frozen at a far corner of the society but it’s of the pulse of the people,
of their sweat, blood, tears and happiness. Thus the law is never without sensitivity,
empathy, but it’s the very emblem of humanity, its life, its emotions and feelings. The
law of Human rights has no exception, and it’s the very essence of it all. The mission of
the Human Rights Society is thus founded on such vision and has embarked upon its
way to bring forward some of the most important issues in the present world as per
Human Rights. We are at a crucial juncture of the human history, as we, the HRS
2
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008
understand, and its time we probe into different dimensions and find multidimensional
alternatives to the present rotten system to erase the human travails everywhere.
Development, wellbeing of all, equality, justice and freedom of all should be practically
guaranteed and a culture of love and wisdom should be brought in, for which full-scale
discourses on the issue of rights of all people should be done all around.

our intention to open it for criticism, discussion, dialogue, argument and discourse and
never Thus, we, The Human Rights Society hereby establish its Resolution, 2007/2008.
It’s for debates. It is our desire to pinpoint some of the major issues in the sphere of
human rights that are, as we think, not adequately addressed by the elite and the
practitioners in our Country.

3
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

HUMAN RIGHTS SOCIETY

FACULTY OF LAW, UNIVERSITY OF COLOMBO
Colombo 03, Sri Lanka.
hrslawcmb@gmail.com.

HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

The Failure of Human Rights Mechanism in the face of Liberal Market Economy and
the Need for new Dimensions.

The Human Rights Society observes that all around the world the discourse on the theory of
human rights is often directed only at the protection of civil and political rights. By contrast
Economic, social and cultural rights are presented as objectives of progressive realization or
as simple aspirations for the future. This Resolution of our Society on the global Human
Rights Mechanism with its substantive and procedural aspects, we thought, should focus
everybody’s attention to some of the salient aspects of the rights and freedoms that are
basically ignored, not recognized or acted upon by the states, lawyers and activists.

Our position as the Human Rights Society on this subject is basically based on the inevitable
inter-relationship and interdependency existing between both groups of rights, which would
guarantee that none of the said groups may have precedence over another. Thus, they must be
viewed as an insurmountable whole.

The Universal Declaration, in its article 22, clearly establishes that “everyone, as a member
of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort
and international cooperation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each
State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free
development of his personality”.

The International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, on its part, establishes
in its preamble that “the standard of a free human being, liberated from fear and poverty
cannot be achieved unless conditions shall be created that allow everyone to enjoy his
economic, social and cultural rights, as well as his civil and political rights”.

4
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

We live in a world of enormous economic and social contrasts. The combined wealth of the
top 300 people now exceeds the total annual income of the world's one billion poorest. The
richest one-fifth own 85% of the world's wealth, while the poorest one-fifth control less than
2%.

The scale and nature of economic activities at the dawn of the 21st century create wealth
unimagined by previous generations. Developments in telecommunications and digital
technology mean that information and money can cross the globe with ease. However, half
the world's population have never used a telephone, and 840 million are illiterate - two thirds
of them women.

Although the potential exists to create riches and distribute them around the world, chronic
mass unemployment affects more than 820 million workers. Production and trade is
dominated by giant transnational corporations like Exxon, Unilever, Shell and Microsoft.
Assisted by their 'home' governments and states, and by the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and the World Bank, they strive to impose their monopoly across the world in the
name of 'free trade' and globalization. Billions of dollars are spent on armaments each year,
but resources cannot be found to eradicate poverty and diseases such as malaria. Throughout
the developing countries one and a half billion people have no safe water supply, two and a
half billion lack sanitation and hundreds of millions suffer from chronic malnutrition, while
their governments are up to their necks in debt to Western banks.

In the United States, resources can be found to explore space and even to militarize it. Yet at
the same time, the stability of the life support system of our planet is under threat due to
ozone depletion, the greenhouse effect, acid rain, deforestation, toxic wastes and the
extinction of species.

After a century of unprecedented social, national and international conflict, war still blights
one part of the world after another. Aided by Britain and other NATO powers, the United
States acts as policeman, judge, jury and executioner on behalf of the 'international
community'. Countries that depart from the American line like Yugoslavia, Libya, Iraq and
Sudan are invaded or bombed with no regard for human rights or international law. The
division of the world by the major imperialist trading blocs of North America, the European

5
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

Union and Japan is increasing the danger of military conflict. The Cold War may be over, but
the risk of nuclear annihilation still exists.

We believe this crisis which grips the world is endemic to capitalism in its highest and most
moribund stage, imperialism. Today poverty, unemployment, inequality of opportunities,
wage exploitation are still part and parcel of all around the world and, the so called
developed countries have no exception. In Britain, an industrialized, wealthy, imperialist
state, the richest tenth of the population own half of Britain's wealth, while the poorest 50%
own just 6% of it. Governments come and go, but the major economic decisions continue to
be made in the boardrooms of the big financial institutions and monopoly corporations. At
the stroke of a computer key, huge sums of money are moved out of Britain and around the
world. Factories are shut down while investment is directed overseas, where wages are often
lower and conditions worse. The Welfare State is put in jeopardy and hard-won gains are
sacrificed, so that companies can remain profitable' in the global market place'.

We have to ask some basic questions. Were the poor third world countries the same some
hundreds of years back in the history? How was the system of dependency brought into those
lands? While it should be accepted that human beings in total are equally entitled to benefits,
wealth and resources of this earth, why has the unequal distribution of wealth caused the
concentration of the wealth among a very few of the rich in the world? So is this the equality
the world was aspiring to achieve more than 50 years ago when the Human Rights charters
were adopted by the United Nations? What is the reason for the relative poverty existing in
the so-called developed countries? Why do the liberal thinkers establish the Socio–economic
and cultural rights as mere ‘ soft law’, just only being some rights to be realized in an
uncertain future time? Is it because this very system of global market economy and liberal
political system never pave the way for the equal distribution of wealth and the realization of
those rights all around the globe? While the needs of all the people are the same why have
they been made dependant upon one’s income while the governments have been unable to
provide for all the people the right to employment and fare wages? It is clear that there’s not
even the moral equality in this process. Have the governments affirmed or made systematic
preparations for the people to climb up in the social ladder giving way to social mobility?

6
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

Today no liberal capitalist country has been able to reduce world poverty, unequal
distribution of wealth which is the heritage of the whole mankind, the ever- widening gap
between the rich and the poor, unemployment and infringement of the social, economic and
cultural rights of the people. Statistics and facts from all around the world testify to this fact:

In 2001- 2 the poorest 50 percent of the population in Britain owned only1 percent of the
wealth, while the richest 5 per cent owned 57 per cent. One tenth of the population possessed
nearly three quarters of the nation’s wealth. Twelve and a half million people were living in
poverty (below 60% of average income) –22 percent of the population. Nearly a third (30 %
per cent) of all children were living in poverty. And there were more children living in
poverty than in any other European country, according to Eurostat, the European Union
statistics agency.

As well, income in Britain is also unequally distributed, with the richest fifth of income
earners getting about 42 per cent of all income in 2001-2 more than twice their ‘fair share’ if
income were equally distributed, and more than the bottom three-fifths of income earners got
between them. The poorest fifth got only about 8 per cent, just two-fifths of their ‘fair share’.
Most of the rich live on unearned income from investments rather than from employment.

§ The world’s richest 1 percent of people receive as much income as the poorest 57%.

§ Throughout the world around 1.2 billion people are living on a dollar a day or less.

§ Eight hundred and twenty-eight million people are moderately or severely

malnourished.

§ One-fifth of the world’s population are not expected to live beyond the age of 40.

§ Nearly 1 billion people in the world are illiterate

§ Easily preventable diseases, like pneumonia, diarrhea, malaria, and measles, kill
nearly eleven million children under the age of 5 each year – 30,000 every day.

§ About 1.3 billion people lack safe water.

7
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

This is the naked ‘inconvenient truth’ of this liberal capitalist socio-political and economic
system and the situation in Sri Lanka except for the excuses for being still a third world
country, according to western economic analysis, is not a difference:

The UNDP’s latest assessment of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) puts Sri
Lanka among countries with the highest inequality in the Asian region. Sri Lanka ranks 4th
among Asian countries showing high inequality, based on the Gini-index from 1990s to
2000s. The report also notes that the number of people in Sri Lanka living on US$ 1 per day
increased from 3.8% of the population in 1990, to 5.6% by 2002. The share of national
income available to the poor also reduced while the rich got richer. The share of the poorest
20% in national income shrank from 9% in 1990 to 7% in 2002. Nearly 30% of Sri Lankan
children, in the age group of 3 months to 5 years, were underweight according to 2000 data.
Meanwhile data from 2001 to 2003 show that on average, 22% of the entire population was
undernourished.

Sri Lanka does not have an equal distribution of wealth between the rich and the poor. The
Richest obtain 42.8% of the total income, while the poor earns 8.0%. 45.4% of the population
are living on less than $2 dollars a day and 25% of the country is considered impoverished.
The problem is that the rich have all the wealth, which is a select few, while the majority of
the country lives poor.

“Poverty means going short materially, socially and emotionally. It means spending less on
food, on heating, and clothing than someone on an average income. But it is not what is
spent that matters, but what isn’t. Poverty means staying at home, often being bored, not
seeing friends, not going out for a drink and not being able to take the children out for a trip
or treat or a holiday. It means coping with the stresses of managing on a very little money,
often for months or even years. It means having to withstand the onslaught of society’s
pressure to consume. It impinges on relationships with others and with yourself. Above all,
poverty takes away the tools to build the blocks for the future- ‘your life chances’. It steals
away the opportunity to have a life unmarked by sickness, a decent education, a secure home
and a long retirement. It stops people being able to take control of their lives.”
: Carey Oppenheim, Poverty: The Facts (CPAG)

8
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

Simply poverty is gross deprivation and infringement of all rights of man. To abolish poverty
and inequality would involve a widespread redistribution of wealth and income. This would
mean the creation of improved social services, higher welfare benefits, and more and better-
paid jobs, with the introduction of higher taxes on the rich to pay for these reforms.

Equal access to justice is a right. But for majority of the people Justice is expensive that
people have to buy justice for price. The process of Human Rights enforcement in this
respect is never equal for all. The enormous expenses for the litigation process itself can not
be born by an ordinary man. Thus free access to justice must be a right if the Human Rights
Mechanism is to function equitably.

The infringement of socio-economic rights also leads to the violation of Civil and Political
Rights because they are all interconnected. The freedom of expression as a civil and political
right is for many of the people not practicably realizable. The law is not addressing these
practical issues preventing the full realization of the rights. Throughout the whole world it’s
only a few rich capital owners who reap the fruits of this freedom simply because only they
can afford to maintain the mass media including news papers, television and radio channels,
thus the right of freedom of expression being a privilege of a rich few. And these capital
owners decide which way the public opinion should go and thus even decide the Government
of the people that should come to power. The right of freedom of expression has not granted
many middle class state servants or the general working public the opportunity to express
themselves. Who of those general people can afford to publish one’s own creative writing? It
should be pointed out that a root cause for many of the terrorist activities in the world lies in
the fact of practical violation of the right to freedom of expression.

Market economy:
The argument of the right to free competition within this economic system is only just
favoring for those who posses the wealth and power and in toto these competitors are just
only the major capital owners and not any member of the middle class or the lower classes of
the working people which consist of the majority of the population. So it is plain that this

9
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

right of free choice and competition in reality is just only a right which favors the exploiting
haves, and not for the majority. Thus what all these depict is that the
present system of laws is not properly addressing the actual social realities and are like from
the sky.

The foundation of liberal market economy lies in the unlimited private property rights and
free competition. For this private property no limitation is laid as to property of the
household, recourses and other means of mass production. It is obvious that it is
fundamentally the unearned income that is amalgamated as surplus value, interest and profit
among a rich few who own multinational corporations and even are able to purchase poor
nations for price. The theories on surplus value describe how unpaid wage labor accumulates
as profit making the rich shareholders richer, while the condition of the employees is
stagnating. But the system persists despite many human rights charters, bringing its profits
for a few and starvation, malnutrition, poverty, inequality, underpayment, deprivation,
underdevelopment and bare violation of their rights to the majority of the population of the
world.

Unbridled market capitalism leads to impoverishment of the majority thus depriving them of
their rights, while a few are protected of their exclusive right to free competition, individual
liberty.

“The market-friendly approach to the human rights:

The construction of human rights as an instrument addressing adverse consequences of

economic globalization is not self-evident. It may not even be the dominant trend to perceive
of human rights in this way. It is perfectly possible – through prioritization and selectivity- to
construct a human rights theory that is fully compatible with or even supportive of economic
globalization. International economic actors adopt this type of human rights discourse, and
thus create distrust about the validity of human rights elsewhere.

10
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

The market-friendly approach to human rights prioritizes civil and political rights – the only
real human rights, so the argument goes, because they are only real rights. Aspects of civil
and political rights are beneficial to a market economy. The rule of law, and independent
judiciary, a government that is free from corruption, free flow of information and the
opportunity of choice for the consumer etc., are all necessity to ensure the proper functioning
of the market. They are necessary everywhere, regardless of cultural context. Women’s
rights, too, are useful to the extent that they allow women to sell their services on the same
terms as men, but not if they demand state resources or require market regulation, as in
mandating parental leave or subsidized day-care (Rittich 2001: 103). Economic, social and
cultural rights may exist, but they are long-term aspirations, the relation of which is
dependent on economic growth, which in turn will result from the choice of the free market
model. As long as the benefit of the psrocess have not trickled down to the poor there may be
a need for the state to provide social safety-nets. There is no need to think about the human
rights obligation of international economic organizations because this only complicates the
operation of such organizations that have the potential to contribute to the realization of
human rights as long as they are allowed to focus on their core business. If their politics
somehow adversely touch on human rights, it is the domestic government’s responsibility if it
has ratified the relevant human rights treaties to take action. Companies that wish to accept
social responsibility and engage in charity are to be congratulated, but no company should
be obliged to do so. Monitoring of such politics should be left to the business community
itself. Companies do not have human rights obligations. On the contrary: they are entitled to
human rights protection. In any case, human rights should not become the cornerstone of
international relations, i.e. the criterion against which every other rule is tasted. Human
rights are not at the top of the hierarchy of international rules. They are a legitimate concern
to the extent that they do not impede the proper functioning of the market.

The difficulty with the market-friendly approach to human rights is that it accepts the logic of
the exclusiveness of the market. Markets have winners and losers, and it is the ability of the
winner to reap the benefits that the market seeks to protect. Losers are not entitled to
rewards; otherwise competition does not make sense. Social justice is at the best a long-term
objective that can be delayed indefinitely as long as the creation of the growth remains the

11
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

priority. Poverty needs to be contained, but will persist, if only because there will always be
people that do not avail themselves of the opportunities the market offers. If the market is
inclusive at all, it is in its encouragement to consume.

The market-friendly approach is detrimental to the human rights project. If any prioritization
needs to take place, the only priority human rights recognize is gravity of abuse. Those who
win the market game are not usually those who suffer the gravest violations. It is the people
whom the market feels entitled to marginalize that are most vulnerable to violations. Human
rights, if taken seriously, prioritize those excluded by the market and thus condemned to
living in abhorrent conditions, to a life no marketeer would wish to contemplate. Most
importantly, human rights need to challenge the mechanisms on which exclusion is based.

Inevitably, the conditions which expose people to human rights violations change. Today one
of those conditions is economic globalization. Human rights need to respond to the change;
not so much in terms of their substance, but in terms of the relationships they cover. The
human rights regime is not old. It is growing up. Human rights must be a flexible, living
instrument that can address new threats to human dignity, such as those flowing from
economic globalization. Only then will they remain relevant.”

: Human Rights- Social Justice in the age of the Market: Koen De Feyter

It should be point out in this context that, if it is not for a reform for state ownership of the
means of production and industrial and agricultural development with strict mechanisms to
check on the state and administrative functioning, at least a right based approach for market
which is human rights-friendly, in contrast to market-friendly approach to human rights, is
mandatory to the present world and for each country to realize the actual practice of securing
all rights of the people.

Inequality in Education:

The free education system of the modern welfare state, it is said has given a great opportunity
to those at the bottom of the social stratification to move up, but is that free education equal
for all, so that it gives everybody equal opportunities to even compete?

12
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

Education is a right and does that not include the right of everybody to have higher education
opportunities at any time in his life and in any field of interest and of use to mankind? So
there could be hardly any restrictions, limitations, to the right to education and is that not
bare infringement of this right to hold competitive examinations and select a very few to
enter into universities?

For instance in Sri Lanka, due to restricted facilities University admissions have become
extremely competitive. Only 2% of the students who sit the A/L examination are admitted to
the universities. So what about the rest who are left behind, have the governments secured
their interests and the right to employment beyond any form of exploitation, deprivation, and
being squandered. We, HRS hold that free, equal, unlimited and quality education is a right
of all, which the existing law should at least be interpreted to mean and should be practically
guaranteed.

Ken Browne in An Introduction to Sociology shows the status of social class inequality in
education in England:

“Social class is one of the key factors that determine whether a child does well or badly at
school. There are major differences between the levels of achievement of the working class
and middle class and, in general, the higher the social class of the parents, the more
successful a child will be in education. The degree of social class inequality in education
begins in the primary school and becomes wider as children move through the education
system, with the higher levels of the education system dominated by middle-class students”.

“Elite Education and Elite Jobs:

A public school education remains an essential qualification for the elite jobs in Society- that
small number of jobs in the country which involve holding a great deal of power and
privilege. Although only about 7 per cent of the population have attended independent
schools (and public schools are only a proportion of these schools), many of the top positions
in the Civil Service, the courts, the Church of England, industry, banking, and commerce are
held by ex-public school pupils.

13
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

In many cases, even well-qualified candidates from comprehensive schools (comprehensive

schools in Britain are those which accept pupils of all abilities. Comprehensive
reorganization of secondary education was a further attempt to achieve equality of
educational opportunity, and to overcome the basic unfairness and inequalities of the
tripartite system introduced by the 1994 Education Act) will stand a poor chance of getting
such jobs if competing with public school pupils. The route into the elite jobs is basically
through a public school and Oxford and Cambridge universities (where about 50 per cent of
students come from public Schools.”

This situation of inequality of education is just the same in Sri Lanka. The vide disparities
between the rural schools and the schools of public repute testify to this fact. The students
who pass the year 5 scholarship exam are admitted to so-called ‘Public schools’, and it’s a
question why some schools are famous and others are not within a system of so-called
equality. It’s a sociological fact in Sri Lanka that the students from the areas far from the
main cities get lesser opportunities provided by the system of free education itself, while
those have become special privileges only for some.

New dimensions:

Recently UNDP outlined some of the required shifts in Human rights thinking:

1) From the state-centered approaches to pluralist, multifactor approaches- with

accountability not only for the state but for media, corporations, schools, families,
communities and individuals.
2) From the national to international and global accountabilities- and from the
institutional obligations of the states to the responsibilities of global actors.
3) From the focus on civil and political rights to a broader concern with all rights – giving
much attention to economic, social and cultural rights.
4) From a punitive to a positive ethos in international pressure and assistance- from
reliance on naming and shaming to positive support.
5) From a focus on multiparty elections to the participation of all through inclusive
models of democracy.

14
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

The Constitution of the Democratic Socialist Republic of Sri Lanka in its Chapter VI,
provides the Directive Principles of State Policy and Fundamental Duties:

27. (2) The State is pledged to establish in Sri Lanka a democratic socialist society, the
objectives of which include:
(a) the full realization of the fundamental rights and freedoms of all persons;

(b) the promotion of the welfare of the People by securing and protecting as effectively as
it may, a social order in which justice (social, economic and political) shall guide all the
institutions of the national life

(c) the realization by all citizens of an adequate standard of living for themselves and
their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, the continuous
improvement of living conditions and the full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural
opportunities

(d) the rapid development of the whole country by means of public and private economic
activity and by laws prescribing such planning and controls as may be expedient for
directing and coordinating such public and private economic activity towards social
objectives and the public weal;

(e) the equitable distribution among all citizens of the material resources of the
community and the social product, so as best to subserve the common good;

(f) the establishment of a just social order in which the means of production, distribution
and exchange are not concentrated and centralized in the State, State agencies or in the
hands of a privileged few, but are dispersed among, and owned by, all the people of
Sri Lanka;

(g) raising the moral and cultural standards of the People, and ensuring the full
development of human personality; and

15
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

(h) the complete eradication of illiteracy and the assurance to all persons of the right to
universal and equal access to education at all levels.

(6) The State shall ensure equality of opportunity to citizens, so that no citizen shall
suffer any disability on the ground of race, religion, language, caste, sex, political opinion
or occupation.

(7) The State shall eliminate economic and social privilege and disparity, and the
exploitation of man by man or by the state.

(8) The State shall ensure that the operation of the economic system does not result in the
concentration of wealth and the means of production to the common detriment.

(9) The State shall ensure social security and welfare.

(13) The State shall promote with special care the interests of children and youth, so as to
ensure their full development, physical, mental, moral, religious and social, and to protect
them from exploitation and discrimination.

It is true that Article 29 provides that the provisions of this Chapter do not confer or
impose legal rights or obligations, and are not enforceable in any court or tribunal. But
what is implied in itself is that they could and must be recognized as rights and it could
be argued that time has ever been ripe for them to be recognized and practically
guaranteed as rights of the people, and mechanisms established for them to be
enforceable. The governments can never deviate from these responsibilities.

The Human Rights Mechanism throughout the world seems to be a failure in all these
respects. It is the same with our country too. We can conclude in this context that a new
Human Rights Act for Sri Lanka is sine qua non.

16
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

Bibliography:

Books:
1) Human Rights- Social Justice in the age of the Market: Koen De Feyter.Zed Books.( 2005) ISBN:
1842774875

2) Priperty for People not for Profit- Alternatives to the Global Tyranny of Capital: Ulrich Duchrow and
Frang J. Hinkelmmert. (2004) Zed Books. ISBN: 1842774794

3) Privatization and Human Rights in the age of Globalization: Koen de Feyter & Felipe Gomez Isa.
(2005) Intersentia Antwerp-Oxford Publishing. ISBN: 90-5095-422-7

4) Another World is Possible-Proper Alternatives to Globalization at the World Social Forum; Editted by
William F Fisher & Thomas Ponnaiah. (2003) Zed Books ISBN: 0195629167

5) Questioning Globalization: Kavaljit Singh (2005) Zed books. ISBN: 1-84277-279-1

6) Economic Glibalization and Human Rights: Wolfgang Benedek, Koen Feyter , Fabriziomarrella.
(Antwerp: Intersentia ) 2005

7) Poverty and Wealth, Citizenship, Deprivation & Privilege: John Scott, Longman Sociology series.

8) Political Economy of Sri Lanka: Pradeep Bhargava (1987) ISBN: 8170130476

9) Law and Poverty- The Legal System and Poverty Reduction: Edited by Lucy Williams, Asbjorn
Kjonstand & Reter Robson. (2003) Zed Books.

10) Human Rights and Development- Towards mutual Reinforcement: Edited by Philip Alston and Mary
Robinson (2006) Oxford University Press. ISBN: 019568411-7

11) Justice V.K. Krishna Iyer on Fundamental Rights and Directive Principles: Shailja Chander (2003)
Deep & Deep Publications.

12) Competing Equalities- Law and the Backward Classes in India: Marc Galanter. Oxford University
Press (1984) ISBN: 0195629167

17
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

13) Meanings of Globalization- Inian & French Perspectives. Edited by Rama S. Melkote. Sterling
Publishers. ISBN; 81-207-2375-9

14) Poverty and Fundamental Rights. The Justification and Enforcement of Socio-economic Rights: David
Bilchitz (2007) Oxford UP. isbn: 978-0-19-920491-5

15) An Introduction to Sociology: Ken Browne; 3rd Edi.2005. Polity publishers.

16) International Justice and the Third World: Edited by Robin Attfield & Barry Wilkins, (1992) ISBN: 0-
415-06925-4.

17) Reduction, Rationality and Game Theory in Marxian Economics: Bruce Philp; Routledge Frontiers of
Political Economy. (2005) ISBN 0415287650

18) The New Value Controversy and the Foundations of Economics: Alan Freeman, Andrew Kliman,
Julian Wells. (2004) Edward Elgar Publishing. ISBN 1840645601

19) Parecon- Life After Capitalism: Michell Albert, 2003. Verso. ISBN 185984698x

20) Human Rights and Capitalism- A Multidisciplinary Perspective on Globalization: Janet Dine &
Andrew Fagan. 2006.

21) Human Rights, an Agenda for the 21st Century; Edited by Angela Hegarty & Sibohan Leonard;
Cavendish Publishing.1999.

Articles:

1) World Poverty and Human Rights: Thomas Pogge. Ethics and International Affairs, Vol. 19 Issue I,
2005.

2) The Violation of Human Rights as a Determinant of Poverty: Alfredo Sfeir Vounis. International
Social Science Journal

3) The Beautiful, Expanding Future of Poverty: Popular Economics as a Psychological defense; Ashis
Nandy. International Studies Review 2002.

4) From Cold War to Trade War: Neocolonialosm and Human Rights: Susan Koshy . Social Text.

18
 HRS RESOLUTION 2007/2008

5) Between Political Liberalism and Post national Cosmopolitanism- Toward an alternative Theory of
Human Rights: David Ingram 2003. Political Theory.

6) Poverty as Human Rights Violations: Genevieve Koubi. International Social Science Journal
Vol.56.2004.

7) Poverty and Human Rights – The Issue of Systematic economic discrimination and some concrete
proposals for Reform: Christina Arnsperger. International Social Science Journal ,V0l.56, June 2004.

8) Changing Income Inequalities within and between Nations-New Evidence: Brian Goesling. American
Sociological Review, 2001.

9) Fair Opportunity in Education- A Democratic Equality Perspective: Elizabeth Anderson. Ethics

Journal.July, 2007.

10) Libertarianism, Utility and Economic Competition: Jonathan Wolff. Virginia Law Review. 2006.

11) Return to Empire. The New US Imperialism in Comparative Historical Perspective: George
Steinnetz.2005.

12) The Failure of Liberal Morality: Joshep B. Tamney; Sociology of Religion, 2005

13) Fairness and Redistribution; Alberto Alesina,George Marios Angelter; The American Economic
Review, Vol95,No4 2005

14) Global inequality: bringing politics back in- Jan Nederveen Pieterse. Third World Quarterly, Vol 23, No 6,
pp 1023-1046, 2002

15) American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st Century:Adam Gamoran.
Sociology of Education Extra Issue 2001.

19