dr. pogge presentation

8/1/2019 Dr. Pogge Presentation

1/44

UNU Lecture Series: Emerging Thinking on Global Issues

Human Rights:

The Second 60 Years

Thomas Pogge

Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs, Yale University;

with additional affiliations at

the Australian Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics (CAPPE) and

the University of Oslo Centre for the Study of Mind in Nature (CSMN)


2/44

Realizing Human Rights

Five tasks toward a sharper understanding:1 For each HR, what does it mean for this

right to be fulfilled for some person?

2 What deficits exist for each human right?

3 How should HR deficits be weighted?

4 What are the various causes of thepersistence of human right deficits?

5 Who bears what responsibilities for

removing or neutralizing these causes? 1


3/44

FDR on 6 January 1941

Freedom means the supremacy of humanrights everywhere,particularly freedom of

expression, liberty of conscience, freedom

from armed aggression, andfreedom fromwant, which, translated into world terms,

means economic understandings which will

secure to every nation a healthy peacetimelife for its inhabitants everywhere in the

world. These four HRs are attainable in

our own time and generation. 2


4/44

33

The Most Underfulfilled HR

Everyone has the right to a standardof living adequate for the health and well-

being of himself and of his family, including

food, clothing, housing and medical careand necessary social services, and the right

to security in the event of unemployment,

sickness, disability, widowhood, old age orother lack of livelihood in circumstances

beyond his control(Article 25(1)).

Universal Declaration of Human Rights


5/44

4

Human Cost of Poverty TodayAmong ca. 6800 million human beings, about

800 million are undernourished (UNDP 2007, p. 90), 1 bn now (FAO)

2000 million lack access to essential drugs(www.fic.nih.gov/about/plan/exec_summary.htm),

1085 million lack access to safe drinking water (UNDP 2007, p. 254),

1000 million lack adequate shelter (UNDP 1998, p. 49),

2000 million have no electricity (UNDP 2007, p. 305),

2600 million lack adequate sanitation (UNDP 2007, p. 254),

774 million adults are illiterate (www.uis.unesco.org),

211 million children (aged 5 to 17) do wage work outside theirhousehold often under slavery-like and hazardous conditions: assoldiers, prostitutes or domestic servants, or in agriculture, construction,textile or carpet production (ILO: The End of Child Labour, Within Reach,2006, pp. 9, 11, 17-18).


6/44

5

30+ Percent of all Human Deaths

some 18 (out of 57) million per year or 50 000

daily are due to poverty-related causes, cheaplypreventable through safe drinking water, bettersanitation, more adequate nutrition, rehydration packs,vaccines or other medicines. In thousands:

diarrhea (1798) and malnutrition (485),perinatal (2462) and maternal conditions (510),

childhood diseases (1124 mainly measles),

tuberculosis (1566), meningitis (173), hepatitis (157),

malaria (1272) and tropical diseases (129),

respiratory infections (3963 mainly pneumonia),

HIV/AIDS (2777), sexually transmitted diseases (180)

(WHO: World Health Report 2004, 120-5).


7/446

Millions of Deaths

5.5

7.5

9

15

20

30

55

>300

0 50 100 150 200 250 300

Korea and Vietnam1951-54, 1965-74

Congo Free State1886-1908

Russian Civil War1917-22

World War One1914-18

Stalin's Repression

1924-53

Mao's Great LeapForward 1959-62

World War Two1939-45

Worldwide PovertyDeaths 1990-2008


8/44

HR and Human Responsibilities

Insofar as HR deficits are not humanlyavoidable, no one is responsible for them.

Insofar as HR deficits are avoidable

through active intervention, there areunmet responsibilities to protect and tofulfill (positive duties).

Insofar as HR deficits are caused oraggravated through active intervention,there are HR violations, unmet responsi-

bilities to respect (negative duties). 7


9/448

Human Rights Violators

1. Interactional Cases

(a) Unfulfilled human rights

(b) Causally traceable to human agent(s)

(c) Active agency

(d) Official capacity

(e) Intends, foresees, or should foresee.


10/44

9

(1c) Active Agency Condition

can be satisfied by someone who

accepts, or remains in, some position

and then fails to fulfill responsibilities

associated with it in a way that leads to

unfulfilled human rights.Examples: life guard ignoring emergency,

police officer ignoring crimes.


11/44

10

(1b) Collective HR Violations(Relevance of other Contributors)

HR violators may make contributions thatare neither necessary nor sufficient for harm(many acting together each with marginalcontribution = zero; division of labor such that,

but for another, ones contribution would havebeen harmless)

Extends to upstream contributors and to

chain-of-command situations.Extends to facially harmless contributions(tank navigator)

Extends to democratically authorized decisions.


12/44

11

Human Rights Violators

2. Institutional Cases(a) Human rights deficit (may be statistical)

(b) Causally traceable to social rules / institutional order

(c) Active individual contribution to designing orimposing social rules that harm

(d) Official character of rules, with claim to morallegitimacy and moral duty of compliance.

(e) Agent intends, foresees or should foresee that rulesproduce human rights deficit and that there is an

alternative institutional design that would not.


13/44

12

Human Rights as Moral Claims on

(Global) Institutional Arrangements

Everyone is entitled to a social and

international order in which therights and freedoms set forth in this

Declaration can be fully realized

(Article 28)

Universal Declaration of Human Rights


14/44

13

Article 28 Entails

Positive DutiesHuman rights entail (positive) duties of

assistance: responsibilities to protect

and to fulfill HRs. We ought to contribute

to the eradication of human right deficits,e.g. through helping to establish social

institutions that alleviate severe poverty.


15/44

14

Article 28 Entails

Negative DutiesHuman rights entail (negative) duties of

justice: responsibilities to respect HRs.

We must not contribute to designing or to

imposing on others (international) socialinstitutions under which their HRs fore-

seeably and avoidably remain unfulfilled.


16/44

15

When is an InstitutionalOrder HR-Violating?

If and only if the following four conditions all hold:

1. The institutional order is associated with a massive

human-rights deficit among its participants.

2. This association is reasonably avoidable through some

alternative design of that institutional order.

3. The association in (1) is foreseeable.

4. Its avoidability (2) is also foreseeable: We can know

that the alternative institutional design would do much

better in terms of giving participants secure access to

the objects of their human rights.


17/44

1616

Moral Responsibility

When an institutional order is unjust (by

foreseeably producing massive and

foreseeably avoidable human-rights deficits),

then those who without compensating

reform and protection efforts are actively

cooperating in designing or imposing this

order are harming (violating the humanrights of, violating a human-rights-correlative

negative duty toward) those who suffer the

avoidable human-rights deficits.


18/44

17

Three Claims

Today, most premature human deaths

and other deprivations manifest injustice

for which we (citizens of the more

powerful countries) are co-responsible

in violation of basic negative duties ofjustice.


19/44

18

Counter-Argument

Poverty is evolving differently in the

various developing countries and regions.

This shows that local(e.g., national)

factors account for the persistence of

severe poverty where it persist.


20/44

19

Conceptual Answer to

the Counter-ArgumentIt merely shows that localfactors are

co-responsible for the persistence ofsevere poverty. It does not show that

local factors are solely responsible.

Example: Differential learning success

of students/pupils in the same class.


21/44

20

.

Global

Institutional Order

National InstitutionalSchemes of the Various

Less Developed Countries

Poor and VulnerableCitizens in the LessDeveloped Countries


22/44

Empirical Answer to

the Counter-ArgumentProtectionism against the poor

Pharmaceuticals at monopoly prices

Privileges: Borrowing, Resources, Treaties,

Arms conferred on the basis of effective power

alone entrenchment and perverse incentives


23/44

22

Global Institutional Order

Governments of the

More PowerfulCountries

National InstitutionalSchemes of the

Various LessDeveloped Countries

Citizens of the

More PowerfulCountries

Poor and VulnerableCitizens in the Less

Developed Countries

4Privileges

Protectionism

Pharmaceuticals


24/44

23

Trends in Poverty and Inequality

Growth in internationalinequalityhas stalled except wrt the poorestcountries (the bottom billion).

Globalinequality still increasing,mainly because of what is happening

within countries (many more aretrapped in severe poverty than justthose bottom billion).


25/44

24

Pro-poor Globalisation?

Percentiles

1984 monthly

income in 2005 US$

2005 monthly

income in 2005 US$ Change

50 51.80 81.56 57.45%

30 31.83 47.66 49.73%

15 22.09 31.84 44.14%

7 16.54 23.70 43.26%

2 11.26 15.70 39.43%

1 9.21 11.80World Bank 28.12%Data


26/44

2525

Shares of Global Wealth2000; poorest versus richest households

15%

8.8%

39.9%

30.7%

4.2%

1.9%

Up to 60th Percentile($645 average)

60th-80th Percentile($4,277 average)




Top One Percent($812,693 average)

Calculated in terms of market exchange rates so as to reflect the

avoidability of poverty. Decile Ineq. 2837:1. Quintile Ineq. 85:1.Year 2000, $125 trillion total. (James B Davies et al.: WIDER 2006)


27/44

2626

Global Wealth Inequality

At current exchange rates,

the poorest half of the worlds

population, some 3,400 millionpeople, have about 1 percent of

global wealth as against 3percent owned by the worlds

1125 billionaires.


28/44

2727

Global Income Inequality

At current exchange rates, thepoorest half of world population,

some 3,400 million people, haveless than 3% of world income

as against 6% received by the

most affluent one percent of US

households consisting of 3 million

people. H L th


29/44

28

How Large are thePoverty Gaps Today?

Relative to its newest international poverty line($1.25 per day or $38 per month, in 2005-dollars), the World Bank counts 1,400 million

poor people living 30% below this line onaverage. Total deficit: 0.33% of world income.

Relative to a more HR-realistic poverty line of

$2.00 per day or $61 per month (in 2005-dollars), the Bank counts 2,600 million poorpeople living 40% below this line on average.Total deficit: 1.30% of world income.


30/44

The Grand Initiative to HalvePoverty by 2015: Three Versions

1996 World Food Summit in Rome: the numberof extremely poor is to be halved during 1996-2015. This implies an annual reduction by 3.58%.

We pledge our political will and our common and

national commitment to achieving food security for

all and to an on-going effort to eradicate hunger inall countries, with an immediate [!] view to

reducing the number of undernourished people to

half their present level no later than 2015.www.fao.org/docrep/003/w3613e/w3613e00.htm


31/44



2000 Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG-1):theproportion of extremely poor among theworlds people is to be halved 2000-2015. Thisimplies an annual reduction by 3.40%.

to halve, by the year 2015, the proportion of theworlds people whose income is less than onedollar a day and the proportion of people whosuffer from hunger.

www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm


32/44



2000 Millennium Development Goal 1 (MDG-1):theproportion of extremely poor among theworlds people is to be halved 2000-2015. Thisimplies an annual reduction by 3.40%.

MDG-1 as subsequently interpreted by the UN:theproportion of extremely poor among thepopulation of the developing countries is tobe halved 1990-2015. This implies an annual

reduction by 1.28% (-27.5% over 25 years).


33/44

32

www.un.org/millenniumgoals/MDG-Page1.pdf

Updating the World Banks


34/44

Updating the World Bank sInternational Poverty Line

The Bank initially fixed its IPL at 1.02 1985-dollarsper day, noting that the domestic poverty lines ofeight poor countries were close to this amount.Soon rounded down to 1.00 1985-dollar per day.

The Bank later reset its IPL to 1.08 1993-dollars,noting that this was the median of the ten lowestdomestic poverty lines.

In August 2008 the Bank reset its IPL again to 1.25

2005-dollars, noting that this is the mean of thedomestic poverty lines of the 15 poorest countries.

The rationale behind this ever-shifting anchoringof IPLs in domestic poverty lines (many of which

are themselves fixed by the Bank) is obscure.


35/44

34

Updating the World BanksInternational Poverty Line

Used from 1990 until 1999:

1.00 1985-Dollar per day, today $2.04 in US

Used from 2000 until 2008:

1.08 1993-Dollars per day, today $1.63 in US

Used since August 2008:1.25 2005-Dollars per day, today $1.40 in US

If projected backward, does it matter?


36/44

35

Poverty Definition and MDG-1Poverty Line

in US Dollars

(purchasingpower of 2005)

1990 Baseline

(in millions ofpoor people)

ReductionNeeded to

Reach Goal(-1.28% pa)

Reduction until2005 according

to plan(-1.28% pa)

1990-2005 actual

reduction achieved

Difference

(0% meansexactly on plan)

$1per day

1303.2 -27.5% -17.55% -32.55% +85%

$1.25per day

1817.5 -27.5% -17.55% -22.99% +31%

$2per day 2753.6 -27.5% -17.55% -5.66% -68%

$2.50

per day

3076.6 -27.5% -17.55% +2.07%increase!

-112%


37/44

36

Wealth per capita in Household Income per capita in


38/44

3737

Year 2000, current USD Year 2002, current USD

Percentiles 1-5(Bottom Ventile)

57

First Decile 61 70

Second Decile 183 109

Third Decile 407 148

Fourth Decile 611 199

Fifth Decile 1,018 274

Global Median 1,299 326Sixth Decile 1,629 410

Seventh Decile 2,851 669

Eighth Decile 5,702 1,198

Ninth Decile 17,920 5,005

Tenth Decile 173,300 19,497

Percentile 99 226,100 27,300

Top Percentile 812,700 48,400

[Top Percentile US 4,810,000 397,000]

Global Average 20,368 2,758


39/44

38

Shares of Global Income2005; poorest households versus richest countries

79%

20%

1%

The poorest households(40% of humankind)

The richest countries(16% of humankind)

Others (44% ofhumankind)

Calculated in terms of market exchange rates so as to reflect the

avoidability of poverty. Per capita: Pie chart rich/poor ratio over 200:1.

(Decile inequality ratio 320:1, Milanovic 2005, pp. 111-12.)

(A If) Hi t i l D f


40/44

39

(As-If) Historical Defenses

Historical: legitimating actual historicalprocess

As-if historical: status quo could have been

reached through such a process rationallyconsented to by all (Lockean defense)

My interest in these defense merelynegative: they fail to overcome thepresumption against our entitlement


41/44

40

Harm and WrongdoingThree empirical notions of harmdistinguished by diverse baselines:diachronic, subjunctive, state-of-nature.Common idea: it is wrong to harm, i.e. to

render others worse off than they wouldotherwise be. H W

Alternative account: The global institutional

arrangements through which we maintainand expand our advantages are unjust, andtheir imposition is therefore a harm done to

the poor. W H (moralized notion of harm)


42/44

41

Whats Happening in the US?

During the 2002-06 economic expansionin the US, average household income roseat a 2.8% annual rate on average.

Disaggregated, this increase was 11% perannum in the top one percent of the USpopulation and 0.9% per annum in the

remainder. Fully three-quarters of all realUS growth in this period went to the topone percent of the population (Saez,

Table 1, from official tax return data).


43/44

42

Whats Happening within the US?

The income share of the bottom half declined

from 26.4% to 12.8% (1979-2005).

Meanwhile, the income share of the top one

percent rose from 8.95% to 22.90%; that of

the top tenth percent from 2.65% to 11.58%;

and that of the top hundredth percent from

0.86% to 5.46% (1978-2006; Saez Table A3).The top 30,000 now have nearly half as much

income as the bottom 150 million.


44/44

Whats Happening in China?

In China, 1990-2004, the incomeshare of the bottom half declinedfrom 27% to 18% while thatof the top tenth rose from 25%to 35%.

dr. pogge presentation

Documents