“The Wheel of Time turns, and Ages come and pass, leaving memories that become legend. Legend fades to myth, and even myth is long forgotten when the Age that gave it birth comes again.”
― Robert Jordan
Thus it is with the right to development. Straight out of the narrative of the Wheel of Time, the infinitely long fantasy adventure novel series by Robert Jordan and completed by Branden Sanderson (now reduced to a multi-season television series), the right to development as a conception of or in international legality (soft or hard) has left memories, which became legends, which faded to its own mythos, and then, once forgotten has reappeared. That reappearance assumes three forms--each, like the great protagonists of the Wheel of Time series, represents a different cluster of beliefs and practices, that is a different way of looking at the world. These different imaginaries each reflect the time, space, and place where they arose. They are, in that sense, distinct collective interpretations of "development" as an ideogram--in semiotics a signified object--redolent with meanings that, like the wheel of time, turn on the forward movement of human dialectics (of the synthesis of meaning from the clash of a ruling meaning, its challenging meaning. The Wheel is fueled by this dialectic. The ideogram /development) never changes--that is both the word and the object. But its signification, that is the way it is identified, described, understood, and exploited by communities is always changing. "Shape clay into a vessel; It is the space within that makes it useful." (Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching (Gia Fu Feng & Jane English (trans)) ¶ 11).
And thus the concept (object)--development--is both solidified as a sign (given significance), and its interpretation within communities is in constant flux within the rough parameters of consensus on its significs. In the current era (since 1945) development has been applied to the imaginaries of three distinct communities, and from there projected onto the world. (that projection serving as the lubricant for global dialectics on development). Each understands develop in conceptually different ways. Though they overlap, they cannot occupy the same space. And each seeks to displace the others and assume the central element of our world's wheel of time.
The first is that of the liberal democratic order brought to its current state of expression in the bodies of developed states and expressed through the
magisterium that is the OECD. Development here is understood as the inevitable product of aggregated private activities by autonomous individual actors whose autonomy and risk taking (an equality of opportunity) is the principal role of the state. This had been the age of the liberal democratic markets driven order and its conception of development since the start of the 20th century and embedded in the law of globalization under the leadership of the United States.
The second is that of Marxist-Leninist orders brought to its current state of expression in the bodies of Asian Marxist Leninist states and expressed now through the magisterium that is the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) with China at ts core. Development here is understood as the inevitable expression of collective enterprise organized by and under the guidance and leadership of the leading forces of society organized as a Leninist collective and charged with the responsibility of exercising political power to move the national collective closer to the time when a communist society can be established. Development of the nation's productive forces is an essential element of that responsibility.
The last is that of post-colonial and post-imperial national orders brought to its current state of expression in the bodies of states liberated from the formal domination of other states a lifetime ago (measured by the life span of a human) and expressed through the magisterium of that is the constant state of oppression against which all national existence is gauged. For some, these are orders stuck in a moment in time and still unable to leave that moment of liberation in which they appear to be stuck. Development here is understood as a pathway that moves away from the structures, patterns, and sensibilities of oppression in which their national identities were forged, but spiced with the fundamental premise that such a pathway is inevitably blocked by the other two orders, though in very different ways.
For an instant in time, the Wheel appeared to turn in favor of the post-colonial, post-imperial orders. Allied with Marxist-Leninist orders, they sought to write their triumph in the text of the
New International Economic Order (1974), and a slew of international instruments that would wrest not just control from, but also to discredit the normative basis for, the liberal democratic order. That order, from that perspective, is understood in the pejorative--as a neoliberal (colonial) order. But then, so is the Marxist-Leninist order with its core in China, for being either a capitalist fellow traveler (through its markets Marxism), or a front for Leninist imperialism.
That was the 1970s. The Wheel of Time has turned--back again. That, at any rate, is the sense one might be forgiven for having after reading the quite interesting Report of the Special Rapporteur on the right to development, Surya Deva,
Reinvigorating the right to development: A vision for the future (A/HRC/54/27; 4 August 2023). The new future "calls for a new economic order" (Ibid., ¶4). That new economic order is said to offer a language of resistance to the current economic order (of liberal democracy) the core effect of which is to "systematically disempower developing countries from realizing the human rights of their people." (Ibid., ¶ 22; also ¶ 35). One is immediately thrust back to the 1970s and the early 1980s--to the normative workshop of Fidel Castro (
Odious
Debt Wears Two Faces: Systemic Illegitimacy, Problems, and
Opportunities in Traditional Odious Debt Conceptions in Globalized
Economic Regimes). Indeed, " [t]he right to development is also emerging as a cornerstone of the calls for a new economic order." (Surya Deva,
Reinvigorating the right to development: A vision for the future; ¶ 26). The current economic order,, then, is branded, in the fashion of a certain segment of the global intelligentsia as neocolonial (ibid., ¶ 36), the essence of Neo-liberalism (Ibid., ¶¶ 50-52).
But the Wheel of time has turned. And while the adversary remains the same: the liberal democratic economic order--the discursive tropes of the counter-hegemonic hegemony have changed. Now they speak the language of sustainability, compliance, and impacts. "It is becoming increasingly clear that the current economic order and business models are not fit for the purpose of achieving inclusive, equitable and sustainable development. A fundamental shift is needed." (Ibid., ¶82). They remains suspicious of unguided autonomous decision making and directionless markets as the 1974 version, but the appeal is to a broader audience, and the invocation is to the promise of state based quality control measures in the form of increasingly complex webs of administrative discretion.
There are many root causes behind the non-realization of the right to development. Lack of meaningful participation of people in decision-making processes, capacity deficits related to finance and technology, various inequalities, the current neocolonial and neoliberal economic order and irresponsible business models are just some. (Ibid., ¶ 79).
But a bit of the old language remains. "It is becoming increasingly clear that the current economic order and business models are not fit for the purpose of achieving inclusive, equitable and sustainable development. A fundamental shift is needed. (Ibid., ¶11) This nicely echos the 1974 language: "Full permanent sovereignty of every State over its natural resources and all economic activities. In order to safeguard these resources, each State is entitled to exercise effective control over them and their exploitation with means suitable to its own situation, including the right to nationalization or transfer of ownership to its nationals, this right being an expression of the full permanent sovereignty of the State." (NIEO ¶ 4(e)).
And, of course, the underlying premise remains the same. China--and Marxist-Leninist orders are also missing--an odd state of affairs for a normative order that is methodically insinuating itself in the heart of what is assumed, without more, to be the heart of postcolonial and post.imperial orders. A pity.
The greatest and most significant achievement during the last decades has been the independence from colonial and alien domination of a large number of peoples and nations which has enabled them to become members of the community of free peoples. Technological progress has also been made in all spheres of economic activities in the last three decades, thus providing a solid potential for improving the well-being of all peoples. However, the remaining vestiges of alien and colonial domination, foreign occupation, racial discrimination, apartheid and neo-colonialism in all its forms continue to be among the greatest obstacles to the full emancipation and progress of the developing countries and all the peoples involved. The benefits of technological progress are not shared equitably by all members of the international community. The developing countries, which constitute 70 per cent of the world's population, account for only 30 per cent of the world's income. It has proved impossible to achieve an even and balanced development of the international community under the existing international economic order. The gap between the developed and the developing countries continues to widen in a system which was established at a time when most of the developing countries did not even exist as independent States and which perpetuates inequality. (NIEO ¶ 1).
The Wheel has turned indeed; what was dead has been reanimated; an old spirit long thought quite dead has been reborn. The semiotics of development are in some respects even more profoundly powerful than its details. It is the semiotics of Elysium and of revolution, the apotheosis of which tends to end the narrative (and thus doom the future--
the case of Cuba is emblematic).
All of this makes Reinvigorating the right to development: A vision for the future a fascinating read as well as a harbinger of the battles that will be fought--again pitting forces which view each other as incarnations of evil and themselves as good. Beyond that, the Report suggests the ways in which both human rights and sustainability are likely to break out of their conceptual cages to assume a more comprehensive impact as legal foundational text. The transformation of sustainability and human rights from object to structural element in law and regulation--for example as they insinuate themselves into the structures of development, will likely have a profoundly transformative effect on the epistemology of law.
The text of Reinvigorating the right to development: A vision for the future follows below.
