I say "together" in the sense that we need to forge coalitions of concern on human rights issues. "Together" in the sense that we require effective ways of simultaneously advancing the two fundamental, indivisible and interdependent sets of rights: civil and political rights, and economic, social and cultural rights. "Together" in the sense that we require greater effort to ensure that our local, national, regional and multilateral approaches to human rights complement and reinforce each other.

These are issues which I have addressed in various ways on other occasions. Indeed, they permeated discussion at the Council of Europe Interregional meeting in Strasbourg at which I was honoured to act as rapporteur in the lead up to the World Conference in Vienna. The intervening four years have not blunted the urgency of the discussion.

And during these past few years, I have learned to value, with humility, the leadership on human rights issues which I have witnessed in difficult contexts and at different levels. In March of this year, for example, I returned to Rwanda to take part in a Pan African Women's Conference on Peace, Gender and Development. I was deeply impressed by the eloquence, passion and commitment of the women leaders from the 19 African countries represented, who wasted no time, took the Beijing Programme of Action as a benchmark and were determined to devise practical measures to implement it on the ground. Between conference sessions, I also had a meeting with about 30 representatives of a local women's network, "ProFemmes".

Each of these women represented a small, under-funded group dealing with the victims of the genocidal killing, the widows, orphans, homeless, rape victims and other wounded and traumatized. As I sat and heard their stories, and admired their commitment to promoting reconciliation while they rebuilt their lives and their communities, I was conscious that although they lacked access to minimal material resources, they had harnessed great energies and empowered themselves to cope with daunting problems.

Their insights have prompted me to look at the issue of tensions—real or perceived—between the developed and the developing world on issues of human rights protection. The reality is of course more complex, more differentiated than the broad brush picture often presented. But I believe there is a problem which we need to recognize and jointly address.

We are told about the different agendas of the developing and developed world, the different groupings in which they frequently find themselves in bodies such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. Stepping back from the debates about tactics, procedures and mechanisms, we need to constantly remind ourselves of the objectives of international human rights action. Everything begins and ends with a determination to secure a life of dignity—a truly human quality of life—for all the people in whose names we act. That is the only true measure of the worth of what we are doing. Fundamental to these discussions is the basic question: How best can those being denied their human rights be supported or helped?

I suggest that if we keep reminding ourselves of this basic question, it will help us to steer a path through the difficulties and complexities. Defining those "being denied their human rights" required rigorous fact-finding, free from any political or cultural bias, using internationally accepted standards as a yardstick. Asking ourselves "how best to support" means taking account of the particularities of each situation, the practical possibilities for action and self help, and assessing the full range of instruments for human rights protection and promotion in order to identify which are most likely to help in each situation.

I noted with interest that at the recent annual session of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, there were several instances where developed and developing countries voted together on issues of contention. The tensions which undoubtedly exist in regard to approaches to human rights internationally cannot, automatically, be characterized as representing a North/South divide. At the same time, it is also clear from the recent session of the Commission that there is a danger of such a divide emerging on more and more issues.

The two words I would most wish to see characterize the debate are "respect" and "responsibility".

"Respect" requires a readiness to listen to each other and really hear what is being said; an effort to understand why situations are as they are and a willingness to take advice on the scope for effective preventive or remedial action. It also means a recognition of the contribution that different cultures bring to our collective work. Four years ago in Strasbourg, I emphasized that "more thought and effort must be given to enriching the human rights discourse by explicit reference to non-western religious and cultural traditions. By tracing the linkages between constitutional values on the one hand and the concepts, ideas and institutions which are central to Islam and the Hindu-Buddhist tradition or other traditions, the base of support for fundamental rights can be expanded and the claim to universality vindicated." That broadening and enriching of the discourse has yet to happen; a renewed effort is required of all of us to ensure that it does. Above all, respect calls on our notions of dignity and moral obligation.

"Responsibility" is equally important. North or South, we have to be prepared to recognize problems where they exist, including in our own countries and our own regions. The claims of human solidarity with victims must be weighed alongside the claims of political solidarity with Governments. If we are reluctant to take on our own responsibilities in our own regions, we risk creating a vacuum in which those who are more distant from the problem come to feel that they carry the sole burden of analysis and prescription.

I would suggest that the time is ripe for the formation of new coalitions of concern on human rights issues. The cold war—whose divisions were inevitably projected into international debate on human rights issues—is now some years behind us. We have yet to forge the integrated approaches in the human rights area that might have been expected to emerge in the post-cold-war period. New working methods, infused by a renewed dedication to our basic purposes, a strengthened sense of respect, as well as a strengthened sense of responsibility, are urgently called for. It goes without saying that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) will have an important role to play as partners in such coalitions of concern.

The second sense in which I invoke the word "together" signifies the need to achieve simultaneous and complementary progress in relation to the two sets of rights enshrined respectively in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Please use this version of the article for printing.

Next Page of this article

About the Author:

Mary Robinson was appointed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan and confirmed by the United Nations General Assembly as the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In that capacity, she assumes principal responsibility for the human rights activities of the Organization, including streamlining the human rights machinery throughout the United Nations system. Ms. Robinson, who became President of Ireland in 1990, has outstanding legal qualifications and has worked in the area of human rights, with special expertise in constitutional and European human rights law. She became a member of the English Bar (Middle Temple) in 1973 and served as a member of the International Commission of Jurists (1987-1990) and of the Advisory Commission of Inter-Rights (1984-1990). She served as Special Rapporteur to the Interregional Meeting organized by the Council of Europe, on "Human Rights at the Dawn of the 21st Century", in preparation for the 1993 Vienna World Conference on Human Rights. Ms. Robinson served as a Senator in her country from 1969 to 1989 and was Chairman of the Parliamentary Social Affairs Subcommittee from 1977 to 1987 and Chairman of its Legal Affairs Subcommittee from 1987 to 1989. She was Reid Professor of Constitutional and Criminal Law at Trinity College, Dublin, from 1969 to 1975, and a Lecturer in European Community Law. This essay is based on Ms. Robinson's speech on her acceptance of the North-South Prize, in Lisbon, Portugal, on 15 May 1997.