The World Bank and human rights 2015, para. 64
Paragraph- Paragraph text
- The key question then is whether it actually matters if the Bank uses the language of human rights or opts instead for surrogates which are perceived to be less politically loaded or contentious. After all, if it advocates for gender equality, does it really matter if it uses the language of human rights, or whether any reference is made to United Nations standards or the work of bodies such as the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women? Or if the Bank works to expand access to water and sanitation, who cares if it characterizes them as human rights or not? Or if the Bank talks about problems relating to inclusion, participation, governance or the rule of law, does it matter if the issues are framed in "Bank speak" rather than in terms of the human rights obligations of the State? Or if the focus is on assisting those living in extreme poverty, why worry if the Bank assiduously stops short of talking about a human right to social protection? Surely, what counts are results, not scoring points for correct language usage?
- Legal status
- Non-negotiated soft law
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Means of adoption
- N.A.
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Gender
- Poverty
- Water & Sanitation
- Person(s) affected
- Women
- Year
- 2015
- Paragraph type
- Other
- Paragraph number
- 64
sorted by
Date added
82 relationships, 82 entities