Human Rights Law as a Tool for International Development

By Ayesha Malik

Development and law were once treated as separate spheres: economists focused on growth while legal reform was seen as something that came later. As development thinking shifted towards a broader understanding of human wellbeing, rights-based approaches gained traction. They reframed development as the expansion of people’s freedoms and capabilities, not just economic output. Within this shift, human rights law moved from the sidelines to the centre of development policy. My argument is that these laws can genuinely strengthen development, but only when supported by enforcement, institutional capacity, and real political commitment.

The link between rights and development becomes clearer once we move beyond the notion that development is merely synonymous to economic growth. Amartya Sen’s capabilities approach, for example, reframed development as expanding people’s real freedoms, and human rights law gives those freedoms legal force. Rights to education, healthcare, gender equality, and non-discrimination recognise the conditions people need to actively participate in society. When these conditions become legal entitlements rather than optional policy goals, the logic of development changes. States are no longer providing social goods out of generosity; they are now legally responsible for delivering them. In this way, human rights transform development from charity into obligation.

Human rights law supports development by creating clear obligations that citizens and civil society can use to hold governments to account. Litigation and advocacy become mechanisms for expanding access to essential services. These frameworks also expand the political space by allowing communities to organise, challenge decisions, and shape policies that directly affect them, thereby making development planning more grounded and responsive. Rights-based reforms often strengthen institutions such as courts and oversight bodies, which are essential for sustaining long-term progress. They also promote more inclusive development, since equality provisions require governments to identify and address the needs of vulnerable groups, preventing growth from reinforcing existing inequalities.

These dynamics are clearly in practice across the world. In Rwanda, post-genocide legal reforms expanded women’s rights to inherit and own property, and this translated directly into economic change. Women’s control over land improved household decision-making, increased agricultural productivity, and supported their wider participation in the labour force. Legal recognition of gender equality became a practical lever for economic growth. South Africa shows a similar pattern. Its post-apartheid constitution recognises socio-economic rights, and litigation around the right to healthcare forced the government to expand access to antiretroviral treatment. This consequently improved health standards and strengthened human capital, demonstrating how enforceable rights give citizens a way to demand concrete, development-shaping action.

None of this means that rights-based approaches automatically succeed. Many states recognise rights on paper but lack the resources or administrative capacity to implement them, creating a large enforcement gap. Rights can also yield ambitious commitments that exceed what governments can realistically deliver, undermining public trust. Tensions sometimes arise between courts and democratic processes when judges make decisions that reshape public policy without broad political consensus. Furthermore rights rhetoric can be appropriated by political elites who adopt the language of progress whilst maintaining deeply exclusionary structures.

These challenges raise a crucial question: are rights-based frameworks always the most effective path to development? The answer is more nuanced than advocates often admit. Rights are indispensable because they articulate clear standards of justice and accountability. Yet they cannot carry the entire weight of development policy. Effective development still requires fiscal capacity, governance reforms, and solutions that reflect local political and cultural contexts. Rights provide direction, but they do not automatically generate the means to reach that destination.

To make human rights law genuinely meaningful for development, states and development partners need to focus on the foundations that allow rights to translate into change. This involves strengthening domestic institutions, especially courts and oversight bodies, so rights can be enforced rather than merely proclaimed. It also requires sustained investment in data collection so that rights deprivations can be identified and addressed. Human rights language should become part of national development planning instead of remaining restricted to constitutional texts. The design of legal frameworks should involve the communities that will live under them. Likewise, international actors should prioritise long-term institutional capacity over short-term performance metrics that expire once funding cycles end.

Human rights law offers more than a legal framework; it is a promise that development will serve every person, not just the powerful or fortunate. When rights are more than words and become lived realities, they ignite movements, rebuild societies, and redefine what progress means. The real test is not whether rights are written into law, but whether we insist on making them matter, especially when it is inconvenient or costly. If governments and citizens are able to rise to that challenge, rights will not just accompany development, but will instead drive it forward, turning aspiration into action and justice into lived experience.

Edited by Artyom Timofeev

Image source: https://blogs.canterbury.ac.uk/expertcomment/its-uns-human-rights-day-why-should-we-care/