POVERTY is the greatest human rights scourge of our time. Human rights violations are both a cause and consequence of poverty. Human rights are increasingly accepted as part of the definition of what it is to be poor, as well as offering pathways out of poverty. In other words, human rights serve both a constitutive and instrumental function in so far as poverty and poverty reductions are concerned .

A human – rights sensitive understanding of poverty gives due attention to the critical vulnerability and assault on human dignity that accompany poverty. It looks not just at resources but also at the capabilities, choices, security and power needed for the enjoyment of the rights proclaimed in the universal declaration on Human Rights and International Human Right treaties to which all countries to varying degrees have subscribed.

However, linking poverty reduction strategies to systems of entitlement and corresponding obligations, promises much for the sustainability of poverty reduction efforts. And even if human rights standards themselves will not likely resolve difficult prioritization and policy dilemmas, they at least help to establish a minimum level of social and economic entitlements which nobody should be allowed to fall.

The human rights framework places an obligation on states to protect their population against situations of poverty and social exclusion, including ensuring an enabling environment that protects human rights standards. The enforcement of human rights through the courts is one example of how human rights can alleviate situations of poverty. Decisions as to whether to litigate rights must be made strategically. Positive measures, including legal aid programs for low income groups, are required to ensure that poverty does not bar people from claiming their rights and accessing effective remedies.

Among the human rights principle to which the international community has universally subscribed is the principle that all individuals should enjoy a basic level of social and economic rights necessary for a life in dignity.

Most societies today recognize a right of access to adequate housing, basic education, social security, healthcare and nourishment and right to work and adequate conditions of work. As provided for variously in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the convention on the rights of the child, regional treaties and national constitutional arrangement. Courts the world over have been playing an increasingly important role in breathing life into these legal guarantees, helping people to escape the poverty trap.

The Supreme Court of India has interpreted the right to life to include nutrition, clothing and shelter in considering whether the denial of emergency medical treatment at a government run hospital violated an individual’s right to life (Raschem Banga Khet Mazdoor Sanity V State of West Bengal (1996) Sol Case No 169.4 SCC 25, 3SC) 25, 2 (HJRLD 109). In another case concerning the issues of inadequate drought relief and chronic hunger and under nutrition, the Supreme Court has issued a series of interim orders directing the government to implement food relief programs to half starvation, provide mid-day meals in schools and provide subsidized grain to millions of destitute households (Pucl v Union of Idia and others, Writ Petition (Civil) 196 of 2001).

In South Africa, in a case involving children’s rights to minimum shelter, the constitutional court held that the realization of socio-economic rights, including access to housing, health care, sufficient food and water and social security is necessary to ensure human dignity freedom and equality of all individuals. The failure of the government to make any provision at all for the housing needs of the poorest was a violation of the South African Constitution.

Naturally the Judicial enforcement of human rights claims is but one dimension of overreaching strategies to reduce poverty. Equally obviously, to effectively tackle the not causes of poverty calls for action at the International as well as national levels. In this respect, the human rights framework makes it clear that the protection of human rights and the elimination of poverty is a shared responsibility. While the primary responsibility to protect human rights rests with national governments, other states and non state actors also have a responsibility to act in accordance with international human rights norms and standards (UN charter, and International council on human rights policy 1999).

A state which lacks the means to effectively protect basic human rights for its people has an obligation to actively seek international assistance and cooperation. Equally states which are in a position to assist have a responsibility to support other states to enable them to ensure adequate protection of rights to their populations.

In order to be successful, poverty eradication must involve more than legal protection. A rights based approach to poverty eradication calls for a program of positive actions which are credible transparent, and workable, as well as mechanism of implementation which make all actors involved fully accountable, both at the national and international level. Poverty continues to be pervasive today in many parts of the world precisely because responsible agents have not been held accountable for their in action and misguide polices. An understanding of poverty as a denial of human rights would be an important contribution to ensuring greater accountability on the part of duty bearers.

If poverty eradication is raised to the status of fulfilling human rights obligations, through national and international public action perhaps the world will have a better chance of abolishing the scourge of human dignity.