Show Summary Details

Page of

PRINTED FROM the Encyclopedia of Social Work, accessed online. (c) National Association of Social Workers and Oxford University Press USA, 2016. All Rights Reserved. Under the terms of the applicable license agreement governing use of the Encyclopedia of Social Work accessed online, an authorized individual user may print out a PDF of a single article for personal use, only (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

Subscriber: null; date: 18 October 2018

Rights-Based Framework and Social Work

Abstract and Keywords

The past few years have seen a surge in effort to incorporate rights-based approaches in programming. The rise has been spearheaded by growing awareness that human rights may be the most effective way to reduce or eradicate poverty and injustice while advancing human dignity and welfare. The profession of social work has played a major role in issues of welfare and human rights. In fact, at the core of social work is the “intrinsic” value of every person and the mandate to promote social justice while upholding human dignity. Also reflected in the profession’s code of ethics are the profession’s ethical responsibilities to the broader society (NASW, 1999). This entry reviews the basic underpinnings of the rights-based discourse as it relates to programming and assessment. An historical overview is presented. Approaches to rights-based programming along with tools supporting the approach are highlighted. Areas of intersection between social work and rights-based programming are also identified.

Keywords: duty bearer, human rights, indicators, principles of human rights, right holder, rights-based assessment, rights-based programming

Introduction to the Rights-Based Perspective

The rights-based perspective is a conceptual and organizational framework for ensuring that human rights principles are reflected in program and policy initiatives at both local and national levels (OHCHR, 2012; UNICEF, 1998; 2004). It is also seen as both a process and approach underscoring steps and strategies that need to be undertaken to ensure that the rights of vulnerable individuals and groups are respected, promoted, protected, and fulfilled. The perspective is based upon the values, standards, and principles reflected in the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequent legally binding human rights conventions and treaties (Nyamu-Musembi & Cornwall, 2004; OHCHR, 2008/9). The rights-based perspective reflects the recognition of human rights as essential for people to live in freedom and dignity (Gil, 1998; OHCHR, 2012; 2008/9). The framework facilitates translation of needs into rights and acknowledges the human person as an active subject of rights and as a claim-holder. It further identifies the duties and obligations of those against whom a claim can be brought to ensure that rights and entitlements are realized. In a sense, it defines the relationship between the right holder and duty bearer and outlines mechanisms by which duty bearers can be held accountable (see Figure One). Rights holders are identified as those who are entitled to claim rights and entitlements. These may include vulnerable groups such as women, children, youth, older adults, persons with disabilities, racial minorities, and gays, lesbians, transgender, and queer people. Duty bearers are those who have a responsibility to protect, respect and fulfill claimed rights. The primary duty bearer is said to be the state and non-state actors (OHCHR, 2012). The framework also enables enhancement of stakeholder capacities to meet their respective obligation: as a right holder or as a duty bear.

Rights-Based Framework and Social WorkClick to view larger

Figure 1. The Reciprocal Relationship between the Right Holder and Duty Bearer

The rights-based perspective is increasingly being adopted as an organizing framework by actors in diverse fields, including public health and development. The perspective has also been articulated and adopted in policies by bilateral and international development agencies including the United Nations. The value of the rights-based perspective lies in the transformative potential of human rights to highlight and alleviate injustice, inequality, poverty as well as other forms of vulnerabilities. Through utilization of the human rights principles of universality, indivisibility, interdependence, equality, and non-discrimination, the framework helps identify individuals and groups that are marginalized or excluded, or that are at risk for marginalization or exclusion, and guides implementation of remediation strategies.

Moreover, the framework facilitates the creation of an enabling environment, one that strengthens the capabilities of vulnerable individuals and groups and enables them to demand and exercise their rights. Indeed, the rights-based perspective is about empowering vulnerable individuals and groups to make decisions about their lives; it recognizes that success in tackling vulnerability requires an environment that allows vulnerable individuals and groups to have a stake and a voice and that makes channels available for meaningful participation in issues that affect their welfare.

Historical Overview

The rights-based perspective is enshrined in the discourse of human rights. It has a long traditional entrenched in the history of human societies, which, for thousands of years, have established moral and legal codes to regulate the relationship between the individual and the community (Roosevelt, 1948 Theis, 2004). Examples of these include the Vedas, the Torah, the Bible, and the Qur’an.

Human rights constitute a modern set of individual and collective rights that have been formally established and promoted through international and domestic law since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 (UN, 1948). Given that the Declaration was not legally binding, state actors and their allies have put in place a series of international treaties that are legally binding for state parties. While some of these have focused on collective rights, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICECSR); others have emphasized rights of individuals and groups in need of special protection, for example, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention of the Rights of the Child (CRC). These conventions have expanded both the scope and depth of rights that should be protected (UNICEF, 1998; UNIFEM, 2005; UNDP, 2005; WHO, 2005).

The rights-based perspective came into the global discourse during the 1990s. A number of factors facilitated the convergence between human rights and social welfare. Primary among these was the 1993 Vienna Conference on Human Rights whose main focus was strengthening commitment to human rights. The Conference examined the link between human rights and development and affirmed the indivisibility of human rights and development. This culminated in the United Nations’ reform of 1997, which proposed the integration of human rights into all United Nations systems and activities (Annan, 2005).

Since 2000, several organizations, including international financial institutions such as the World Bank, international non-governmental organizations such as CARE and Save the Children, as well as bilateral donor agencies such as the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID) started to incorporate rights-based approaches in their programs (DFID, 2005; 2000; Piron & O’Neil, 2005; Piron & Watkins, 2004; Save the Children, 2004; Theis, 2004). Rights and development gained further impetus in the 2000s when the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) made considerable effort in connecting human rights and development. The UNDP, in its 2000 Human Development Report, presented a compelling argument for an integrated approach to development drawing upon the principles of international human rights and strategies of human development to advance dignity and welfare. The profession of social work has also endorsed the framework both in its preamble and ethical standards; specifically ethical standard no. 6, which highlights the profession’s ethical responsibility to the broader society (NASW, 1999).

Other factors associated with the popularity of this framework include globalization and growing awareness that human rights and development offer greater hope to reduce or eradicate poverty and injustice (Gil, 1998; Moser & Norton, 2001; Nyamu-Musembi, 2002; OHCHR, 2004, 2002; UNDP, 2005, 2003a, b). The emphasis on human rights as an essential component of development effort also has been taken up in the Millennium Declaration of 2000, which has been adopted by world leaders. Alongside development goals on poverty, water, and education, commitments have been made to promote and respect human rights. In fact, in recent years, there has been a call for policies, programs of development cooperation, and technical assistance to further the realization of human rights as laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights instruments. Although other fields are slowly embracing rights-based programming, the approach is stronger in the field development, a field in which the approach has been extensively utilized.

Strategies and Approaches to Rights-Based Assessment and Programming

Rights-based programing is generally understood as a set of program activities that is normatively based on international human rights standards whose ultimate goal is to promote and protect human rights through realization of program goals and objectives (UNICEF, 1998, 2004; OHCHR, 2012). Rights-based programming is premised on the assumption that attainment of welfare goals cannot be divorced from fulfillment of human rights (see Figure 2 for a conceptual model). Emphasis is on the centrality of the human person in programming; it stresses active participation of vulnerable individuals and groups throughout the process. In this way, the framework represents a shift in programming from one that is engrained in needs or deficiencies to one that perceives the recipient of services as an agent endowed with rights.

Various approaches exist with respect to rights based strategies in programming. These are dictated by the nature of the program as well as context. However, common elements are generally reflected in rights-based approaches. This section reviews these elements.

It is important to acknowledge that a rights-based approach has many elements that are shared with other mechanisms utilized by human service agencies. Human service agencies, for example, underscore stakeholder participation, a key element in the rights-based framework. Moreover, the concept of accountability, which is an important component of any good program, holds a central position in rights-based programming. In short, most interventions and techniques employed to promote welfare, for example, food, shelter, health, and education, reflect human rights ideals to some extent.

The rights-based approach to programming is nevertheless unique. It starts with creation of an enabling environment: one that attempts to improves access to resources and services by facilitating respect protection and fulfillment of human rights. The approach supports those who have the obligation to respect, protect and fulfill rights by helping them develop capacities to perform their duties adequately. It also empowers the right-holders to develop capabilities to claim entitlements and participate meaningfully in political, economic, and social exchange. To this end, a rights-based programming demands participation of diverse segments of the population, especially vulnerable individuals and groups, in the programming process—from initial planning and design to implementation, monitoring, and evaluation. The participatory requirement stems from the idea that people are not passive recipients of services or commodities, but rather actors or agents with the capacity to influence outcomes in their favor (Nyamu-Musembi, 2002; Veneklasen, Miller, Cark, & Reilly, 2004; OHCHR, 2004). This perspective also focuses on increasing program impact and strengthens sustainability by addressing the root causes of vulnerability (Theis, 2004).

Rights-based programming follows four main stages: assessment, planning and design, implementation of operational commitments, and monitoring and evaluation (these are reviewed below).


This stage involves a situation or context analysis with the goal of understanding stakeholder capacities and vulnerabilities as well as causes and effects. The aim is to identify the human rights claims of rights-holders and corresponding obligations of duty-bearers. The assessment also provides data on the immediate, underlying, and structural causes impinging on attainment of human rights.

Coping mechanisms as well as current responses to the problem or issue of focus are examined. The main objective of the assessment is to guide implementation of strategies to help strengthen the capacity of rights-holders to claim their rights and of duty-bearers to fulfill their obligations.

Planning and design

This stage outlines action based on data from the assessment stage. It establishes goals and objectives with respect to program commitments. Attention is devoted to ensuring that programming is informed by human rights standards and meets the recommendations of international human rights bodies. Identification of resources for planned commitments is also important at this stage. Plans for monitoring and evaluation may be adopted at this stage.

Implementation of operational commitments

This stage involves putting the plan into action. It may build on existing programs and, where possible, may link new responses to existing initiatives. The goal is to ensure that human rights are reflected in operational commitments while addressing program mandates. This may require advocacy to help create an enabling environment. Primary activities may include putting in place planned commitments and establishing mechanisms to support service delivery systems.

Impact monitoring and evaluation

Activities to be undertaken at this stage may include measurement of:

  • Impact

  • Outputs

  • Efficiency and effectiveness

In addition, evaluation and monitoring activities could focus on:

  • Strengthening accountability

  • Facilitating organizational learning

  • Strengthening collaborations and team building

  • Supporting advocacy efforts

  • Influencing organizational culture

Key activities at this stage may include establishing a participatory monitoring and evaluation processes (such as the inclusion of vulnerable individuals and groups) as well as identifying tools to guide monitoring and evaluation. Attention may be on the selection of metrics and data collection mechanisms. Focus may be on outcomes with greater potential for impact and sustainability.

Human rights principles guide program decisions at all stages. These include: universality and inalienability; indivisibility; interdependence and interrelatedness; nondiscrimination and equality; participation and inclusion; and accountability and the rule of law (an overview of each principle is presented in the ensuing subsection).

Utilization of human rights principles in programming guarantees that human rights are incorporated at every stage of the program. It is also recognition that participation of marginalized, disadvantaged, and excluded individuals and groups is both a means and a goal. Indeed, inclusive participation enhances representation of multiple stakeholders groups, and empowers and ensures that programs reflect stakeholder interests, among many other things.

Rights-Based Framework and Social WorkClick to view larger

Figure 2. Incorporation of Human Rights Principles in Programming

Principles of Human Rights-Based Perspective

Human rights principles establish conditions to enable the realization of human rights through social welfare programs. These principles are often divided into two groups: ones that are directly related to human rights (these include universality, indivisibility, equality and nondiscrimination, and accountability), and those that are associated with the notion of good governance (these consist of participation along with accountability and rule of law).

Universality and inalienability

The principle of the universality of human rights means all human are born free and have equal dignity and rights simply by virtue of their humanity. The concept of universality transcends time, space, and culture. It, in fact, distinguishes human rights from other rights such as citizenship or contractual rights (OHCHR, 2012, 2008/9). The principle of inalienability suggest that rights are entitlements that cannot be taken away or voluntarily given up. These principles identify all human as subjects of rights and demand that programs attend to issues of exclusion and injustices—all which impinge on these principles. A major component of this is raising awareness among both the right holders and the duty bearers (Goonesekere & De Silva-de Alwis, 2005).


The principle of indivisibility suggests a holistic span for a rights-based approach. It recognizes the interdependence of rights and acknowledges that all rights are equally important and essential for realization of a life of respect and dignity (OHCHR, 2012). With respect to programming, while all rights—civic, political, economic, social, and cultural—are to be treated with the same importance, the context or problem might dictate that certain rights take precedence. However, the principle of non-retrogression, which demands that the prioritization of some rights must not deliberately affect attainment of other rights, may be utilized as guide (Boesen & Martin, 2004; OHCHR, 2012; UNICEF, 2005).

Inter-dependence and Inter-relatedness

The principle of inter-dependence or inter-relatedness acknowledges that rights are intricately connected. Non-attainment of one may affect realization of others (UN Philippines, 2002; UNICEF, 2005). For example, the failure to realize the right to health may affect the right to work. The attribute of interdependence/relatedness is especially useful at the assessment stage in that it allows identification of the root causes of a problem and guides formulation of remedial strategies (UNICEF, 2005).

Equality and nondiscrimination

The principle of equality and nondiscrimination requires that access to available goods and services that are necessary to fulfillment of basic human needs is enjoyed by all (UNICEF, 2005). This principle prohibits discrimination in any field that is regulated and protected by public authorities. Within the rights-based framework, the principle of equality and nondiscrimination denotes that program effort should target excluded groups who, for instance, have limited access to social services. A rights-based assessment may help identify prevailing discriminatory patterns, social stigmas, and other forms of inequality experienced by marginalized groups. This may be especially important during emergency situations because emergencies often exacerbate existing vulnerabilities.

Participation and inclusion

The principle of participation is recognized as a right in itself; it is an entitlement guaranteed by international law and thus an imperative in the rights framework (UNICEF, 2005). It demands free, active, and meaningful participation of all in civil, economic, social, and political exchange. The principle also implies that all people are entitled to participate in society to the maximum of their potential. This, in turn, necessitates taking steps to facilitate participation through provision of an enabling environment. Within the rights-based framework, the principle highlights the importance of involving the locals at all stages of programming. In effect, attention is devoted to both the processes of achieving goals as well as the goals themselves.

Accountability and rule of law

This principle lies at the core of human rights principle and requires that human rights be protected by law. The principle demands that states and other duty-bearers that assist governments in fulfilling their obligations, for example, donors, aid organizations, NGOs, and development practitioners are answerable for the observance of human rights (UNICEF, 2005). The principle entails that aggrieved rights holders have access to fair and just judicial processes. This observation is notable and suggests that rights-based programming may need to take into account the state of the judicial system, in a given context, along with its capacity to claimed rights. Consideration should also be given to religious and cultural practices that may affect the welfare and rights of vulnerable individuals and groups.

Accountability directly relates to rule of law. It is derived from the fact that rights imply duties, which in turn demand accountability (UNICEF, 2005). This is, in fact, is one of the key aspects of the rights-based approach; it moves the discourse from the realm of needs to that of obligation. In relation to the rights-based framework, accountability requires transparency and clearly articulated mechanism for seeking redress for decisions and actions that affect rights negatively. Moreover, while it is up to duty-bearers to determine the appropriate mechanisms of accountability, all mechanisms must be accessible, transparent, and effective (OHCHR, 2002).

Tools Supporting the Implementation of Rights-Based Programming

The rights-based framework is relatively new; hence, few tools exist to guide operational decisions (OHCHR, 2002; Piron & O’Neil, 2005; Piron & Watkins, 2004; Save the Children, 2004; UNDG, 2004; UNDP, 2005, 2003a, b; WHO, 2005). Many of the tools currently in place are in the fields of development and humanitarian aid. Most of these have been put in place by major international organizations such as the United Nations and its systems, international financial institutions such as the World Bank, as well as governmental organization such as the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (NORAD) and the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). This section provides a brief overview of resources to guide implementation of rights-based programs.

Examples of these include a compilation on approaches to poverty reduction put together by the World Bank in collaboration with the United Nations (OHCHR 2002); a checklist on rights-based programming developed by UNDP and OHCHR for program staff (UNDP, 2003a); a manual outlining government-to-government assistance with respect to human rights obligations created by the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (2008) Human Rights Council of Australia; and a handbook on human rights assessment developed by NORAD (2001).

Effort has also been devoted to development of performance indicators. A performance indicator is defined as a measure that is used to demonstrate change in a situation, or progress in, or results of, an intervention, activity, or program (Green, 2001; UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, 2006; Theis, 2003; UN Philippines, 2002; UNAIDS, 2005a, b). Performance indicators, typically, fall into five broad categories as follows:

  • Impact. These measure the quality and quantity of long-term results generated by program outputs (for example, measurable change in quality of life, reduced incidence of diseases, increased income for women, or reduced mortality).

  • Outcome. This captures the intermediate results generated by a program outputs. They often correspond to any change in people’s behavior as a result of program actions and activities.

  • Output. This identifies the quantity, quality, and timeliness of goods or services resulting from an intervention, activity, or program.

  • Process. This measures the flow of program activities and the way these are carried out (for example, it attempts to capture what happens from entry into a program to exit).

  • Input. This reflects the quantity, quality, and timeliness of resources provided for an intervention, activity, or program and may include human, financial and material, technological, and information assistance.

Within the context of programming, indicators provide useful information on the degree to which rights have been realized. They help identify the capacity of state institutions with respect to their human rights obligations as well as the capacities of individuals/groups to claim their rights. Indicators also provide information on the context as well as socio-economic and political processes that are related to realization or failure to attain human rights. In addition to this, they facilitate the process of monitoring and evaluation. Headways have been made in development of indicators with respect to rights-based approaches (see, e.g., Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, 2006; UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, 2006). Despite this effort, development of indicators to guide programming remains a challenge. Primary resources currently in place include:

United Nations publications:

Indicators for human rights based approaches to development in UNDP Programming: A Users’ Guide (2006).

A Human Rights Based Approach to Development Programming in UNDP – Adding the Missing Link (2004).

United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (2002). Draft Guidelines: Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies, Geneva: United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.,LEGAL,OHCHR,,,3f8298544,0.htmlFind this resource:

    The Human Rights Based Approach to Development Cooperation: Towards a Common Understanding Among UN Agencies, Inter-Agency Workshop on a Human Rights Based Approach in the context of UN Reform (2003).

    Other publications:

    Ball, P.B. with Cifuentes, R., Dueck, J., Gregory, R., Salcedo, D., and Saldarriaga, C. (1994). A Definition of Database Design Standards for Human Rights Agencies, Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science.Find this resource:

      Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation (2001). Handbook in Human Rights Assessment: State Obligations Awareness and Empowerment, Oslo: NORAD. this resource:

        Filmer-Wilson, E. (2006). An Introduction to the Use of Human Rights Indicators for Development Programming. Netherlands Human Rights Quarterly, 24(1), 155-162.Find this resource:

          Social Work and Rights-Based Programming

          Social workers are concerned with social problems, their causes, solutions, and impact on society. In fact, at the core of social work is the “intrinsic” value of every person, and the mandate to promote social justice while upholding human dignity (IFSW, 2012; 1988; NASW, 1999). Also reflected in the profession’s values are principles of human rights (CSWE, 2008). Furthermore, the Code of Ethics of the National Association of Social Work espouses the rights-based framework both in its preamble and ethical standards, such as ethical standard #6, which highlights the profession’s ethical responsibilities to the broader society (IFSW, 2012; NASW, 1999).

          This section highlights the relationship between the profession of social work and rights-based programming with a specific focus on practice implications in the areas of advocacy, policy and research.

          Practice implication


          A rights-based perspective adds legitimacy/value to social work’s agenda of social justice by drawing attention to the structure of accountability that defines the relationship between the right holder and duty bearer. Increased focus on accountability may hold the key to improved program effectiveness, transparency as well as achievement of sustainable results. Human rights are reflected in social works ideals—promotion of a justice world, securing freedom for all, promotion of welfare and dignity of all people everywhere. Using right-based principles, social workers could work towards reducing inequality and promoting human rights. Attention could focus on identification of structure barriers that hinder attainment of human rights. Another area of focus could be creating awareness of the welfare responsibilities of the right holder along with the corresponding obligations of the duty bearer. Alongside this, advocacy effort could encourage national authorities and civil society to engage in policy dialogue with the ultimate goal of promoting, protecting and fulfilling claimed rights. Advocacy, in this area, has potential to bring new energy and strengthen social work’s commitment to the human rights agenda.


          Application of rights-based programming requires knowledge of the role of human rights in programs especially as they relate to vulnerable individuals/groups. This is important for social work in that vulnerable groups are at the center of the social work profession. Social work’s mandate of promoting the welfare of vulnerable individuals/groups is also underscored by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) which states that “service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person …” are among the core values of social work (CSWE, 2008). These values frame the profession’s commitment to respect for all people and the quest for economic and social justice. Rights-based programming ensures these commitments are accomplished through realization of program goals and objectives.

          A value-added by the application of a human rights-based approach is the focus on the most marginalized and excluded; groups whose human rights, in may spheres e.g., the social, economic, political, civil and/or cultural, are often denied or left unfulfilled (UNAIDS, 2005a, b). Utilization of rights-based programming has potential to lead more focused strategies/interventions. Rights-based programming has potential to bring about social transformation through empowerment of right holders and enhancement of the capacity of duty bearers to meet their obligation.


          The profession of social work is deeply entrenched in scientific inquiry. This can be traced throughout the profession’s history. In fact, scientific inquiry and the centrality of the human person in social work practice are among the core values emphasized by the Council of Social Work Education (CSWE) through its Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards (EPAs Policy 1.1). Assessment and program monitoring demanded by rights-based programming help in understanding of legal frameworks as well as factors that create and perpetuate discrimination and social exclusion and hinder people from realizing their potential. Social work has a unique role to play in this regard. An area of focus may development of indicators with to guide assessment and program monitoring. Characteristics of these indicators may include the following:

          • Accessible

          • Measurable

          • Robust & statistically validated

          • Reliable

          • Sufficiently comparable across cultures

          • Amenable to adaptation

          • Relevant

          • Sensitive to context

          • Multi-dimensional

          • Timely


          This entry set-out to provide an overview of the rights-based approaches in programming with respect to social work. Specifically, we reviewed the basic underpinnings of the rights-based discourse as it relates to programming and assessment. An historical overview of the rights-based framework along with approaches to rights-based programming is presented. We also highlighted areas of intersection between social work and rights-based programming. Furthermore, tools supporting the approach are identified. As observed, the popularity of rights-based approaches is rooted in growing popularity of social justice and rising awareness that human rights may be the most effective way to reduce/eradicate poverty, inequality and injustice. The profession of social work has played and continues to play a major role in issues of welfare and human rights. In fact, at the core of social work is the “intrinsic” value of every person and the mandate to promote social justice while upholding human dignity.


          Annan, K. (2005). In larger freedom: Decision time at the UN. Foreign Affairs. May/June 2005.

          Boesen, J. & Martin, T. (2004). Applying a rights-based approach: An inspirational guide for civil society. Retrieved from

          Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. (2006). Measurement of human rights: a guide to tackle challenges. Retrieved from

          CSWE (2008). Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards Educational Policy and Accreditation Standards.

          Department for International Development. (2005). Developing a human rights-based approach to addressing maternal mortality: desk review. Retrieved from

          Department for International Development. (2000). Realising human rights for poor people. Strategy paper. Retrieved from

          Gil. G.D. (1998). Confronting Injustice and Oppression: Concepts and Strategies for Social Workers. New York: Columbia University Press.Find this resource:

            Green, M. (2001). What we talk about when we talk about indicators: current approaches to human rights measurement. Human Rights Quarterly, 23(4), 1062–1097.Find this resource:

              Goonesekere, S. & De Silva-de Alwis, R. (2005). Women’s and children’s rights: In a human rights-based approach to development. Retrieved from

              International Federation of Social Workers (1988). Human rights and social work: A manual for schools of social work and the social work profession. Retrieved from

              International Federation of Social Workers (2012). Statement of ethical principles. Retrieved from

              Moser, C. & Norton, A. (2001). To claim our rights: Livelihood security, human rights and sustainable development. Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from this resource:

                National Association of Social Workers. (1999). Code of ethics. Washington, DC: Author.Find this resource:

                  NORAD (2001). Handbook in human rights assessment: State obligations, awareness and empowerment. Retrieved from

                  Nyamu-Musembi, C. (2002). Towards an actor-oriented perspective on human rights. IDS working paper 169, Institute of Development Studies, October 2002. Retrieved from this resource:

                    Nyamu-Musembi, C. & Cornwall, A. (2004). What is the “rights-based approach” all about? Perspectives from the international development agencies. IDS working paper 234, Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved from this resource:

                      Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2012). Principles and guidelines for a human rights approach to poverty reduction strategies. Asia and the Pacific, Retrieved from this resource:

                        OHCHR (2008/2009). Annual Report. Retrieved from

                        OHCHR (2002). Draft guidelines: A human rights approach to poverty reduction strategies. Retrieved from,LEGAL,OHCHR,,,3f8298544,0.html

                        OHCHR (2004). Human rights and poverty reduction: A conceptual framework (New York and Geneva, United Nations. Retrieved from this resource:

                          Piron, L. & O’Neil, T. (2005). Integrating human rights into development: A synthesis of donor approaches and experiences, Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from this resource:

                            Piron, L. & Watkins, F. (2004). DFID Human rights review: A review of how DFID has integrated human rights into its work. Overseas Development Institute. Retrieved from this resource:

                              Roosevelt, E. (1948). Speech upon adoption of UDHR. Retrieved from

                              Save the Children UK (East and Central Africa). (2004). Child rights programming: A resource for planning. Retrieved from

                              The Victorian Equal Opportunity & Human Rights Commission (2008). From principle to practice: Implementing the human rights-bases approach in community organizations. Retrieved, 2013, from

                              Theis, J. (2004). Promoting rights-based approaches: Experiences and ideas from Asia and the Pacific. Retrieved from

                              Theis, J. Save the Children (2003). Rights-based approach to monitoring human rights Child Rights Information Network. Retrieved 2012, from

                              UNAIDS (2005a). HIV-related stigma, discrimination and human rights violations: Case studies of successful programmes. UNAIDS best practice collection. Retrieved from

                              UNAIDS (2005b). Monitoring the declaration of commitment on HIV/AIDS: Guidelines on construction of core indicators. Retrieved from

                              UNDG (2004). Guidelines for UN country teams preparing for a CCA and UNDAF. Retrieved from

                              UNDP (2005). Programming for justice: Access for all. A practitioner’s guide to a human rights-based approach to access to justice. Retrieved from

                              UNDP. (2003a). Poverty reduction and human rights: A practice note. Retrieved from

                              UNDP (2003b). Human rights-based reviews of UNDP programmes: Working guidelines. Retrieved from

                              UNDP Oslo Governance Centre (2006). How to use indicators for assessing human rights standards in development programmes? Retrieved from

                              UNICEF (2005). Women’s and children’s rights in a human rights based approach to development. Retrieved, 2012, from

                              UNICEF (2004). A human rights-based approach to programming. Retrieved 2012, from

                              UNICEF (1998). A human rights approach to UNICEF programming for children and women: what it is, and some changes it will bring (CF/EXD/1998-04, April 21, 1998). Retrieved from

                              UNIFEM (2005). Women’s human rights. Retrieved from

                              United Nations (1948). Universal declaration of human rights. Retrieved from

                              VeneKlasen, L. Miller, Cark & Reilly (2004). Rights-based approaches and beyond: challenges of linking rights and participation. IDS working paper 235, Institute of Development Studies. Retrieved from

                              WHO (2005). Human rights, health and poverty reduction strategies, Health and Human Rights Publication Series, No. 5. Retrieved from

                              Further Reading

                              OHCHR (2006). Frequently asked questions on a human rights-based approach to development cooperation. UN, New York and Geneva. Retrieved from this resource:

                                United Nations Philippines. (2002). What is a rights-based approach to development? In: Rights-based approach to development programming: Training manual (pp. 11–18). Retrieved 2012, from

                                Suggested Links

                                CARE International, Principles into practice: Learning from innovative rights-based programmes,

                                Child Rights Information Network (CRIN).

                                Interaction. Resources links on human rights based approach to development.

                                International Human Rights Network

                                OHCHR. International human rights instruments.

                                OHCHR. Lessons learned project, on a human rights-based approach to development in the Asia–Pacific region.

                                OHCHR. Resource database on human rights approaches to development for practitioners in rights information network (CRIN), “Rights based programming” resource page,

                                Overseas Development Institute, Rights in action,

                                Stamford Inter-Agency Workshop statement of common understanding of a human rights-based approach to development cooperation,

                                United Nations Development Group (2004). Guidelines for UN country teams preparing a CCA and UNDAF.

                                UNDP, Human Rights Strengthening (HURIST) joint programme between UNDP and OHCHR,

                                UNDP. Poverty reduction and human rights: a practice note.

                                UNICEF, Rights and results,

                                UNIFEM, Pathway to Gender Equality: CEDAW, Beijing and the MDGs,