In the previous article, we traced the evolution of the human rights–based approach (HRBA). In this piece, we examine why the approach is distinctive. The reason is pretty straightforward: it reframes development work from a focus on needs to a focus on rights. It is not about charity or benevolence but rather about entitlements, accountability, and justice.
Tobin’s Three-Level Taxonomy
Legal scholar John Tobin offers a useful way to understand HRBA through three levels of principles:
- Core Principles: HRBA integrates rights into interventions. Every program or policy must be examined for its implications on people’s entitlements and state obligations.
- Express Principles: These are explicitly derived from human rights instruments — for example, the principle of non-discrimination. They ensure interventions uphold rights enshrined in law.
- Implied Principles: These are foundational values not always spelled out in texts but essential to the human rights system. Examples include universality (rights apply to all), interdependence (rights are connected and mutually reinforcing), and cultural sensitivity (rights must be applied with respect to diverse contexts).
Together, these principles make HRBA both legally grounded and philosophically robust.
Mainstreaming Rights into Interventions
Unlike traditional needs-based approaches, HRBA mainstreams rights into every stage of planning and practice. It transforms beneficiaries into rights-holders and governments into duty-bearers. This shift ensures that interventions are judged not by whether they deliver services, but by whether they respect, protect, and fulfill human rights.
From Needs to Rights
Needs-based approaches ask: What do people lack? HRBA asks: What are people entitled to, and who is responsible for ensuring those entitlements?
This shift empowers marginalized groups to claim justice, demand accountability, and participate meaningfully in decisions that affect their lives.
In the context of land and natural resources, HRBA is transformative. It means communities are not seen as passive recipients of land allocations or resource projects, but as rights-holders entitled to secure tenure, fair participation, and protection against exploitation. It reframes governance debates from “who gets what” to “whose rights are being upheld.”
For example, applying HRBA to land governance ensures that women, minorities, and vulnerable groups are not just included symbolically, but empowered to shape policies and claim their rights to land and housing.
At Tenure Advisory, we support organizations and agencies to mainstream HRBA into their natural resource governance work by:
- Designing participatory frameworks that center rights-holders in decision-making.
- Training leaders and institutions on HRBA principles and their application to land, and resource governance.
- Embedding accountability mechanisms that ensure duty-bearers deliver on their obligations.
- Providing tools for conscientization, so leaders move beyond symbolic inclusion toward genuine empowerment.
Key Takeaway
HRBA is distinctive because it embeds rights into the DNA of interventions. In natural resource governance, this means moving beyond token inclusion to genuine empowerment. With the right frameworks and capacity-building, organizations can ensure that governance of land and other natural resources is not only efficient but also just.
Next in the series, we’ll explore the principles of HRBA with a focus on how it empowers marginalized communities and provides a legal basis for advocacy and accountability.