The dominant understanding of the role of human rights in the context of austerity induced by sovereign debt crises has shifted markedly over time. It reflects, and may have influenced, the genealogies of human rights law in the postwar era. Four different paradigms emerge at crucial turning points. During the 1970s, the decade preceding the debt crisis of the 1980s, the idea of austerity as a response to debt crises was contested by the basic (human) needs approach and by the proposal of a New International Economic Order. Then, the debt crisis beginning in the 1980s silenced, rather than provoked, any form of human rights-based critique. When the Iron Curtain fell, conditionalities in relation to debt restructurings became rather intrusive. This led civil society to articulate its critique of austerity in terms of human rights. The impact of austerity on the European periphery led to much human rights litigation, but a number of structural obstacles prevented its success. Instead, the crisis aftermath saw enormous progress in the political recognition of human rights as relevant standards for austerity. While this genealogy shows the contingency of human rights discourse in relation to austerity, it reveals its potential for challenging economic expertise and enhancing social progress.
in: Bhuta, Nehal / Vallejo, Rodrigo (eds), Global Rights? Human Rights in Complex Governance, Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law, Oxford University Press, pp. 29-84,
2024
