E/CN.4/2006/43 page 10 II. POVERTY SEEN FROM A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE 26. Even if there is a distinct value addition in the development discourse of looking at economic development in terms of human development, and with a primary objective of removing poverty, the next question is: What is the value addition of treating the elimination of poverty in the perspective of human rights? The question can be answered in two ways: (a) What is a value addition in treating the fulfilment of any objective in terms of human rights; and (b) In what manner can poverty be described as a violation or deprivation of human rights and consequently, poverty removal as a human-right objective in itself. 27. When an objective of social arrangement is accepted as a human right, it implies that all agents of society would regard the fulfilment of that objective as a “binding” obligation, which supersedes all other policy objectives. All social objectives cannot be regarded as human rights and for that, we must apply what may be described as Amartya Sen’s “legitimacy” and “coherence” tests.2 28. The social objective must be of sufficient importance to form the constitutional norms of a society as standards of achievement, the realization of which would provide legitimacy to the behaviour of all agents and authorities, especially the State. The objective should also be “coherent” so that the obligations or duties that have to be carried out, and the agents who have to do so, can both be specified. If the objectives pass these tests and are recognized by society through a due process of norm creation, then all members of society would be obliged to carry out their specified duties. There may be several different social objectives, but the obligation to realize human rights “trumps” all others. Obligations would be binding on the agents in the sense that if an agent does not carry out the specified obligations, there would be a mechanism of reprimand and sanctions, inducing appropriate corrective or compensatory actions. If the obligations are incorporated into the domestic legal system, this mechanism would be “legal”, settled in the courts of law. If the rights are recognized in international human rights law, then States parties to international human rights treaties would be bound by this obligation. 29. As mentioned above, all social agents would have obligations to carry out specific duties but State authorities would be the primary duty bearers. It would be up to the State authorities to take appropriate steps for implementing the rights through direct action, or through implementing rules and procedures and adopting specific laws to induce other agents to adopt appropriate action. In addition to State authorities, all other States and members of the international community which recognize human rights would have the obligation to cooperate among themselves and take whatever action is necessary to realize the rights in all countries belonging to that community. Normally, other States and international institutions would provide assistance and take complementary action to help the national State authorities to realize the rights of their citizens. In certain situations, and by following appropriate procedures, other State members of the international community can supersede the national State authority and directly help citizens realize their rights when these national States fail to fulfil their obligations or act against their citizens.