A/HRC/31/60 II. Why must inequality be considered from a human rights perspective? 5. For several years, increased attention has been paid to the continued rise in income and wealth inequalities. In this context, top incomes dramatically increased from the 1980s, mostly in developed countries but also in emerging economies, such as India and China.3 In addition to wealth transmitted through inheritance, top wages have increased dramatically, outpacing increases in average wages many times and resulting in an unprecedented accumulation of wealth by a small but powerful elite. 4 6. Global inequality currently stands at extremely high levels and is further increasing. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) has reported that the richest 8 per cent of the world’s population earns half of the world’s total income, leaving the other half for the remaining 92 per cent.5 Over the past two decades, income inequality has increased by 9 per cent in developed countries and 11 per cent in developing countries.6 In 2015, the richest 1 per cent of people in the world owned more than 50 per cent of global wealth, up from 44 per cent in 2010.7 Furthermore, the 80 richest individuals currently own as much wealth as the bottom 50 per cent of the entire global population. 8 7. International human rights law addresses inequality on many levels. First, there are economic and social rights that clearly recognize the duties of States to address and/or prevent inequality as a threat to human rights realization. These include fundamental worker’s rights — in particular the right to form and join trade unions and the right to fair remuneration — and social rights — in particular the rights to education, health and social security.9 8. Moreover, the principles of non-discrimination and equality apply in the context of socioeconomic disadvantages. All international and regional human rights treaties include a broadly constructed principle of non-discrimination,10 that covers formal discrimination on prohibited grounds in law or official policy documents as well as substantive discrimination, meaning discrimination in practice and in outcomes. For example, States have certain obligations to ensure equal access to health services, adequate housing and water and sanitation.11 The prohibition of discrimination extends not only to the grounds explicitly enumerated in article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, such as race, colour, sex or religion, but also to grounds based exclusively on economic and social status.12 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 See A.B. Atkinson, T. Piketty and E. Saez, “Top income in the long run history”, Journal of Economic Literature, vol. 49, No. 1, pp. 3-71. See T. Piketty, Capital in the Twenty-First Century, (Cambridge, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press, 2014). See UNDP, Humanity Divided: Confronting Inequality in Developing Countries (New York, 2013). Ibid., p. 7, using the Gini coefficient. See “Global wealth report”, Credit Suisse Research Institute, pp. 19 and 21 (2015). See “Wealth: having it all and wanting more”, Oxfam issue briefing, pp. 2 and 3 (2015). See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comments No. 13, para. 6 (b) (iii); No. 14, para. 19; and No. 19, paras. 16 and 25. See, for example, article 2 (1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or article 2 (2) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; article 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms; and article 1 (1) of the American Convention on Human Rights. See Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, general comment No. 20 (2009) on nondiscrimination in economic, social and cultural rights, among other general comments. Ibid., para 35.