Solidarity has been a core value for religious, leftist and labor groups, signifying support for
the struggles of people who, one way or another,
are oppressed. After World War II, but especially
since the 1960s, solidarity organizations have
been joined by human rights organizations, which
take a very different approach to the problem of
saving lives. The solidarity and rights frameworks
have been two of the main patterns on which
international advocacy has taken place among
non-governmental organizations. Although both
involve relationships between oppressed peoples
and those in a position to support them, there are
important conceptual differences. Individuals are
endowed with rights; communities are the reposi-
tories of solidarity. Solidarity involves a substan-
tive dimension that rights-based activism does
not: support based on a conviction that those sup-
ported are right. Human rights appeals, on the
other hand, raise procedural claims: that viola-
tions of personhood or of accepted civil or legal
norms and procedures are unacceptable regard-
less of the victim’s beliefs. Solidarity also involves a notion of risk-sharing.
Activists make themselves vulnerable in some way as testimony to their belief in a sense of commu-
nity with the victims of injustice. Although clearly
many human rights activists pursue information
at great personal risk, the human rights method-
ology has not included expressions of shared vul-
nerability.
Yet a third pattern of international advocacy,
represented by traditional environmentalism as
well as the activities of many UN agencies and
mainstream NGOs, ignores the political conflicts
inherent in the idea of sustainable development.
In this current of activism, like-minded scientists
or technocrats come together around a set of
seemingly technical goals. Even when they recog-
nize the social aspects of environmental prob-
lems, they approach them with technical, not
political proposals.
The turn towards poor peoples’ movements in
North-South environmental networking and advo-
cacy represents an interesting hybrid of solidarity
and rights traditions, and marks a clear break with
the apolitical approach of traditional environmen-
talism. On the one hand, the “new” environmen-
tists share with solidarity activists a strong belief that the cause on behalf of which they are fight-
ing is just, and that the legitimacy of the struggle
derives from the substantive justice of the cause.
On the other hand, like rights activists, they are much more likely to focus their strategies on pro-
cedural or institutional facets of issues.
Menu
