In order for the current challenges of global governance to be effectively dealt with and a possible new world order to arise, International law must be restructured. The after-mentioned restructuring must possess a decolonized understanding of human rights, a central focus on environmental conservation, a redefining of international actors, and an expansion to include economic actors under international law, a prime example being Multinational Corporations (MNCs). Through a comparison of neoliberal, decolonial, and ecofeminist theoretical frameworks, I will examine the case of the Royal Dutch Shell PLC versus the Olgae community in the International Court of Justice to better understand the failure of the current international judiciary. The case of Shell versus the Olgae community concerns the environmental degradation of Olgae farmland and drinking water by Shell due to the MNC's lack of standard safety practices abroad. Shell's extensive pollution has made the land inhabitable and an active threat to local health. This critical case showcases areas of improvement within the international legal system and the untapped potential that an international judiciary has to reshape global norms and cement the strategic maintenance of international activity. I plan to debunk the entrenched idea that human rights depend on citizenship and that economic actors exist outside the political sphere, unrestrained by global governing bodies. The international legal system must be restructured to better encompass humanity and reframe our relationship with the land to more effectively manage the growing crisis under which current international legal bodies are buckling. International law is a central player when approaching multifaceted international crises and must be subject to continual evolution to protect those disenfranchised by colonialism's legacy, a legacy that current international legal bodies fail to combat.

Amid global crises – pandemics, climate change, conflicts, and rising inequality – economic, social, and cultural (ESC) rights are critical for fostering resilience and addressing systemic injustices. These crises highlight the interdependence of all human rights and reveal gaps in international cooperation. As the world’s largest donor of Official Development Assistance (ODA), the European Union (EU) advocates for a rights-based approach to development; however, in practice, its policies often treat ESC rights as societal goals, with the term “human rights” largely focused on civil and political (CP) rights.

Drawing on Amartya Sen’s concept of human rights’ universality and indivisibility as well as critiques of ESC rights as aspirational, this paper critically examines the EU’s positioning within this spectrum. Using critical discourse analysis (CDA), it investigates how human rights are treated across three established policy levels: 1) official commitments and rhetoric, 2) policy instruments, and 3) field-level realities. The methodology emphasizes the sociocultural and political contexts in which these texts were created, unpacking their intertextuality and the implicit power relations they reflect.

Findings reveal that while the EU rhetorically upholds the indivisibility of rights, ESC rights are instrumentalized for economic growth and poverty reduction rather than treated as enforceable obligations. This prioritization of CP rights reflects deeper geopolitical and historical legacies, undermining the universality of the EU’s commitments.

This research fills a critical gap by situating ESC rights within the development context, where the EU’s “soft power” shapes global human rights discourse. It highlights discrepancies between policy rhetoric and implementation, offering actionable insights for EU policymaking. By exploring the ethical dimensions of ESC rights in crisis contexts, this paper contributes to global debates on reimagining human rights and their role in development, questioning whether the marginalization of ESC rights signals an erosion of the human rights era.

Some Central American communities affected by Development Finance Institution (DFI)-funded projects have grown frustrated with engaging DFI-established independent complaint mechanisms to seek redress for human rights and environmental harms. Often these harms involve private sector actors, including financial intermediaries or private banks, via blended finance mechanisms that create additional concerns of transparency, disclosure, and project reporting.

This paper examines the case of small farmers in the Aguan Valley region in Honduras. After years of experiencing violence related to land conflicts and a World Bank-International Finance Corporation (IFC)-funded private African palm company, the farmers settled with the IFC in an unprecedented legal case in the United States. The paper examines the gains and failures of engaging voluntary or ‘soft’ law complaint mechanisms, the limitations of ‘hard’ law alternatives, and the increasing complexities of the growing role of the private sector via blended finance mechanisms in projects in weak governance zones. The research offers valuable lessons to DFI-affected communities, advocates and policy makers while identifying some of the convoluted and complex financial configurations of DFI loans that raise additional concerns for accountability under the expansion of blended finance in international development.

International development is rooted in international human rights law. The human rights-based approach to development emphasizes the relationship between development, human rights, and global justice. The general principles for international law and development include universalism, non-discrimination and self-determination. Feminism, and the global feminist movement, advocates for women’s rights and justice. However, in the past year, specifically with the genocide in Gaza, we observed that the international legal standard and procedures to uphold human rights and dignity are being either suspended or systematically undermined. Selective enforcement of universal principles erodes the integrity of the international human rights system and raises serious doubts about its credibility. Additionally, there was a troubling reaction from many in the feminist community, including silence, division, and even the legitimization of the atrocities that women face. This silence and lack of empathy raises questions about critical principles frequently emphasized by feminim, such as justice, universalism, and intersectionality.

This session will explore the implications of this global paradox, particularly its impact on the study of international development. What would emerge from this lack of trust in long-accepted global principles, and the “suspension” of what feminism stands for in the case of Palestine?