The MDGs, Archeology, Institutional Fragmentation and International Law

INTRODUCTION
When considering the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) the first characteristic that struck me was the fact that the goals and targets were not new, when endorsed by world leaders in 2000. Upon further consideration, especially of documents related to the implementation of the MDGs a second characteristic emerged: the integrated approach that relevant documents adopt towards development, often accompanied by the assertion that the MDGs embody basic human rights. The first characteristic – not new – prompted me to engage in some archeological research. The findings of that research led to the following question. Why have we not done better, given that the MDGs have been part of human rights law for six decades? This essay points to the fragmented nature of the international institutional framework – or international governance structure – as a factor that has contributed to our failure. This fragmented institutional setting – also not new – has led to a fragmented approach to international law. Finally, this essay considers how international law, despite its fragmented nature, might further the integrated approach evident from the MDGs. In this essay I assume that the fragmented nature of the international institutional framework is unlikely to undergo significant change in the near future, given the limited outcome of the 2005 World Summit in this respect