When Secretary-General Kofi Annan visited Yale last week，he put that notion in this way：Whether it is the area of crime，health，the environment，or the fight against ter rorism，interdependence has ceased to be an abstract concept.It has become a reality in our own lives.This poses a real challenge not only to political leaders，but to civil society，non-governmental organizations，businesses，labour unions，thinkers and citizens of every nation.We need to rethink what belonging means，and what community means，in order to be able to embrace the fate of distant peoples，and realize that globalization"s glass house must be open to all if it is to remain secure.
Clearly，the primary responsibility for upholding human rights rests with national governments.But in a world where markets，ideas and peoples are linked as never before，has the time not cometo reconsider how we think about human rights，and how we develop a shared sense ofresponsibility for their realization？
The final document from the United Nations Millennium Summit，known as the Millennium Declaration，states that the central challenge the community of nations faces today is to ensure that globalization becomes a positive force for all the world"speople.It recognizes that globalization offers great opportunities，but at present its benefits are very unevenly shared and its costs are unevenly distributed，with developing countries and countries in transition facing special difficulties in responding to this central challenge.
At the heart of the Declaration is the recognition that only through broad and sustained efforts to create a shared future，based upon our common humanity in all its diversity，can globalization be made fully inclusive and equitable.
The Declaration sets out a clear programme for action based on humanity"s shared values of freedom，equality，solidarity，tolerance，respect for nature and shared responsibility.Is this agenda for a new world order？Is this agenda from the representatives of the world"s nations，and from ordinary people themselves？Could those have very profound consequences，if taken seriously.
Take，for example，the issue of international aid.A report prepared last year for the Secretary-General by a panel headed by Ernesto Zedillo，estimated that meeting the Millennium Development Goals would cost an additional 50billion in annual international aid.At the Monterrey Conference on Financing for Development，the United States pledged to increase its aid to5billion a year，and the European Union promised an additional 7billiona year，as its first step toward meeting the target of 0.7percent of gross domestic product （GDP）for development assistance.
Yet despite these new commitments，we are still far from achieving the targets set out by world leaders in 2000.
I believe that international human rights norms and standards can contribute to addressing such challenges.Many human rights advocates recognize the potentialof this normative legal framework to be a vehicle for human development and democracy.Yet little has been done to date within the framework of international human rights norms to protect and promote the interests of those who are currently excluded from the perceived benefits of globalization.
One clear advantage of a human rights approach is that it gives civil society the tools to hold governments accountable.Over the past year in particular，I have noticed a transformation in how human rights activists，despite having different agendas，were increasingly linking their activities with groups addressing economic and social development，the environment and other issues of global concern.
I have witnessed the emergence of a powerful movement for change through civil society groups engaging in a deeper democratic discourse，using the tools of the legal commitments governments have made under the six core international human rights instruments.And we shouldn"t forget that it was non-governmental organizations that mounted the campaign for a great institutional development：the International Criminal Court.
Development NGOs such as Oxfam，as a matter of policy，are now adopting a rights-based approach in their work.They brief themselves in depth on the human rights covenants and conventions the country in question has ratified，they follow what reports have been submittedon steps taken by the government and the comments of the relevant committees，andthey know if there have been visits and reports by any of the Special Rapporteurs of the UN Commission on Human Rights.They are linking this information to their own work and in particular how they seek to empower-civil society groups in using this framework to push for results.
Women are using the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women and its optional protocol，are drawing on the Convention on the Rights of the Child to support the rights of the girl child and the Covenant on Economic，Social and Cultural Rights to address issues such as the feminization of poverty.
This is a point I tried to stress repeatedly as High Commissioner.A valuable dimension of a rights-based approach is that it applies equally to developed and developing countries，and to countries in transition.
The challenge is to ensure that practical tools are developed which can assist governments in translating their commitments into practical actions.One such initiative is the expert consultative work carried out to develop guidelines for a human rights approach to poverty reduction strategies.The draft guidelines are now available and will be tested by UN programs as well as organizations such as the World Bank as they help states in formulating，implementing and monitoring their national poverty reduction strategies.The challenge is to build on such initiatives and use them to influence other aspects of the globalization equation.