acknowledging these claims.44 The right to development cannot be realised without the help of states and their governments.45 In view of the peculiar nature and historical evolution, the right to development is relevant in the external relations between states at horizontal level, and not in vertical relations between a state and its own people. The original concept of the right to development, as a third generation of human rights, is precise as a legally binding dictate primarily a collective right of people erga omnes.46 This entitlement is different from the individualistic model of human rights. Keeping in view the right to development both as collective as well as individual, the UN Declaration on the Right to Development has put individual and all peoples as beneficiaries of the right. The collective right to development belongs to people and states. While each state is expected to take steps for accomplishment of this right, the individual dimension of the right to development has the fundamental aim of integral development for attainment of the basic needs of the individual. The individual right to development is multidimensional covering the first and the second generation of human rights. This serves the purpose for full development of individual and the protection of dignity, where equality of opportunity among all people can be possible. With the base of collective right, the right to development appears to be an aggregate of social, economic and cultural rights of individuals. In other words, “this vision… has the merit of shedding light on the link between the rights of the individual and the right of the collectivity; a link which is crucial.”47 It may be important to regard it as a collective right for the benefit of own state vis-à-vis the international community. Considering it as a right of every individual, it exposes some definitional problem. The traditional thinkers argue that a right cannot simultaneously be individual and collective. One can deplore that researches on the right to development have exceeded the core meaning of this right to development. It is broadened to include all dimensions of development and it will be more arduous to identify breaches of the right because any violation and obligation would be diluted.48 Noel G. Vellaroman, ‘The Right to Development: Exploring the Legal Basis of a Supernorm’ (2010) 22 Florida Journal of International Law, 308-309. 45 Cheru Fantu, ‘Developing Countries and the Right to Development: A Retrospective and Prospective African View’ (2016) 37 Human Rights Quarterly, 1268. 46 Bedjaoui, Supra note 43, at 1188. 47 Sohn, Supra note 3, at 52. 48 Villaroman, Supra note 44, at 306; Isabella Bunn, ‘The Right to Development: Implications for International Law’ (2000) 15 American University Law Review 1435; Joop De Kort, ‘Stretching Law Too Far: The Difficulties To Assure the Right to Development’ (2011) 9 International Journal of Civil Society Law 12; Ved P. Nanda, ‘The Right to Development under International Law – Challenges Ahead’ (1985) California Western International Law Journal 431. While Amartya Sen has considered the right to development as “a conglomeration of a collection of claims, varying from basic education, health care and nutrition in political liberties, religious freedoms and civil rights,” Arjun Sengupta, on the other hand, has enumerated this right as 44 14 Journal of the National Human Rights Commission, Vol. 22, 2023