Why are we still using language invented in the 1950s to describe a world that no longer exists?

The ICESCR, ICCPR, UDHR, and other foundational human-rights instruments repeatedly use the term “developing countries.” When these were drafted (1940s–1960s), the world did look like a two-tier system: wealthy industrialised countries vs. the rest. But the global landscape has changed beyond recognition and international law legislations still use language that reflects a world that no longer exists. 

Hans, Ola, and Anna Rosling give a refreshing take on this in their book ‘Factfulness’  arguing that the idea of a “developed world” and a “developing world” is a myth kept alive largely by Western imagination. Instead, countries exist across four income levels, which are dynamic and show enormous progress.

Many African and Asian countries now fall into levels where indicators such as education, health, life expectancy, purchasing power, literacy  far exceed what “developing country” status implies. The Roslings’ core insight is crystal clear: “There is no gap anymore. The world is not divided into “us” and “them.” Most people live in middle-income societies.” Thus, International law has simply not caught up.

Take the example of India, many international bodies dealing in international law continue to speak about the country in an outdated vocabulary. Yet, the reality is that the subcontinent is the world’s largest source of skilled talent and it is no surprise that the highest numbers of international fee paying students are Indian.

Not just India, but other countries traditionally seen as developing have outgrown the dichotomy (us v. them thinking). So, a question that presents itself is