<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Dear all, </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">[please note that this posting does
not suggest any substantive changes, but rather dicusses some general
aspects of
the debate and attempts to clarify what we perceive as
misunderstandings of
human rights law that emerged during the debate. If you're busy, you
can save the message and reflect over it during the weekend.]</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">while we cannot address all aspects
of the discussion led on the list, we – as international lawyers and
human
rights experts – feel that the debate that has taken place over the
last days
(while leading to a statement that we feel mentions some highly
relevant issues
concerning human rights in the Internet) has not always served the
purpose it
purported to serve: clarifying our commitment to the protection of
human rights
on the Internet.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">Let us therefore draw your attention
to the following general points, some of which have been taken up by
Parminder
in yesterday’s message of 07:51 GMT+1.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">1. The often acrimonious debates on
the primacy of individual over collective rights and of first over
second and
third dimension/generation of human rights lead us nowhere. In fact,
most
serious human rights literature has discarded the notion of generation
of
rights as an ideological concept developed against the backdrop of the
Cold
War. It serves no purpose to attempt to renew these debates. Let us
keep them
buried.</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">2. Already the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights, which is expressly mentioned by the Tunis Agenda, has
integrated individual as well as (some) collective rights into his
catalogue of
rights. Further, in the Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action of
1993 the
international community highlighted that "[a]ll human rights are
universal, indivisible and interdependent and interrelated." (UN Doc.
A/CONF.157/23 of 12 July 1993, para. 5). Any attempt to divide human
rights
into rights with more and rights with less significance runs contrary
to the
spirit of the Vienna Declaration and the UDHR. The states assembled in
Vienna 15 years ago agreed
that "[t]he international community must treat human rights globally in
a
fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same
emphasis."
The same is true for our community of scholars and practitioners
interested in
the role of – all – human rights on the Internet. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">3. Rights without remedies exist. A
right does not cease to exist if it is violated. Even if some rights,
such as
the right to education, can be realized only progressively, they have,
nevertheless, real implications for governments. These include, e.g.,
the
obligation to ensure effectively the enjoyment of – at least – the
minimum
content of the right, in a non-discriminatory fashion, and to
progressively
enhance the level of enjoyment. And of course: the right to work does
not imply
a right to a specific job, but rather a right to enter into the
socio-economic
activities necessary to live a dignified life.<br style="">
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]--><br style="">
<!--[endif]--></p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">4. Declaring a "right to the
Internet" seems like a attractive, simple and inspiring concept, but a
closer look reveals that the concept involves a number of different
(and
sometimes competing) human rights. Should it be a right to Internet
access? A
right to e-literacy? A right to content in one’s own language. These
are
questions we need to clarify first – and we need to clarify them
urgently.
Creating new rights does not bring us closer to ensuring respect for,
and the
protection of, human rights in Internet Governance. A serious,
unapologetically
honest debate, however, does. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">5. A member of our list has
suggested that “[w]omen do no have special rights because of the nature
of
their sex. Women have rights because they are individuals.” This
principle of
equality as formally expressed in law, without differentiation between
women
and men, often implies hidden discrimination against women. Due to the
different positions and roles that society constructs for women and men
“de
iure” equality often results in “de facto” discrimination. Therefore
any
discussion on the human rights of women presupposes an in-depth
analysis of the
concepts of difference, disadvantage and discrimination in the context
of
pluralizing societies and should be based on a substantive definition
of
equality that takes into account the societal definition of gender as
contained
in Article 7 of the Statute of the ICC and the groundbreaking work of
the
committee under the UN Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of
Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">As the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights celebrates its 60th anniversary on 10 December 2008, let
us look
beyond the ideological debates of the past and enter into a human
rights
dicourse that can provide answers to the challenges of the future: This
necessitates a holistic concept of human rights. The language of our
synthesis
paper should reflect this commitment – and the compromise language now
seems to
do so.<br>
<br>
Wolfgang and Matthias</p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">PS: Should you feel the need for a
short introduction into the concept of human rights and its fundamental
notions, feel free to consult, e.g., Wolfgang Benedek (ed.),
Understanding
Human Rights. Manual on Human Rights Education, 2nd edition,
Berlin/Antwerp/Vienna: BWV/Intersentia/NWV, 2006. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">The book is also available online in
14 languages at <a href="http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=704">http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=704</a>. </p>
<p class="MsoNormal" style="">The English version can be found at
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=446">http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=446</a></p>
-- <br>
<pre style="margin-bottom: 12pt;">
Professor Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann
Institute of International Law and International Relations
University of Graz, Austria
Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria
T +43 316 380 6711 (office)
F +43 316 380 9455 (fax)
E <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at">wolfgang.benedek@uni-graz.at</a>
E <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at">matthias.kettemann@uni-graz.at</a>
<!--[if !supportLineBreakNewLine]-->
<!--[endif]--></pre>
<p class="MsoNormal"> </p>
</body>
</html>