<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On Wednesday 13 March 2013 02:56 PM,
William Drake wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
Hi Parminder<br>
<br>
<div>
<div>On Mar 13, 2013, at 6:19 AM, parminder <<a
moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:parminder@itforchange.net">parminder@itforchange.net</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: Palatino;
font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal;
font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height:
normal; orphans: 2; text-align: -webkit-auto; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); display: inline !important; float: none; ">It is
rather well known that multilateral agreements have a
greater chance of being based on higher norms and principles
than are bilateral and plurilateral ones, which are more
oriented to narrower interests (pl refer to the literature
on FTAs). Also, almost always, bilateral and plurilateral
agreements based on 'relative power' results in greater
gains for those who are more powerful, something which
follows from the preceding statement.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<div>Among whom is this known, and do they in fact attribute it to
narrow interests being less dispositive in multilateral
contexts? I'm not arguing with you, just curious why you say
this. As a political scientist who's reasonably well read in
the vast scholarly and policy literatures on international
institutions and cooperation, I can't say I've noticed a lot of
people taking this stance or offering evidence thereof, so I'm
curious. A few contrary thoughts for your consideration:</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Bill. <br>
<br>
First of all it should be made clear that I speak from a Southern
point of view, and so when you ask among whom it is well know my
response is, among Southern actors - from civil society and
government - who engage with global governance issues. The bilateral
and plurilateral agreements that I problematize are the ones of the
typical pick and choose variety taken up by counties like the US,
and also such established plurilateral processes like the OECD that
intend to engage in 'global' rule making. (There are indeed genuine
cultural links based grouping like Council of Europe that has done
considerable normative work.)<br>
<br>
Isnt almost all higher level normative work done at UN/ multilateral
level. Show me where a bilateral process has produced useful norms
and principles. OF course, later are focussed on narrow interest
based outcomes. Yes, narrow interests are brought into play as much
in UN/ multilateral systems as well, but the sheer number and
variety of actors, as well as, very importantly, established
principles of process, equity etc, makes for movement towards higher
norms based outcomes. It is also a basic democratic principle; more
people/ actors are involved in decision making more the decisions
serve all actors equally. Bilaterals between a powerful country like
the US and a developing country has strong elements of take it or
leave it, and the competitive fear among the weaker partners of what
if other similarly placed countries enter into similar agreements
with the US. Rich country plurilaterals are of course based on
commonness of interests of richer economies with certain structural
characteristics, and their outputs can hardly ever benefit
non-participant developing countries in an equitable manner. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>To the extent <span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255,
255); ">multilateral agreements do have a greater chance of
being based on higher norms and principles, that is often
because those </span><span style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); ">higher norms and principles are more squishy and
easier to arrive at given more complexly divided interests. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Dont know whether you consider human rights instruments as just
squishy, but I think they have been and continue to be very useful.
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> The TA
offers a good case in point. Had that been a plurilateral, we
might even know what enhanced cooperation means :-) <br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Similarly, WSIS outcome documents contain so many normative
references (see the declaration of principles for instance) that
continue to be useful for progressive causes. You seem to be too
dismissive about such stuff. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">More </span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms
and principles</span><span style="background-color: rgb(255,
255, 255); "> is not necessarily a good outcome, it depends.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
They are always a good outcomes. However *only* norms and principles
without work towards their translation into concrete outcomes is not
good. <br>
<br>
Anyway, in times of such stalemates like the present one in global
IG, there seems to be a great degree of consensus, articulated at
IGFs, mentioned by EU group that met CS reps at Baku, and so on, for
developing principles on which IG could be based..... So, at least
if we focus on the current context higher norms and principles are
certainly not only good outcomes, but very much needed outcomes. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Narrower
interests and relative power by no means disappear in large-n
collaborations. Most multilateral deals are in fact clusters
of bilateral and plurilateral deals among the most powerful
and/or </span>motivated by sharply defined interests.
Outsiders then get pushed to conform with what these inner
circle types have worked out. The problem in trade has been
that the identities and mixed interest of the inner circles have
diversified, and the outsiders have found fewer reasons to
budge.</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
agree<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Small-N collaborations may devote less time to <span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms
and principles because they are "nested" agreements. </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I am speaking of such ones that are not nested agreements, but are
attempts to bypass normally accepted norms and principles at global
level, like TPP and SOPA trying to get away from such higher norms
through small group and closed door agreements. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> For
example, FTAs at least nominally have to be compatible with
the WTO instruments (some disagreement about the consistency
of practice) and so the</span> <span style="background-color:
rgb(255, 255, 255); ">higher norms and principles spelled out
in the latter are absent presences in the former. It's like
reading a piece of legislation that modifies another piece of
legislation that is not fully incorporated into the text, you
have read the docs back and forth to get the full picture.</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Yes, but they can go beyond WTO instruments as long as they do not
violate thmn, which in a way itself can be considered a negation of
a higher order normative agreement reached in negotiating WTO
instruments. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Accordingly,
while specifics can vary with contexts, global civil society
has to make its considered value based choice whether it
prefers multilateral agreements or bilateral/ plurilateral
ones when the issue is clearly of a global import, like
Internet governance is, perhaps like no other issue. In all
other areas of global governance, I see a distinct
preference in civil society for global agreements in
preference to bi/pluri-lateral ones, on issues ranging from
trade and IP to climate. </span></blockquote>
</div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">I know
where you're coming from, </span><span
style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">but I don't
think this necessarily follows, or that it's entirely fair to
characterize it as a values choice (which I guess would
mean those focusing on non-multilateral are making inferior
choices, from a values perspective?). </span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
This kind of extreme characterisation can always be used to make the
opposite argument look bad. I am asking just that the same actors
should note resist multilateralism who merrily go about doing
plurilateralism exactly on the same issues (not to speak of US
unilateralism). This is a values issue and an inferior choice from
that standpoint. <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "> In many
case, national and small-n frameworks may have greater on the
ground impact on the people and values CS is trying to defend,
so as much as I wish they'd engage more in the multilateral
stuff (since that's where I live) I'm not prepared to say that
they're committing a grievous moral or strategic error. <br>
</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Well, they are committing a grievous democratic error, nay mischief,
if (and ony if) 'they' resist mutlilateralism - and I repeat the
above phrase - while merrily doing plurilateralism exactly on the
same issues (not to speak of US unilateralism).<br>
<br>
regards<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:22D7DA48-D194-4ABE-AE69-7E7511D58556@uzh.ch"
type="cite">
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Best,</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); "><br>
</span></div>
<div><span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); ">Bill</span></div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>