[governance] right to development, the structure of IGC and IG issues for march deadline

Tue Mar 7 14:26:25 EST 2006

Milton,

If you genuinely want to understand what the "right to development"  
is - and till now I've considered that trying to "picture" it the way  
you did in previous messages is not a good starting point for  
discussion or even for request for more information -, then you may  
start by understanding the historical framework of HR, that there are  
what is called "generations" of HR:

- 1st generation (roughly, civil and political rights) are rights of  
the _individual_ vis-a-vis the power (now the state or the government).
- 2nd generation (roughly, economic, social and cultural rights) are  
more _collective_ rights, and are sometimes referred to as "claim- 
rights". Rather than being affirmed against the power, they need the  
positive intervention of the state (through dedicated public  
policies, specially in the economic and social fields) to be  
realized. 2nd generation because they are supposed to ensure the  
actual benefit of 1st generation rights.
- 3rd generation (like the "right to development", "right to peace  
and security", "right to a sustainable environment", "rights to  
peoples' self-determination", etc. - not all of them necessarily  
formally recognized by a UN declaration) are rather seen as  
_solidarity_ rights, and most of the time intended neither as rights  
of an individual, nor rights of a group of individuals identified by  
their economic/social status (e.g. workers), but as rights of  
communities or peoples (e.g. indigeneous peoples), supposed to create  
the necessary conditions for the implementation of 1st and 2nd  
generation rights).

Yes, there is a debate on this concept of "3rd generation rights",  
with, roughly speaking, those who think they are rights (like 1st and  
2nd generation rights) and other who think they are political demands  
(some may even call them "ideological"...). Both categories have pros  
and cons, and it can reasonably be argued that recognized "rights"  
have started by being only "political demands". In any case, they are  
by no mean a right that someone could claim for himself against a  
State. In this sense, it is meaningless to talk about "someone in a  
poor country, say Sudan, [who] petitions a nation state (or something  
as vague as a "global system") for their "right to development"".

It remains that the "right to development" has been formally  
universally recognized (cf. the link I provided to you in a previous  
message). And that, if we ever want to discuss (on this list) how an  
IG decision is compliant or not with the "right to development", then  
it would be interesting to ask ourselves questions like e.g. how  
telecom interconnection costs between different parts of the world  
impact the development of a given part of the world, and whether this  
is compliant with the (State binding) right to development. If we  
find, by chance, that this is not entirely compliant, then we may  
find here an international legal basis to put the issue on the table  
(I haven't said that this will solve the problem: if it was enough to  
declare a right, sign on it and be bound by it to respect it, we  
would have been aware of this).

Sorry about the language which is certainly not the right one here: I  
don't feel comfortable enough in English when discussing these  
matters/field, and I'm not sure all this makes sense, as it is mainly  
roughly translated from my French thoughts...

Meryem

Le 7 mars 06 à 17:54, Milton Mueller a écrit :

>
>>>> "Parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net> 3/7/2006 4:14 AM >>>
>> Milton, I am sorry to say this, but your rubbishing of the 'right to
>> development' is alarming for someone who often leads CS interventions
>> in IG consultations.
>
> Parminder I think it's healthy for you, especially, to be  
> confronted with some honest and well-considered challenges to your  
> ideological viewpoints.
>
> Let's be clear. Development is a good thing. The issue is how to  
> get there. I am challenging the notion that asserting a "right to  
> development" contributes to development in any meaningful way. I  
> haven't heard any convincing arguments from you to the contrary,  
> yet. And -- sorry --  I am not going to let you substitute moral  
> posturing for clear thinking.
>
>> And ideological debates are not un-necessary - they are the very  
>> basis of
>> what we are doing here. The de-politicizing of IG debates is the  
>> reason of
>> much of the exclusion (or keeping away) of many actors from these  
>> lists/
>> discussion spaces.
>
> My friend, we are having an ideological debate, right now. And it  
> is you who are attempting to short-circuit serious debate by  
> implying that my comments are outside the proper bounds of civil  
> society discourse. By all means, let us have an ideological debate.  
> Don't accuse me of being the obstacle.
>
>> And the right of development should be 'enforceable' by  
>> individuals and
>> communities against all kinds of political entities - from nation  
>> states, to
>> global systems. That was what we have been trying to do at WSIS,  
>> but you
>> seem to have very different views.....
>
> Perhaps you could give me a specific example of how a right to  
> development would be claimed, adjudicated and enforced. I suspect  
> you will have a difficult time.
>
> I understand what it means when, e.g., indigenous people claim that  
> their lands should not be expropriated or polluted, but these are  
> not "development rights" but simple assertions of property rights.  
> I understand what enforcing such a right would mean: return of the  
> lands to their rightful owners/stewards, or cessation of the  
> pollution, etc.
>
> I understand what it means when people claim that they should not  
> be imprisoned for political dissent, or held in jails without due  
> process, habeus corpus and other well-established procedural  
> rights. I understand what enforcing such a right would mean:  
> release from prison; avoidance of interference with their  
> expression, adherence to procedural standards, etc.
>
> I understand what it means when people claim that protecting  
> copyright or patent rights are inimical to the development of  
> certain LDCs. I understand the counter-claims as well (that failure  
> to protect those rights will reduce investment in technology).  
> Whatever side you take on that question, framing the issue as a  
> debate over "rights" makes sense, and it is clear how the rights  
> would be asserted and enforced.
>
> Please tell me, if someone in a poor country, say Sudan, petitions  
> a nation state (or something as vague as a "global system") for  
> their "right to development" what are they petitioning for? who  
> will give it to them?
>
> Is it a change in the government's monetary policy? An increase or  
> decrease in the state's budget or debt? More investment in  
> education? or should that money be placed in science and  
> technology? Are they saying that the current pricing of energy  
> should be changed? Up or down--which price movement will have  
> better long-term consequences for the development of the economy?  
> All such changes would affect a society's development. All would  
> interact in complex ways.
>
> Or is the right to development just a request for a bag of cash? Is  
> that all you mean? If so, is that really "development," or just a  
> static transfer of wealth? If you give the bag of cash to that  
> person, what about the other 800 million people who'd also like  
> one? Where does the cash come from? What other activities,  
> investments, people will it be taken away from? Are you sure you  
> have enough to supply alll the claimed "development" rights? What  
> if some of the people who get the bag of cash handle it unwisely?  
> Do they get to petition for another one, based on their right to  
> development? How will the people who saved theirs and made it grow  
> react to that?
>
> Really, I am quite curious to learn more about how a "right to  
> development" is articulated, claimed and enforced. Perhaps you can  
> fill me in with some specifics.
>
>> What is it that we really share to be working as a group.
>> At no other CS forum or grouping at global advocacy level have I
>> seen such a lack of clarity on the bare minimum basic unifying  
>> ideological
>> issues.
>
> If you want to claim the mantle of "civil society" you'd better get  
> used to the idea that _real_ CS is vast and diverse - ideologically  
> as well as culturally, politically, etc.
>
>
>
>
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance