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

[Milton Mueller]

>>> Meryem Marzouki <marzouki at ras.eu.org> 3/7/2006 2:26 PM >>>
>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...

No, I thought your "generational" explanation of HR thinking was quite clear, I don't know why you downplay your English capabilities. We may not connect perfectly on some of the more abstract differences, e.g. concepts of solidarity, but that could easily happen with a native English speaker!

I was well aware of the first two "generations."  
But we tend to code them differently in the U.S. 

Re: first-gen rights, it is not correct in my opinion to claim that they are entirely claims against the state. My right to free expression entails a claim against any individual who would smash my computer or blow up my printing press, e.g.. These rights are claims against anyone, and to be consistent must be reciprocal and equal across all individuals.

We would call the 2nd-gen HR "entitlements" rather than "rights." I, and probably many others in the U.S., put them in a different category because the ability of govts to "positively intervene" to guarantee an entitlement to, say, health care, is contingent upon and always limited by its budgetary capabilities. As such, they have to compete with other entitlements for a claim on the budget, and thus are not "rights" but political benefits doled out according to political criteria. True, long-established entitlements (e.g., Social Security benefits here) can "feel like" rights after a while, but as we are learning with our aging population, if fiscal responsibilities are ignored they can and will go away.

And coming from a more libertarian political tradition, we would recognize the way in which 2G entitlements can sometimes work against, or at least create tensions with, 1st-generation individual rights. the Social Security number is the bane of privacy advocates. If you are completely dependent upon state-subsidized education, your ability to freely exercise your culture and religion may be restricted by the (perfectly legitimate) demands of other groups to have public education reflect their values or not to subsidize cultures and religions they find objectionable. If the state controls communication media, free expression rights are more likely to be compromised in democratic systems whenever majorities find minority views intolerable. So I do not share the equanimity with which you view 2nd-gen "HR" as an extension and expansion of the more basic rights. (I know that Europeans tend to view this differently, but until recently their societieis were far more homogeneous. J!
 ust wait.) 

>- 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).

My view of these 3G "rights" is that they are either nonsense (quite literally, in the linguistic and logical sense) or they are important but can and should be decomposed into more meaningful 1st-gen rights or 2nd-gen entitlements. E.g., I strongly support a right to "self-determination" as I understood that term to be used in national liberation struggles against military domination or colonialism, but to me this is simply an extension of individual rights, from which concepts of popular sovereignty are derived -- the rights to vote, assemble, control your own government. What could be more basic, more 1st-Gen, than that? To be ruled by a foreign power is to have no claims, no rights, against the state. 

Right to peace and security - how is that different from my individual right not to be subjected to physical violence and domination by others? It is states who mostly wage war, so this could be considered a claim against states. But of course private, non-state actors also engage in violence, and I have the same claim against them. If by "right to peace and security" you mean we as citizens have a "right" to expect our politicians to pursue policies that maintain a stable international order, sure, but as with the "right to development" mere assertion of this right does not tell us anything significant about how to achieve it. George Bush claims, and seems to genuinely believe, that fighting a war in Iraq will, long term, create more peace and security in the region. I think he's wrong. Better to argue about effects, not about "rights." 

Same with "right to development." If you say first-world cotton subsidies and closing of markets to developing world cotton producers are intolerable we will agree. You don't need a "Right to development" to get there. 1st-gen rights easily incorporate the idea that willing buyers and sellers should be able to trade. The 1st-gen concepts also allow for regulation of the trades when harmful externalities occur or the trade violates rights (e..g, slavery).

>It remains that the "right to development" has been formally  
>universally recognized (cf. the link I provided to you in a previous  
>message). 

Well. I must say, it looked like a bunch of General Assembly rhetoric. A few lines asserting lots of good things for humanity and condemning racism and other evils. I have difficulty taking it seriously as binding international law. 

>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  

You already have an international legal basis -- and a sound economic basis -- for talking about interconnection costs. It's called the WTO basic telecommunication services agreement -- something the businesses and governments will take a lot more seriously. Telecom service providers are obligated to provide interconnection at reasonable cost at "any technically feasible point on the network." That was US regulatory doctrine imposed on the world in 1997. Now let them eat their own fruit. 



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