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

[Vittorio Bertola]

I like to play theoretical debates, so I will play the devil's advocate
here, well beyond my personal convictions. (By the way, I am totally
ignorant of the theory in these matters, I am an engineer and I can only
provide a layman's point of view from a specific place and time.)

Il giorno gio, 09/03/2006 alle 03.31 -0600, Taran Rampersad ha scritto:
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > So even if you agree that a right to development exists, how do you
> > decide what that means in practice, and what's the best thing to do to
> > support development, and whether that involves more "intervention of the
> > state" or rather less of it?
> >   
> You don't. I don't. We don't. We get the input of people who have this 
> Right (and, I suppose, ignore those who don't... haha...)

So, another question: who has this right, and who doesn't? As you point
out, development is an ongoing process, so even the richest country in
the world still has plenty of room to further develop. Do they have a
right to development as well?

> When UN member nations have problems, they are supposed to work within 
> the UN structure to deal with the problem - that's what the UN is 
> supposed to be for. Defending a Right to Development could be considered 
> much the same thing. Consider the Right to Development when it comes to 
> nuclear energy - the present case with Iran. Iran does have a Right to 
> develop nuclear energy, but since that development is considered to be a 
> potential infringement on the Rights of other nations (especially with 
> sentiments recently expressed). Iran's Right to Develop nuclear energy 
> exists, but to use it they have to assure the rest of the world that 
> they aren't going to do anything naughty with it.
> 
> I don't see why the same couldn't be done in this context. In fact, in a 
> different context, it's already being done - thought there is certainly 
> room for improvement.

So, who gets to decide whether Iran's right to development includes the
development of nuclear energy (or even of nuclear weapons, as many other
countries already have)? What you point out is already a practical
declination of this abstract "right to development", but there could be
many others.

In any case, the UN system works by agreement. Country X may well think
that they have a right to get something done by country Y to support
their development, but if country Y disagrees - either disagrees that
that action would help development of country X, or disagrees completely
about the existence of a "right to development" by country X - there's
nothing anyone else can do about it. And, personally, I think that
something that is not enforceable not commonly agreed is not a right,
but just wishful thinking.

I was quite interested by reading Meryem's connection of "third
generation rights" with solidarity, because in my culture solidarity is
by definition a personal, volunteer, optional action, not something that
is prescribed by law or constitutions. Italy is perhaps the biggest
source of [Catholic] cooperation efforts in the world, with plenty of
missions all around Africa and Latin America; Turin, in particular, is
the birthplace of many famous missionary orders. Still, no one here
would say that developing countries have a right to receive this kind of
help from developed countries; that's something you do, if you like, as
an act of generosity. Almost everyone here does that, in one form or the
other, and yet would not see it as a right of those who receive the
help.

I am sure that this is exactly the vision that supporters of a "right to
development" might challenge, as they might think that developed
countries have a moral and legal duty to help developing countries. Am I
right?

I also have a comment to your other message:

> I believe... as I believe others do... that one does not have to move 
> ahead by pushing others down. That is a principle of Freedom. I am Free, 
> as long as I do not adversely affect the Freedom of Others. Therefore, I 
> am Free to Develop as long as I do not Adversely Affect the Freedom of 
> Others.

I think that you have a clear problem here, as resources on our planet
are finite and are becoming more and more scarce. So, apart from
second-level and long-term global economical effects, every dime given
(or not exacted) by developed countries to developing countries to speed
up their development is a dime less for developed countries to preserve
their "second generation rights", or "entitlements", depending on which
terminology you like. If you base it on the "non-adversely-affect"
principle, then there's no way that you can establish any kind of right
to development for developing countries, other than based only on their
own market / military / cultural resources.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

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