[governance] Rights in IG research

[Milton L Mueller]

Avri, thanks for pondering it. 
Just to recall what my objection is, and it's important to be clear
about this: 

* The problem with a so-called "right to development" is that a "right"
implies an actionable claim against a specific party, who is obligated
to provide or protect the right. Who do you make this claim against? If
my economy does not develop, who do I sue? What tangible party is fully
capable of delivering "development" on demand? The UN General Assembly,
which declared it? (hah!)

* One could meaningfully assert a negative right, a right not to have
other companies, individuals or nations interfere with their economic
activity in ways that violate or impair their development. But this is
an extension of other basic rights, such as property rights (i.e., theft
of resources) or rights to be free from violence (i.e, invasion, coups
d'etat, etc.). In such cases, it is very clear who the right is claimed
against and who it constrains or obligates. 

So, please do not think that by denying the existence of a "right to
development" I am unconcerned about the need for economic and social
development in LDCs or elsewhere. I just don't think the concept makes
any sense or that its assertion accomplishes anything. 

Milton Mueller
Professor, Syracuse University School of Information Studies
XS4All Professor, Delft University of Technology
------------------------------
Internet Governance Project:
http://internetgovernance.org
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 18, 2008 2:28 PM
> To: Governance List
> Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research
> 
> <probably an irrelevant aside>
> 
> On 18 Aug 2008, at 13:55, Milton L Mueller wrote:
> 
> > Parminder and I had a long debate about
> > the "right to development," which I consider a paradigmatic 
> instance  
> > of
> > the manufacture of an incoherent right. Not possible to recap that
> > debate here, and I know I am challenging conventional sentiment  
> > among CS
> > types, but I'm not backing down because i think rights-inflation and
> > sloppy thinking about what constitutes basic human rights is really
> > damaging to the realization of real human rights.
> 
> 
> ever since that discussion (where i sort of sided with Parminder) i  
> have been trying to work my way through the issue, though, i must  
> confess,  from a philosophical point of view.
> 
> being somewhat slow, i have not gotten very far, but have 
> gotten to a  
> point  where i think that we fall into a problem between the 
> notion of  
> basic human rights and those that are derivative from other 
> the basic  
> human rights.
> 
> i am not sure which are which yet, at least not from a strict  
> philosophical analysis, but from a pragmatic/political point of view  
> anything defined in UDHR can be called basic as it 
> constitutes agreed  
> language that the signatories can be held to (of course taking into  
> account the get out of rights trump clause - 29).
> 
> this does not mean that those that are not in UDHR are not as  
> important, more immediately accessible or perhaps the way to 
> achieving  
> the basic rights, but they are not basic indisputable rights.
> 
> 
> a.
> 
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      governance at lists.cpsr.org
> To be removed from the list, send any message to:
>      governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> For all list information and functions, see:
>      http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
> 
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance