[governance] Rights in IG research

[Jeffrey A. Williams]

Parminder and all,

  Interesting thoughts, and nicely expressed.  However to a great
degree some of what you seem to be suggesting or espousing, doesn't
"Ring" true in my experiance.  Therefore I cannot fully agree.  Self
determination of what is and what is not a right of self defense and
self help and safty remains a basic and fundemental right and one that
is and has been recognized by most, but not all freedom loving countries

governments and political structures, the UN, and most, but not all
international NGO's.

Parminder wrote:

> Hi All
>
> Rights to me are a set of basic conditions and purposes of political
> association of human groups. They are basic, and therefore they cannot
> be each and every thing which is decided by the concerned political
> community. However at the same time the nature of political
> association, and of a political community, is not static. Its members
> today have the same right to pull together some ‘basic’ conditions and
> purposes of their association as someone had in say circa 1823.
>
> We know that nature of political communities have undergone great
> change through history, and the conception of rights can be said to
> have undergone a corresponding change. It can be no one’s case that we
> have reached the end of history, so I find this thing about lets stick
> to existing rights a bit difficult to swallow. It is more difficult to
> accept this for someone from a society that is in the middle of more
> rapid political evolution than someone in a relatively mature
> political system. And since, as discussed, changes in conception of
> rights has directly to do with evolution of a political community,  I
> have great problem with how most analyses of rights as have been seen
> on this list mostly simply refuse to factor this angle in. (this
> evolution of political communities also cannot be taken to be going in
> a given specified direction, a la modernization theory.)
>
> Another issue of relevance here is this distinction of some rights
> needing spending of resources, as if others don’t. Go to the stateless
> parts of Afghanistan, or Sudan, or insurgency bound areas of Kashmir,
> and you will begin to understand what kind of resource expenditure and
> systems need to be put in place to ensure the right against bodily
> harm, what to speak of FoE. Ensuring any right needs work to be done,
> otherwise they will be self-ensured. And doing any work/ effort means
> expenditure of resources. So this distinction too, at the bottom, is
> very fallacious.
>
> This is not to say that all political claims are rights, or even that
> all rights are equally important. Depending on our individual and
> collective political preferences, some may be more important than the
> other. And some are most important for all of us. For instance, we
> will all agree that the right against bodily harm is something
> extremely basic and important. But there are many grey shades here as
> political communities evolve. Does the right of children not to work
> in relatively dangerous conditions derive from this right? (Or, the
> right not to work at all.) Which all other ‘child rights’ derive for
> this right and from others.  What are dangerous conditions? At some
> point just working long hours can be considered dangerous. Can then
> working long hours for adults also be considered dangerous?. Does
> then, the right to have a decent livelihood without working in
> ‘dangerous conditions’ become a right derived from the right against
> bodily harm. Does it mean anything, or help, to christen a new set of
> rights as child rights or labour rights, or is it blasphemous to the
> basic ideals of human rights. Who decides when this point of blasphemy
> is reached?
>
> It is amusing that people could argue that we should close the list of
> rights  - as the list of states who can legally pursue nuclear weapon
> programs is official closed – when we, for instance, in India, see
> daily struggles of people to claim basic political rights, through
> grassroots movements, constructing these rights collectively, through
> new political consciousness. There is this right to livelihood
> struggle by tribals whose forest inhabitation is taken away by
> ‘civilized’ people carried self-certified documents based on right to
> property, and its ‘legal’ adjudication (reminds of something long back
> in the US ??).  People dying with AIDS in millions when there are
> medicines that are not allowed to be produced by them (local
> companies) for self-consumption in the name of intellectual property
> rights. And therefore there is a (counter) political assertion of a
> right to health. This are only a few vignettes of the political
> struggles of a big number of people which are very conveniently sought
> to be excluded by some, from conceptions of what is political most
> important and non-negotiable – ‘our’ rights (whose??).
>
> This doesn’t mean that we can talk about rights loosely. No not at
> all. These are, by definition, issues of highest importance to human
> life. But neither one should seek to freeze an arbitrary codification
> for everyone about what is of highest importance to human life for
> different political communities (including for the global community,
> whose ‘political community’ nature is increasingly stronger, and
> therefore we should be more careful than ever of political
> dominations, even if in the name of human rights.)
>
> In fact, at a seminar organized by IT for Change a few years back a
> social activist strongly challenged the conception of ‘communication
> rights’ as being un-connected to any people’s movement or people’s
> perspectives. She was strongly of the opinion that one has to be
> careful putting things in a ’rights framework’, and not doing so
> devalues people’s struggles  (not only Indian people’s struggles but
> as much as those of French, and American whose struggles underlie some
> very important rights). I have not brought this subject up with her
> but I expect her to criticize a conception of a possible ‘right to the
> Internet’ from the same perspective. I don’t think she will be right
> in doing so, but I do agree with her framework of critique.
>
> But I don’t agree with the frameworks of defending ‘existing rights’
> and negating any other conceptions that seek refuge in UDHR as ‘the’
> rights document or in negative-positive right distinctions. Instead,
> let us be tuned in to people’s political realities and struggles which
> give shape to rights. There is no other yardstick of ‘deciding on’
> what can be or cant be rights. Such essentialism is self serving for
> the respective political ideologies professed by the protagonists.
> (No, it is not neo-imperialism - at least, not yet :-) )
>
> Since we are discussing rights as a part of an advocacy group (which
> concerns social change), I think we should, in my view, be more tuned
> with real frontiers of social change, and deep political realities of
> these frontiers. And since this is a global group, I think its
> political legitimacy lies in being globally inclusive in conceiving of
> what is highest in terms of our political priorities as a global
> political community.
>
> Parminder
>
>    ----------------------------------------------------------------
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1 at ix.netcom.com
My Phone: 214-244-4827

____________________________________________________________
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