[governance] Rights in IG research

[Parminder]

Milton

> * 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? 

Lets go in two steps to reach right to development (a collective right) from
the 'negative rights' you subscribe to, through the category of 'positive
rights'. First, tell me if you think 'right to education' as mention in the
UDHR, and as applied in many developed countries justifying imprisonment of
parents etc is considered by you as a (real) 'right' or not. 

The second step to move towards 'right to development' is to look at another
collective right - collective cultural rights - which all countries (not
only developing ones) other than the US have agreed to, most recently in
signing the UNESCO convention on cultural diversity. This treaty to quote a
text "fills an existing lacuna for cultural objectives in public
international law and to serve as a cultural counterbalance to the World
Trade Organization (WTO) in future conflicts between trade and culture."


What you mention is a caricature of the right to development (RTD). Right to
development (among a few other things) is a moral assertion - seeking
insituional/legal applications - that default global institutional systems
(as use of FoE for cultural domination, in above case) that are deemed
neutral and good for all are often a form of (neo-imperialist?) domination
and that that developing countries have a right to challenge such
domination. If you read the Right to development document you will find
references to a 'new economic order' a couple of time. (a non-hegemonisitc
'new Internet order' may be similarly demanded.) 


Since you have agreed in an earlier email that 'notions of rights are
ideologically conditioned' I must give practical uses of the RTD to justify
it. Since you claim that "I just don't think the concept makes any sense or
that its assertion accomplishes anything".

The framework of RTD underpins efforts in global polity on development
agendas in WTO, WIPO, NWICO, and why not, claims of perhaps a 'new Internet
order'. This claims and subsequent 'victories' have been immensely useful to
the people of developing countries. 

Now if you think RTD is a part of "rights-inflation and sloppy thinking
about what constitutes basic human rights is really damaging to the
realization of real human rights", it is as per your above quoted assertion
"ideologically condition" in a way different than I am "ideologically
conditioned" and therefore I should not debate it any further. But use of
words like 'real rights' is against ideological relativism you spoke of. 

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!)


To make an illustrative, counterpoint, which tangible party is fully capable
of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand???


Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2008 3:40 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Avri Doria
> Subject: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research
> 
> 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


____________________________________________________________
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