AW: [governance] Rights in IG research

Thu Aug 21 04:34:40 EDT 2008

Here are my five cents:

In the 1970s/1980s, when the idea of 3rd generation human rights (or "collective rights") emerged it was not only the right to development and the right to peace (and the right to communicate) but also the right to environment, which was seen as a "collective human right" which belongs both to the individual and to all peoples. The understanding of "environment" in those days was "natural environment" like clean air, clean water, clean forest etc. 

If we understand cyberspace as "environment" in the information society, a discussion on the elements of such an "eEnvironement" could make sense. I heard arguments in the last years that access to the Internet should be seen like access to fresh air. You open the window and have access to the "virtual (broadband) air". 

The problem with the "collective rights" is that it opens the door also for a interpretation which sees these rights mainly as the right of "governments". With other words, reopening the collective rights debate you risk to create a conflict between 1st (civl and political) and 2nd (social, economic and cultural) generation "individual rights" and 3rd and 4th generation "collective rights". To make clear from the very beginning, that a "collective right" in cyberspace is based on and includes the individual rights of individual Internet users is of central importance. Otherwise it is seen by some governments as an invitation to justify all kinds of restrictions against individuals to protect unspecified and ill defined "other values".    

Wolfgang

________________________________

Von: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
Gesendet: Do 21.08.2008 09:03
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Tapani Tarvainen'
Betreff: RE: [governance] Rights in IG research

Tapani,

As I see it you agree that a positive right like education is a 'real'
right. So, now we only have to sort out what does collective rights mean,
and if they are 'real'.

There are two aspects to it, both based on the fact that nations, though the
basic political communities or systems - or polities - are not the only
ones.... This should be clearly understood in the real complexity of our
socio-political living.

In this light the first aspect is - that collective rights, including
cultural rights and right to development (including self-determination of
best way to develop) are invoked by communities within national systems
against the state. Tribal/ aboriginal communities or other communities
having very different socio-cultural systems than the 'mainstream' national
communities have been special collective rights within national systems in
most countries - very certainly, in India.

So, there is certainly a real party 'against' which these collective rights,
including the RTD, is claimed.

The second aspect is at the global level. The very fact that we are
discussing these political issues across national political systems and
trying to arrive at some common understanding means that we believe in some
concept of 'global polity', however weak and different from national
polities it may be. (I certainly know, for instance, that Milton, believes
in this kind of transnational polity fairly strongly.)

To the extent we all do so, the claims are simply 'against' this global
polity (in its present shape, and its emergent promise, as well as
challenges). With globalization all of are more impacted by global political
power - whether properly institutionalized or not - and this fact cannot be
lost sight of. This increasingly makes it a 'real party'. I think that would
make collective rights like RTD, even at a global level, a 'real right'.

A rights discourse underpins - and to that extent precedes institutional
systems. It does not necessarily get itself defined from within established
institutional systems, though it will always have some kind of reference to
them.

Parminder

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tapani Tarvainen [mailto:tapani.tarvainen at effi.org]
> Sent: Thursday, August 21, 2008 12:02 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Rights in IG research
>
> On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:25:50AM +0530, Parminder
> (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> As I read it, it is an obligation on states (governments)
> to provide free and compulsory elementary education.
> It is clearly a positive right, but despite the grammar, the
> provider is rather obviously implied.
> I.e., it is a right of individuals against their governments.
>
> > which tangible party is fully capable
> > of delivering 'full bodily security' on demand???
>
> All those who could threaten it.
>
> I'm not being facetious. Having a right to something doesn't mean
> you're guaranteed to have it, but that if someone deprives you of
> it, they are wrong and you are the wronged party.
>
> While the distinction between negative and positive rights isn't
> always so clear-cut, the key point remains: negative rights are
> something you would have automatically if there was nobody else
> taking them away from you. Positive rights need someone explicitly
> delivering something to you, at a cost.
>
> If an individual or intranational group have positive rights,
> it generally means their government has to pay.
>
> A state can obviously have negative rights, like the right
> not to be attacked.
>
> But if a state is asserted to have positive rights, who is the
> other party?
>
> A "right to development" could conceivably be understood, for
> example, as including a right against some kinds of trade policies
> (a few WTO rules come to mind), and then it might be quite useful.
> But it would need careful thinking and phrasing to be actually
> meaningful, applicable to real situations.
>
> If we are to assert a new right we should have at least some kind
> of idea, preferably consensus, of what it would actually mean in
> practice.
>
> --
> Tapani Tarvainen
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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