[governance] Rights in IG research

Wed Aug 20 19:14:45 EDT 2008

Parminder and all,

  I would have to logically suppose that what is "Real" in one
culture might not be in another.  What is a "Education" in one
sense and culture, might be only propaganda or indoctranation
in others.  And so forth and so on...

Parminder wrote:

> 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

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