[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Parminder]

> > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop
> > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development,
> > security, culture etc
> > to move toward a more people-centric one.
> 
> Interesting response, P.

Thanks. As a proof that I mean this seriously I must mention that I accepted
the invitation to China government sponsored workshop at IGF Rio on
'cyber-security' and spoke about articulating a people centric human
security approach to cyber-security rather than a state-centric one. Same is
true in case of cultural rights. Much of the strongest, and bloodiest,
struggles for cultural rights have been waged by cultural-minority groups
against the states. Obviously in such cases cultural rights can no way be
considered state centric. I can mention similar examples with RtD, but would
not go into it now.

> Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the
> context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of
> state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a
> gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and
> everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and
> reality of the UN system of course is unbearable.

One, as argued above our positive rights conceptions are not any more state
centric than are negative rights conceptions. Two, UN system, or any other
global polity will need to be much more welfarist matching the growing
tentacles of globalization that often limit national level policy options,
than it is at present. Else, globalization will simply crash and fail. It
cannot be built over such huge equities as obtains globally, and further
entrench and widen these inequities. Thirdly, we are not just speaking of UN
systems here but of a possibly new global political system for IG, beyond
inter-governmental systems, and I know we agree on this. 

> To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual
> is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. 

It is here that we disagree. Extreme individualisation as the basic and
natural human condition is a modern western concept and not in any way
obviously the 'right' or the best one. While human dignity cohering in each
person separately remains uniformly important, many cultures have a more
collectivist thinking that you may have. As I proposed earlier you need to
live with an ethnic minority group and listen to them at length to get
convinced that such can be a 'natural and voluntary' condition of some
people's living. 

I don't think
> concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at
> present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to
> the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating them?

I mean this in terms of divisions within global civil society, and
dominances within global civil society. Parminder 


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton L Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Thursday, September 04, 2008 8:47 AM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: RE: [governance] Inputs for synthesis paper
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net]
> > On another note, the language of rights is often used to develop
> > alternative conceptions to state centered notions of development,
> > security, culture etc
> > to move toward a more people-centric one.
> 
> Interesting response, P.
> 
> > The problem with global Internet
> > policy making is that it is not desirable to leave it to state-centric
> > notions. The alternative is that we propose a people-centric one which
> is
> > built on people's rights vis a vis the Internet. This is what we are
> > trying to do, and, accordingly, this debate is not an idle one.
> 
> Agreed. But my main objection to your rights language, especially in the
> context of the UN system, is that it drags us into the muck of
> state-centric positive rights, based on a view of the UN system as a
> gigantic social welfarist regime that can somehow deliver anything and
> everything to anyone who demands it. The gap between that conception and
> reality of the UN system of course is unbearable.
> 
> > (3) We can try alternative political frameworks. My view is that such
> a
> > framework needs to be based on, and built over, a strong conception of
> > human rights in the new Internet era. However, restrictive definitions
> > that serve those who are at present politically dominant will neither
> be
> 
> To me, "people-centered" means individual rights because the individual
> is the one constant across nations, cultures, etc. I don't think
> concepts of basic, narrow but fundamental rights "serve those who are at
> present politically dominant" -- else why would states from Russia to
> the US be so eagerly and with impunity violating them?
> 
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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