[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper

[Tapani Tarvainen]

On Sun, Sep 07, 2008 at 03:01:01PM +0530, Parminder (parminder at itforchange.net) wrote:

> As for 'who pays' I never thought that there is ever any doubt about
> it - positive rights are claims against the collective of the
> political community which in most cases is the nation state, and
> that's who pays.

When "state pays" it usually means the state forces (some of) its
cítizens to pay. As for "collective of the political community",
the practical outcome can be quite different depending on which
specific entity that is - political communities overlap.

This comes up with the right to education, for example: there 
is a big difference whether it is the state or the city who pays.
In the present context it might be even seen that the international
community would be somehow responsible, say in providing Internet
access to poorer nations. It is not a trivial point.
But I guess it isn't useful to expand on that now - the
question will obviously come up when new potential rights
are being explored, which is all we're now suggesting.


> The meaning in which the term [collective rights] is used is quite
> well-established to be generally understood in the right meaning.

In my experience "generally understood" terms only too often turn
out to mean different things to different people, when examined
more closely. Generally speaking, of course. :-)

> There are many scholarly works available on the subject

...which usually means there even more different meanings...

> but I am
> referring an article on the concept of collective rights in practice
> in India. (pl see http://www.hrdc.net/sahrdc/hrfeatures/HRF36.htm )

> We use it in the term in its generally understood meaning in the
> rights discourse.

I presume that means such usage as in the article referred to above.
Very well. While I don't find it really useful, I accept that is the 
way it is used here. 


> > "right to access Internet"

> It is used in the positive rights sense - in equivalence to right to
> education.

OK. That makes sense in that the negative meaning is already
implied by freedom of expression.
I observe, however, that positive rights interpretation can
actually be less than negative would, as states may and indeed
are likely to interpret it so that they may restrict access
to Internet to what they choose to provide.
Thus I'd like to add something to the effect that it may
not be interpreted as a limitation of other rights,
in particular not FoE. I don't insist on that in the present
document, however, lest it grow too long.

> If it makes it clear I can change it to 'right to the Internet' -
> that makes it clearer. 

No, that doesn't really help. Leave it as it is.


> When we say " It may also be
> useful to explore if and whether positive and collective rights are
> meaningful in relation to the Internet" We are being as exploratory as
> one can.

Yes. That formulation is acceptable to me (better than the one
I commented on).

-- 
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