[governance] Inputs for synthesis paper [General comments, only!]

Tue Sep 16 00:44:19 EDT 2008

Hi Matthias and all,

Thanks for your email and please let me continue the interesting exchange
you are proposing in your number 4 paragraph....

The Internet Rights(1) being studied at the Costa Rican Congress are:

1. Existence.
2. Presence.
3. Content.
4. Projection.

I believe many people in this mailing list can contribute to make the
Virtual Personality fundamental right amendment(1), a better one. Many
thanks in advance for any critic, help and advice.

Best regards,

Jaco
(1)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/PROYECTO%20PERSONALIDAD%20VIRTUAL.doc
(spanish)
http://web.archive.org/web/20070704102907/http://virtualrights.org/files/Congress%20of%20the%20Republic%20of%20Costa%20Rica.doc
(bad English translation)

On Thu, Sep 11, 2008 at 3:26 AM, Matthias C. Kettemann <kettemann at gmx.at>wrote:

>  Dear all,
>
> [please note that this posting does not suggest any substantive changes,
> but rather dicusses some general aspects of the debate and attempts to
> clarify what we perceive as misunderstandings of human rights law that
> emerged during the debate. If you're busy, you can save the message and
> reflect over it during the weekend.]
>
> while we cannot address all aspects of the discussion led on the list, we –
> as international lawyers and human rights experts – feel that the debate
> that has taken place over the last days (while leading to a statement that
> we feel mentions some highly relevant issues concerning human rights in the
> Internet) has not always served the purpose it purported to serve:
> clarifying our commitment to the protection of human rights on the Internet.
>
> Let us therefore draw your attention to the following general points, some
> of which have been taken up by Parminder in yesterday's message of 07:51
> GMT+1.
>
> 1. The often acrimonious debates on the primacy of individual over
> collective rights and of first over second and third dimension/generation of
> human rights lead us nowhere. In fact, most serious human rights literature
> has discarded the notion of generation of rights as an ideological concept
> developed against the backdrop of the Cold War. It serves no purpose to
> attempt to renew these debates. Let us keep them buried.
>
> 2. Already the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is expressly
> mentioned by the Tunis Agenda, has integrated individual as well as (some)
> collective rights into his catalogue of rights. Further, in the Vienna
> Declaration and Programme of Action of 1993 the international community
> highlighted that "[a]ll human rights are universal, indivisible and
> interdependent and interrelated." (UN Doc. A/CONF.157/23 of 12 July 1993,
> para. 5). Any attempt to divide human rights into rights with more and
> rights with less significance runs contrary to the spirit of the Vienna
> Declaration and the UDHR. The states assembled in Vienna 15 years ago agreed
> that "[t]he international community must treat human rights globally in a
> fair and equal manner, on the same footing, and with the same emphasis." The
> same is true for our community of scholars and practitioners interested in
> the role of – all – human rights on the Internet.
>
> 3. Rights without remedies exist. A right does not cease to exist if it is
> violated. Even if some rights, such as the right to education, can be
> realized only progressively, they have, nevertheless, real implications for
> governments. These include, e.g., the obligation to ensure effectively the
> enjoyment of – at least – the minimum content of the right, in a
> non-discriminatory fashion, and to progressively enhance the level of
> enjoyment. And of course: the right to work does not imply a right to a
> specific job, but rather a right to enter into the socio-economic activities
> necessary to live a dignified life.
>
>  4. Declaring a "right to the Internet" seems like a attractive, simple
> and inspiring concept, but a closer look reveals that the concept involves a
> number of different (and sometimes competing) human rights. Should it be a
> right to Internet access? A right to e-literacy? A right to content in one's
> own language. These are questions we need to clarify first – and we need to
> clarify them urgently. Creating new rights does not bring us closer to
> ensuring respect for, and the protection of, human rights in Internet
> Governance. A serious, unapologetically honest debate, however, does.
>
> 5. A member of our list has suggested that "[w]omen do no have special
> rights because of the nature of their sex. Women have rights because they
> are individuals." This principle of equality as formally expressed in law,
> without differentiation between women and men, often implies hidden
> discrimination against women. Due to the different positions and roles that
> society constructs for women and men "de iure" equality often results in "de
> facto" discrimination. Therefore any discussion on the human rights of women
> presupposes an in-depth analysis of the concepts of difference, disadvantage
> and discrimination in the context of pluralizing societies and should be
> based on a substantive definition of equality that takes into account the
> societal definition of gender as contained in Article 7 of the Statute of
> the ICC and the groundbreaking work of the committee under the UN Convention
> on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW).
>
> As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights celebrates its 60th
> anniversary on 10 December 2008, let us look beyond the ideological debates
> of the past and enter into a human rights dicourse that can provide answers
> to the challenges of the future: This necessitates a holistic concept of
> human rights. The language of our synthesis paper should reflect this
> commitment – and the compromise language now seems to do so.
>
> Wolfgang and Matthias
>
> PS: Should you feel the need for a short introduction into the concept of
> human rights and its fundamental notions, feel free to consult, e.g.,
> Wolfgang Benedek (ed.), Understanding Human Rights. Manual on Human Rights
> Education, 2nd edition, Berlin/Antwerp/Vienna: BWV/Intersentia/NWV, 2006.
>
> The book is also available online in 14 languages at
> http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=704.
>
> The English version can be found at
> http://www.etc-graz.at/typo3/index.php?id=446
> --
>
> Professor Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
> Mag. Matthias C. Kettemann
>
> Institute of International Law and International Relations
> University of Graz, Austria
> Universitätsstraße 15/A4, 8010 Graz, Austria
>
> T +43 316 380 6711 (office)
> F +43 316 380 9455 (fax)
>
> E wolfgang.benedek at uni-graz.at
> E matthias.kettemann at uni-graz.at
>
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
>

-- 
Jaco Aizenman L.
My iname is =jaco (http://xri.net/=jaco)
XDI Board member - www.xdi.org
Tel/Voicemail: 506-83461570
Costa Rica

What is an i-name?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I-name
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20080915/8c5c6fdb/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
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