[governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

[Mawaki Chango]

I'm sure it doesn't hurt to reference both, the treaty for backing.

2010/8/25 Paul Lehto <lehto.paul at gmail.com>:
> Per the below, the UDHR is most certainly binding international law,
> regardless of the existence of a signed treaty. I only point to
> signatures on treaties for the purpose of establishing yet another
> level:  binding agreement and consent in light of my statement at the
> outset that no one wants to expressly and publicly distance themselves
> from these rights.
>
> comments interwoven:
> On 8/25/10, "Kleinwächter, Wolfgang"
> <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
>> I support fully to put the Human Rights Declaration into the Center.
>
> Present company excepted, it's difficult indeed for anyone not to
> support it. Opposing it immediately exposes those who oppose it.  It's
> thus safe territory to take a position within, since anyone outside
> it's territory by their own admission is an out-law.
>
>> However, the 1948 Declaration is not a legally binding treaty and it was not
>> ratified by UN member states. It was adopted as a "Declaration" in the UN
>> General Assembly. The legal binding document, tjr "treaty" - which needs
>> ratification - is the "International Covenant on Polical and Civil Rights"
>> from 1966. It is ratified by more than 160 UN member states. Just to be
>> legally precise.
>
> This is a move toward greater accuracy, but misleading in where it
> ends up (with the idea that the UDHR is "not ...legally binding.")
> It is binding, and I've provided a quick quote from the chair of the
> UDHR effort's site further below in support.
>
> Legal precision requires that we note that while the "declaration" was
> not thought of by most as binding AT THE TIME, it has grown to become
> so.  See www.udhr.org (Eleanor Roosevelt foundation's site, and she
> essentially chaired the UDHR effort).
>
> While the udhr.org site I just linked to is also technically "not law"
> it summarizes concisely my understanding of the law (based on primary
> sources in international law) of the status of the UDHR.  As  you
> note, the International Covenent on Political and Civil Rights is
> undoubtedly a treaty and so it makes this discussion somewhat moot,
> except that the UDHR is far better known and a better document to
> organize around, coming out of the experience and the ashes of WWII,
> given that they are both enforceable in any international court of
> justice, to be sure, and a core characteristic of a rogue state is one
> not recognizing this in their domestic courts.  Even treaty
> cancellation by a nation-state would be ineffective to eliminate its
> obligations regarding the UDHR rights because they are part of
> customary international law (see below) which is binding without
> necessity of a treat.
>
> -----start quote "Questions" page
> http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm --------
>
> What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
> The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the primary international
> articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members
> of the human family. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on
> December 10, 1948, the UDHR represents the first comprehensive
> agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all
> human beings.
>
> [...] Originally intended as a "common standard of achievement for all
> peoples and all nations", over the past fifty years the Universal
> Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law,
> and all governments are now bound to apply its principles. Because the
> Universal Declaration of Human Rights successfully encompasses legal,
> moral and philosophical beliefs held true by all peoples, it has
> become a living document which asserts its own elevating force on the
> events of our world.
>
> Are governments legally required to respect the principles outlined in the UDHR?
> Yes. While the record shows that most of those who adopted the UDHR
> did not imagine it to be a legally binding document, the legal impact
> of the Universal Declaration has been much greater than perhaps any of
> its framers had imagined.
>
> Today, direct reference to the UDHR is made in the constitutions of
> many nations that realized their independence after the document was
> adopted. Prime ministers, presidents, legislators, judges, lawyers,
> legal scholars, human rights activists and ordinary people throughout
> the world have accepted the Universal Declaration as an essential
> legal code. Dozens of legally binding international treaties are based
> on the principles set forth in the UDHR, and the document has been
> cited as justification for numerous United Nations actions, including
> acts of the Security Council.
>
> As oppressed individuals turn increasingly to the Universal
> Declaration for protection and relief, so governments have come to
> accept the document not just as a noble aspiration, but as a standard
> that must be realized. Because it is universal, a central and integral
> part of our international legal structure, the Universal Declaration
> is widely accepted as a primary building block of customary
> international law -- an indispensable tool in upholding human rights
> for all.
>
> -----end quote from udhr.org -----------------------------
>
> "Customary international law", jus cogens, inalienable rights and
> fundamental human rights are closely related terms in this context.
> By "Customary international law" it means that the core provisions are
> binding WITHOUT REGARD TO TREATY.  Thus for example, prohibitions on
> torture are binding quite without regard to treaty ratification since
> they are most often intentional crimes under cover of law and
> authority.  National laws to the contrary are void.
>
> As I wrote before, there's no higher law than this.  The UDHR
> recognizes the pre-existence of "inalienable" rights -- rights that
> can't be lost or forfeited and thus treaties are irrelevant except as
> guiding articulations -- and the initial treatment of the UDHR as
> "declaration" supports this and in fact makes the UDHR stronger by
> showing that the inalienable rights do not come from governmental
> action, but are ones we're endowed with by nature of our humanity, or
> endowed with "by our Creator", or by natural law -- any source is just
> fine as long as it's one that governments individually or collectively
> can not tamper with and thus take away those inalienable rights.
>
> UDHR.org:  Can the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human
> Rights be enforced?  ANSWER:  Yes.  [...]
> http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm
>
> UDHR.org:  Are all rights in the Universal Declaration regarded as
> equally important? ANSWER: Yes [...though the two covenants cause some
> confusion...]  http://www.udhr.org/history/question.htm
>
> Paul Lehto, J.D.
>
>> ________________________________
>>
>> Von: Michael Gurstein [mailto:gurstein at gmail.com]
>> Gesendet: Mi 25.08.2010 21:11
>> An: governance at lists.cpsr.org; 'Paul Lehto'
>> Betreff: RE: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers
>>
>>
>>
>> I like very much framing the overall presentation in the context of the
>> UDHR.
>>
>> M
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Lehto [mailto:lehto.paul at gmail.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, August 25, 2010 11:11 AM
>> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Ginger Paque
>> Cc: Jeremy Malcolm
>> Subject: Re: [governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers
>>
>>
>> Below is just a couple paragraphs that give a topic or title for an address
>> that "frames" things in what I believe is both justified as well as
>> mandatory (because of treaty acceptance as well as inalienable
>> rights) for member states of the United Nations.  Note that while I provide
>> a conceptual introductory paragraph the entire content is left open.  Not
>> that this group couldn't suggest or require specific content if that were
>> its wish, but that my focus is to suggest what I feel is both the proper and
>> indeed mandatory general method of approach, given the structure of the
>> United Nations and treaties such as the UNHDR.
>>
>> ==
>>
>> TOPIC / TITLE FOR ADDRESS:   The Global Internet:  Keeping Our Word on
>> (and Making Real) the Promises of the United Nations' Members
>>
>> INTRO:  Is there any country prepared today to denounce the agreement of 192
>> member nations?  This agreement ratified by 192 nations is the Universal
>> Declaration of Human Rights, the most successful treaty in world history in
>> terms of acceptance.  As always, the law is hardly needed except in areas
>> where violations can occur, and human rights violations do occur.  That does
>> not indicate or prove it is time to give up on enforcing human rights, or
>> else violations lead to the absurd result of abandoning all hope, which is
>> the sign above the door in Dante's Hell.  Quite the opposite, the rights
>> agreed to by so many member nations are a light unto the world, a guide, and
>> specifically a mandatory charter we are all called not only to publicize
>> these "common standards for achievement" worldwide, but specifically "by
>> PROGRESSIVE measures, national and international, TO SECURE their universal
>> and effective recognition and observance."  As we make Progress on the
>> Internet, we're encouraged that it is easier to build things correctly the
>> first time then it is to take a finished structure and re-design it.  As the
>> internet is continually built and rebuilt we have that advantage, and in any
>> case applying the Charter and Human Rights universally and progressively not
>> just to member states but to any peoples and instruments under their control
>> is our highest opportunity and responsibility.
>>
>> My comments today reflect the status of internet governance in light of our
>> charge and that which of course comes with any action of the United Nations:
>> the all-important context of the mission and especially the Universal
>> Declaration of Human Rights accepted as our common standard and vision for
>> the people of the world:
>>
>> [Individual issues addressed here in light of rights.  Including, perhaps,
>> whether a new article or document spelling out merely for purposes of making
>> their application as crystal clear as possible, the requirements of already
>> existing human rights as applied to the specific new context of the
>> internet.  In the main, the theme is "Making it real: Rights and the promise
>> of the Internet." ]
>>
>> END on echo of INTRO above of common standards and commitment to rights,
>> with reference to internal content of the speech above. == Paul Lehto, J.D.
>>
>> On 8/25/10, Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> We need to work on the selection of speakers, and I ask that you
>>> discuss, support and suggest on the speaker thread. On this thread,
>>> may we please have suggestions for two (one opening, one closing)
>>> topics and main points to be made?
>>>
>>> We seem (my impression, not a formal decision) to have informal
>>> consensus that chosen speakers 'should' speak on the topics, and with
>>> main points as defined by the IGC in this discussion. If you disagree,
>>> particularly if you are a nominated speaker, please post your views as
>>> well.
>>>
>>> Comments, suggestions, feedback needed. thanks, best, Ginger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 8/24/2010 11:42 PM, Eric Dierker wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Ginger,
>>>>
>>>> When I think back on speeches I witnessed and those I have read, that
>>>> made an impact, I usually just remember the substance.  And on some I
>>>> remember the speaker but danged if I remember what position they were
>>>> speaking from. I do remember Mandela making some speech but I could
>>>> not say in what capacity.  I remember "I have a dream" but I do not
>>>> even know in what capacity the Rev. spoke. Likewise Ho Chi Minh made
>>>> some I loved but as a student and I know this includes the great
>>>> Ghandijji also but before Independence, so in what role I do not
>>>> know.
>>>>
>>>> Let us bring together people with speakers who unite and ignite.
>>>> Whether the speech is a bellweather will depend upon the message and
>>>> not the messenger.  Let us hear what our best contributors have to
>>>> say, let them strike a cord of interest, let them lead us to further
>>>> dialogue and deeper thought.  Only the power of their words - or the
>>>> absence of, will determine if they speak for the greater community.
>>>>
>>>> As for me, I trust completely that the words from our co-coordinators
>>>> will ring with earnestness, passion and intelligence.  I participated
>>>> in the vote for them not so as to exclude them but to franchise them
>>>> with an empowerment to do their best and they have honored that
>>>> trust.
>>>>
>>>> Eric
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Ginger Paque <gpaque at gmail.com>
>>>> To: Bertrand de La Chapelle <bdelachapelle at gmail.com>
>>>> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>;
>>>> Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>> Sent: Tue, August 24, 2010 11:25:32 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [governance] On opening and closing statements (Bill and
>>>> Paul's
>>>>
>>>> This topic and Bertrand's proposal bring up an interesting and
>>>> important discussion for the IGC and our communications. I think we
>>>> should consider this carefully.
>>>>
>>>> The suggestion that the co-coordinators speak may be a very timely
>>>> opportunity to bring together the IGC position, in juxtaposition with
>>>> a critical moment for the IGF process. It has the possibility to help
>>>> the IGC mature into a more significant voice for CS.
>>>>
>>>> However, if we are to effectively harness the power of this moment,
>>>> we must also recognize that the co-coordinators as such, will not
>>>> (imho) any longer be speaking as individuals, but as the IGC, and so
>>>> the presentations must necessarily be very carefully prepared.
>>>>
>>>> May we please have more opinions on this possibility, as well as
>>>> suggestions on how to prepare the statements, from those who are in
>>>> favor?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks to everyone,
>>>> Best, Ginger
>>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2010 3:54 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear Mawaki, Ginger, Jeremy and all,
>>>>>
>>>>> I stand to be corrected, meaning I may have overstated my
>>>>> understanding of past practice. So thanks for the vigilant attention
>>>>> of friends here.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, we have collectively drafted caucus positions for most IGF
>>>>> open consultations and it seemed to work pretty well as it precisely
>>>>> allowed to iron out potential differences and find consensus. Why
>>>>> would it not be possible and useful for the IGF itself ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The rationale for my suggestion was that recent discussions showed -
>>>>> legitimate and understandable - differences of approach among
>>>>> prominent members of the list regarding the IGF exercise itself and
>>>>> the road forward. Hence, at this strategic juncture, the selection
>>>>> of speakers should not become an implicit vote for one vision versus
>>>>> another but an opportunity to identify elements of consensus and
>>>>> possible alternative options to nurture the debate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Moreover, an exchange now on the list about the main themes and
>>>>> elements of opening and closing interventions is the opportunity to
>>>>> have an in-depth discussion on the topic of "improvements" that we
>>>>> have not conducted so far in a structured manner.
>>>>>
>>>>> In view of the feedback on my previous post, I'd therefore like to
>>>>> reformulate the proposal as follows :
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) why don't we choose our two co-coordinators on the list (Ginger
>>>>> and
>>>>> Jeremy) as speakers ? It would provide geographic (latin america and
>>>>> asia-pacific), gender, and diversity of approaches (Jeremy does not have
>>>>> a reputation of being particularly tender with the IGF :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) instead of a full drafting of the speeches, which I agree was
>>>>> maybe a bit too much,  a preparation on the list could help them
>>>>> identify the main strategic issues, some consensus formulations and
>>>>> the potential points of divergence (aka "options"). This is close to
>>>>> Mawaki's idea of "talking points"
>>>>>
>>>>> As often, the caucus works best when there is a specific deadline
>>>>> and this would be very useful preparatory work for the next
>>>>> milestones during the end of the year.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hope this helps.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best
>>>>>
>>>>> Bertrand
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I too was surprised to read that bold highlight ("clearly calls
>>>>>> for...") as if it is a requirement following from some IGF rules &
>>>>>> procedures or that there was a written rule (or a proven practice)
>>>>>> in the Caucus to that particular effect, which I don't remember
>>>>>> (and frankly I might have missed, but hopefully not Jeremy).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm confident based on the experience this group has so far
>>>>>> accumulated that whoever is chosen in the end will undertand that
>>>>>> this is not to be used as a self-serving opportunity, and will try
>>>>>> to reflect the variety of viewpoints existing in this community
>>>>>> while emphasizing the main views and consensus items wherever there
>>>>>> are any. I see the possibility for the Caucus perhaps to suggest a
>>>>>> couple of talking points (for the most important issues on the
>>>>>> agenda) but really not a collective elaboration of a full speech.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just my opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mawaki
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Aug 23, 2010 at 6:15 PM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> > On 24-Aug-2010, at 12:51 AM, Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>>>>> > <bdelachapelle at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > What Bill was alluding to is that irrespective of who speaks, the
>>>>>> > message is the most important and it has : a) to fully take into
>>>>>> > account the issues
>>>>>> > that are being discussed (and will be in other fora like the UN GA
>> and
>>>>>> > the
>>>>>> > CSTD), which means a strategic approach; and b) that if the IGC
>>>>>> > proposes a
>>>>>> > name, there is agreement that the speech is not up to the speaker to
>>>>>> > draft
>>>>>> > entirely on its own but should reflect the various sensitivities
>>>>>> > present in
>>>>>> > the IGC itself. This should be our understanding (and practice) of
>>>>>> > democracy.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > I agree up until now, but...
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This clearly calls for draft speeches to be elaborated on the
>>>>>> > list, as has successfully been done in the past, with sufficient
>>>>>> > opportunities for people
>>>>>> > to input and sufficient respect to the diversity of viewpoints.
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > This I think would be a new practice for us. Yes we have done as
>>>>>> > you describe with IGC statements many times, but not with opening
>>>>>> > and closing civil society statements, which have not been treated
>>>>>> > as IGC statements and
>>>>>> > have been left to the reasonable discretion of those nominated.
>>>>>> > Our trust in those we shall nominate is based on the understanding
>>>>>> > they will
>>>>>> > not depart too radically from our general views.
>>>>>> > Anyway I am not discounting what you say but I do not think it is, as
>>>>>> > your
>>>>>> > post seems to suggest, our past practice. I will consult Ginger for
>>>>>> > her
>>>>>> > views and also invite others to comment.
>>>>>> > I would reply at more length, but just became a new father again some
>>>>>> > hours
>>>>>> > ago and am preoccupied at hospital. :-)
>>>>>> > ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> > 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
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> > Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>> >
>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ____________________
>>>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle
>>>>> Délégué Spécial pour la Société de l'Information / Special Envoy for
>>>>> the Information Society Ministère des Affaires Etrangères et
>>>>> Européennes/ French Ministry of Foreign and European Affairs
>>>>> Tel : +33 (0)6 11 88 33 32
>>>>>
>>>>> "Le plus beau métier des hommes, c'est d'unir les hommes" Antoine de
>>>>> Saint Exupéry ("there is no greater mission for humans than uniting
>>>>> humans")
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
>> P.O. Box 1
>> Ishpeming, MI  49849
>> lehto.paul at gmail.com
>> 906-204-2334 ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t=
>>
>> ____________________________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Paul R Lehto, J.D.
> P.O. Box 1
> Ishpeming, MI  49849
> lehto.paul at gmail.com
> 906-204-2334
> ____________________________________________________________
> 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
>
> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
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

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t