[governance] Substance for IGF CS Opening and Closing speakers

Thu Aug 26 05:13:45 EDT 2010

The general wisdom is that the core rights of the UDHR has evolved into
binding customary international law, but it would be good to refer to the
UDHR as developed in subsequent UN human rights treaty law in order to give
the full frame.

Best regards

Wolfgang Benedek

Am 25.08.10 22:55 schrieb "Paul Lehto" unter <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