[governance] Reply to Milton's blog post

Wed Dec 19 18:58:18 EST 2012

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Parminder, again, not to labour the point, but by way of
clarification. Your comment was:

>>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human
>>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of
>>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom
>>>> networks....

Simply, under the UN human rights framework "the collective entity of
a country" is not recognised as a holder of human rights. Assertion of
other "rights" by a State (such as the sovereign "rights" of States to
defend it's own borders or private trade or treaty rights negotiated
between States) are quite different matters as they are not "human
rights". Since the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the UN
Charter, these are in any event subject to human rights. I'm just
concerned to be sure that these different categories are not lumped
together as if they are all the same.
In any event, Frank La Rue's conclusion was that under the
international human rights framework there is no postive "right" to
access the internet, but rather obligations on States to provide such
access.

Joy

On 19/12/2012 7:31 p.m., parminder wrote:
> 
> Hi Joy
> 
> Thanks for your response....
> 
> It is not claimed that statescountries have human rights, or
> otherwise have rights " on an equal footing with the people or
> peoples they govern".
> 
> However, rights of states are frequently mentioned in
> international treaties etc. See for instance one here 
> <http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897>
>
> 
signed by the US. Another document here
> <http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/montevideo-convention-rights-duties-states/p15897>
>
> 
speaks of rights of states regarding underwater cables and pipelines, an
> issue very connected to the present discussion.
> 
> It was also open to delegates at Dubai to say, to the statement of
> right of member states to access internationl telecom we will like
> to add the right to people to access international telecom......
> That would have really given then the moral high ground... In fact
> putting right to access in the ITRs and other ITU documents should
> have been one of the main advoacy pitches of the civil society. ITU
> Chief was been making positive noises about this right for many
> months now, and we should have used the oppurtunity.... However the
> CS present in Dubai and otherwise following WCIT seemed to be
> unifocal about just one negative agenda - keep the Internet out
> somehow...
> 
> parminder
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday 19 December 2012 09:13 AM, joy wrote: Hi all, Without
> in any way wanting to detract from the wider conversation, I'd like
> to point out that in the international human rights system it is 
> quite clear that "human rights and fundamental freedoms" (both 
> collective and individual) belong to people or peoples (e.g. 
> indigenous peoples). States or governments do not have "human
> rights" - rather they have duties to respect, protect and promote
> the rights and freedoms of their citizens. "Collective rights" are
> a recognised category of rights, as Parminder correctly points out.
> But to my knowledge, no human rights or global civil society groups
> have argued that governments or States as "collective entities"
> have rights on an equal footing with the people or peoples they
> govern. Nor would they: but they would argue strongly that States
> should be accountable for how they represent the views of their
> citizens (I see that point is on a different part of this 
> discussion thread). States might have done better to argue they had
> obligations to provide access to the internet and necessary
> infrastructure, which is the point that Frank la Rue made in his
> annual report in 2011, when he highlighted States obligations under
> existing international law. See Paras 85-88 here: 
> http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/17session/a.hrc.17.27_en.pdf
>
>  Regards
> 
> Joy Liddicoat www.apc.org
> 
> On 18/12/2012 4:54 a.m., parminder wrote:
>>>> On Sunday 16 December 2012 03:24 AM, Olivier MJ
>>>> Crepin-Leblond wrote:
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> I've been asked by several people to post my reply to
>>>>> Milton's blog post here, to widen the discussion. Please
>>>>> find below.
>>>>> 
>>>>> --- snip --- snip --- snip ---
>>>>> 
>>>>> But for some governments this was not enough! They insisted
>>>>> on the right of States to telecommunication services and
>>>>> put it on a par basis with Human Rights. They argued the
>>>>> Rights of States was the same as the Rights of individuals.
>>>>> One of the most balanced Countries, Switzerland, expressed
>>>>> its outrage. Tension was rising fast. We got lectured by
>>>>> some countries that oppress their people about Human
>>>>> Rights. And then Iran called for an abrupt end to the 
>>>>> discussion, after having intervened more than any country
>>>>> in the past 2 weeks, and called for a vote — when I remind
>>>>> you that on many many occasions Dr. Touré and the Chair has
>>>>> assured us there would be no vote. This derailment was
>>>>> self-inflicted and this was the drop that got the vase to
>>>>> overflow.
>>>> Dear Olivier,
>>>> 
>>>> thanks for your detailed comments. There are a few aspects of
>>>> what happened at Dubai that I will like to comment upon.
>>>> However, since you stress the point of vote on the clause
>>>> that 'all countries have right to access international
>>>> telecom networks' as one of the most important ones let me
>>>> respond to you on this.
>>>> 
>>>> Collective rights are a recognised category under UN human
>>>> rights system. Why do you think that the collective entity of
>>>> a country should *not* have a right to international telecom
>>>> networks.... Isnt it something basic that must underpin any
>>>> global treaty on international telecom? What does an
>>>> international telecom treaty mean without stating such a
>>>> right. It is most surprising, even shocking, for me that
>>>> people from civil society should be speaking against such a
>>>> right. I can understand why US doesnt want it, but global
>>>> civil society ???
>>>> 
>>>> Before you say anything about collective entities like a
>>>> country, I will remind you that below you do proudly refer to
>>>> your participation in such an entity. You say that you are
>>>> proud that 'your' country did not sign. Why would other
>>>> people not legitimately resist and be unhappy/ angry if their
>>>> country is denied access to international telecom. And what
>>>> would your response as someone from global civil society be
>>>> to the plight of such people - in existing sanctioned
>>>> countries and potential ones.
>>>> 
>>>> And you also seem to be proud that you were representing
>>>> 'your country' and were able to influence its decision....
>>>> Can other people not legitimately have such collective
>>>> feeling, and collective rights....
>>>> 
>>>> parminder
>>>> 
>>>>> Where the heck was the consensus? What kind of shotgun
>>>>> tactics are those? It was obvious by the numbers that the
>>>>> countries opposing the aggressive manner in which this was
>>>>> conducted, would lose a vote. For me, sitting in this room,
>>>>> this was Game, Set and Match. My country, the UK, did not
>>>>> sign and I am ever so glad they did not. Yes, I had a say
>>>>> in the matter since I was a full UK delegate, one of the
>>>>> many countries which brought multiple stakeholders at the
>>>>> table and guess what, most of these countries have not
>>>>> signed. Does this not tell you something?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So that is my personal assessment of what happened and I
>>>>> was at the heart of it. I saw some very ugly stuff going on
>>>>> there, stuff which I would really like the Internet to be
>>>>> preserved from.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But I am sad too. I am sad because I also heard some very
>>>>> valid concerns from developing countries that they were not
>>>>> able to participate in the multi-stakeholder model because
>>>>> of lack of funding, lack of understanding and a lack of
>>>>> proactive work from our “own” side. I am planning to report
>>>>> fully to ICANN on the matter – we should do more to bridge
>>>>> the gap. At the moment, these countries only have two fora
>>>>> in which they can participate and that’s the IGF where
>>>>> nobody listens to them and the ITU where they have a voice.
>>>>> During the hour that followed the dramatic vote, I went to
>>>>> see my “opponents”. Many of us did – and whilst not
>>>>> apologizing for not signing, we exchanged business cards
>>>>> and I intend on following up. In fact, many European
>>>>> countries are intent on following up with countries that do
>>>>> not appear to have hidden intentions are are genuine about
>>>>> the level of despair they displayed at this conference.
>>>>> Because sadly, there was despair too. This is the start of
>>>>> a better dialogue, one which we must make efforts in
>>>>> promoting, reaching out, building capacity.
>>>>> 
>>>>> In closing, I’d say that this was not only a failure of the
>>>>> ITRs and the ITU, it was a failure of Internet Governance
>>>>> too. Civil Society has the ability to bridge the gap – and
>>>>> I know of several governments that have understood this.
>>>>> Let’s work together to ensure we will never live again a
>>>>> similar WCIT full of mistrust and despair.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Olivier (speaking entirely on my own behalf)
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJQ0lSZAAoJEA9zUGgfM+bqEF0IAKAzp4yTy+7HdJ7Wi7SaDMHV
msWYZjIrdOA12M8Mki9Gfg/x08z90kEbFybHTfmLn9HOW3Nn1nrt601FDxgcE5sf
1HzL3zxRwiXTbwPZwTXc7BF1SBquqPHVcwo2YhAz3z8uTEDaooQaDBdayBCz4T08
kdToZuBinl8kYabiu5QywaMh9DHmCGTazei54+ocoQd0bRxg13+qeUZVLOzxIl+F
Fb8/QRLDmqtd+y4wpAYGf6ZHLj3XHE8vkfkMWBisZe+VkPds9tdWAfl1Ig0cAT60
PSTTorMS8REGBWYBC94z6AUlXndP6xsUYgP7haNjzLuffAMjZy9UeELlJeyRz8w=
=ZQU7
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

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