[governance] Principles

Mon Oct 1 09:16:13 EDT 2012

Dear all,

I'm another Wolfgang, who has written recently in a book on Human Rights
Diplomacy edited by Michael O'Flaherty et al. about
THE RELEVANCE OF THE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER APPROACHAND MULTI-TRACK DIPLOMACY
FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
DIPLOMACY.

Here is an excerpt:

Examples from PracticePractice shows that a number of states and
international and supranational
organisations have used both, the concept of multi-track diplomacy
and the notion of multi-stakeholder partnerships (and their
combination) in their eff orts to conduct a more comprehensive, holistic
and sustainable human rights diplomacy. Th e following examples
from practice show both the advantages and the potential pitfalls of
these approaches.
One example for the potential of the multi-stakeholder approach in
the context of the governance of the information society is the Internet
Governance Forum (IGF) that was established aft er the World Summit
on the Information Society in Geneva and Tunis in 2003 and 2005. Th e
IGF¹s mandate is to bring together all stakeholders  i.e. governments,
international organisations, business, NGOs and academics  to discuss
all issues concerning the information society on a yearly basis.11
Th e IGF cannot take decisions, nor even draft recommendations or
common conclusions.12 But the discussion process involving multiple
stakeholders generates results through creative, lively and open debate,
and through persuasive policy suggestions in reaction to common
problems. Th e disadvantage of the process is that results are less visible
and/or less clear-cut. Th ey are, nonetheless, quite real. IGF participants
0001326829,INDD_PG3298 252 7/19/2011 2:34:54 PM
multi-stakeholder approach and multi-trade diplomacy 253
13 Th ese include inter alia the yearly European Dialogue on Internet
Governance
(EuroDIG) (http://www.eurodig.org), the national Internet Governance Forum
in the
US in July 2010 
(http://igfusa.wordpress.com/2010/05/11/2010-igf-usa-at-georgetown
-law-center-in-dc-july-21), sub-regional forums, such as the one held in
Uganda in
September 2010 (http://www.eaigf.or.ke), and regional forums like the
Asian Forum in
June 2010 (http://rigf.asia) [all last accessed 3 December 2010].
14 See C. Malena, ŒStrategic Partnership: Challenges and Best Practices in
the
Management and Governance of Multi-Stakeholder Partnerships Involving UN
and
Civil Society Actors¹ (2004) Background paper for the Multi-Stakeholder
Workshop
on Partnerships and UN-Civil Society Relations, New York, available at:
http://
www.un.org/reform/civilsociety/pdfs/pocantino_booklet.pdf [last accessed
22 August
2010].
include key people of the information society who take the results
back to their institutions. Th is decentralised distribution of results by
diff erent members of the information society has contributed to the
success of the IGF. Apart from that, the successful formula of
multistakeholderism
as exemplifi ed by the IGF has been copied by regional
and even national internet governance forums.13
Strangely enough, representatives from the UN human rights system
were present in the person of the Special Rapporteur on Freedom
of Expression only since the IGF in Sharm el Sheikh in 2009, even
though stakeholders discuss a large number of human rights issues, for
example child protection or freedom of expression. Th e Council of
Europe by contrast actively uses the IGF as an opportunity to advance
its human rights agenda, and has participated with a large delegation
since the Forum was founded. Th e UN Educational, Scientifi c and
Cultural Organisation (UNESCO), the Organisation for Security and
Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), human rights NGOs and academics
specialised in human rights are also among the participants.
Th is experience raises the question of whether the multi-stakeholder
approach  and even multi-stakeholder partnerships which have a
stronger continuity  could also be used to increase the eff ectiveness
of UN human rights bodies, and to give a fresh momentum to the discussion
about strategies to be pursued in their reform process. Th is
discussion also resembles the debate on UN partnerships: a partnership-
based approach is relied on by the UN to strengthen their activities
in the fi elds of development and human rights in order to
implement goals more eff ectively.14
In the past, multi-track diplomacy has developed mainly in the context
of ensuring or restoring peace and security. Th e observation
underlying the multi-track approach is that diplomacy is not only a
0001326829,INDD_PG3298 253 7/19/2011 2:34:54 PM
254 wolfgang benedek
15 Compare the nine diff erent tracks of diplomacy identifi ed for
multi-track diplomacy:
Institute for Multi-Track Diplomacy, ŒWhat is Multi-Track Diplomacy?¹.
16 See Asia-Europe Foundation, Th e Th ird Informal ASEM Seminar on Human
Rights, Singapore 2000.
matter for diplomats, but also for a variety of other, oft en non-state
actors including civil society, individual citizens, NGOs, or church
groups like San Egidio in Rome, but also academic institutions or
business  with the role of the media deserving special attention.15
Th ink tanks can play a major role in multi-track diplomacy and other
institutions can make essential contributions through funding other
actors. In the context of human rights diplomacy, the EU practice of
funding a substantial research agenda in the fi eld of human rights is
worth mentioning. Fourteen diff erent consortia conducting EU-funded
research in the fi eld of human rights and democracy in the wider sense
met for the fi rst time in December 2008 in Brussels.

Best regards

Wolfgang

Univ.-Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Benedek
Institute for International Law and International Relations
University of Graz
Universitätsstraße 15, A4
A-8010 Graz
Tel.: +43/316/380/3411
Fax: +43/316/380/9455

Am 01.10.12 14:59 schrieb "michael gurstein" unter <gurstein at gmail.com>:

>Wolfgang and all,
>
>I`ve just had an opportunity to observe at somewhat close hand a series of
>multi-stakeholder processes at work (in Agriculture planning) in several
>African countries... I was quite impressed for a number of reasons which I
>won`t go into here (I`m currently working on the report...
>
>However, one conclusion that I would draw is that while
>`multi-stakeholderism` is in at least some instances very effective as an
>inclusive, let`s say `participative` management tool it is very far from
>what I, or I think almost anyone would call ``democratic`` (unless, as in
>some I think, quite perverse instances, one chooses to conflate the
>notions
>of management with democracy).
>
>The problem is that while multi-stakeholderism is inclusive of interests
>it
>is not necessarily accountable or representative of or for those
>interests.
>So for example, while a national or reagional farmers` union might be a
>very
>effective stakeholder representative of the interests of small holder
>farmers the precise process of accountability and representivity is in
>many
>instances a very open question subject to for example, the personailities
>of
>individuals, literacy, access to media and information, political
>interference etc. etc. The latter caveats do not preclude the former
>affirmations but they do strongly bracket the degree to which such
>processes
>could at all be called ``democratic`` at least within any definition of
>the
>term that I (or I would expect most of us) would understand.
>
>I think your broad objective of pursuing a framework for multi-stakeholder
>governance of the Internet is a worthwhile one and one I hope to
>contribute
>to in Baku, however, I think a useful outcome of that initiative would
>still
>leave open the question of overall democractic governance and
>accountability
>of the Internet.
>
>Best,
>
>Mike
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org
>[mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of "Kleinwächter,
>Wolfgang"
>Sent: Monday, October 01, 2012 5:53 AM
>To: Jean-Louis FULLSACK; governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>Subject: AW: [governance] Principles
>
>Hi Jean Louis,
> 
>like always: if you try to be short your produce misunderstandings. My
>reference point is the "round table" philosophy we had  in 1989 after the
>collapse of the German Democratic Repuiblic and which was - at least in my
>eyes - a very high form of a participatory democracy. This was killed
>within
>months by our west German brothers who said that such an involvement of
>all
>stakeholders is not needed in a representative democracy. WSIS has proofed
>that the involvement of non-govenrmental stakeholders, in particular civil
>society, in affairs which had been so far negotiated only by the
>representatives of governments, is not a bad idea.
> 
>The multistakeholder model offers an option to bring all parties on a
>equal
>footing into the process of a PDP, case by case. I agree that the existing
>models (IGF, ICANN) are far away from the ideal, but they are first steps
>into the right direction. The alternative - back to the intergovernmental
>treaty system - would be in my eyes a step backwards. This is not an
>argument against the intergovernmental treaty system (where needed), we
>need
>international law and the Charter of the United Nations with its jus
>cogens
>principles is a good document. But I see that such a intergovernmental
>treaty system needs additional (external) checks and balances and has
>today
>be embedded into a multistakeholder environment.  The WGIG definition
>speaks
>about "shared decision making procedures". At the end this will lead us
>to a
>discussion about the meaing of national (governmental) sovereignty in a
>globalised Internet based world.
> 
>It would make sense to start a discussion how to enhance our understanding
>of "sovereingty" and "self-determination" (two jus cogens principles from
>the UN Charter) in the Internet age. How a "shared sovereignty" (some
>people
>call it "collaborative sovereignty") could look like? Is this only for
>governments or should civil society and other Non-governmental
>stakeholders
>be part of this enhanced understanding of sovereignty?
> 
>Wolfgang
>
> 
>________________________________
>
>Von: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org im Auftrag von Jean-Louis
>FULLSACK
>Gesendet: Mo 01.10.2012 10:51
>An: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; Kleinwächter, Wolfgang; parminder
>Betreff: re: [governance] Principles
>
>
>
>Whoow !
>
> 
>
>Wolfgang Wrote
>
> 
>
><Wolfgang:
><Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory democracy
>
> 
>
>What's the next step ? Maybe
>
>Multistakeholderism will BE democracy
>
> 
>
>Not for me, neither in its current "version" nor in its possible future
>
> 
>
>Jean-Louis Fullsack
>
>
>
>
>
>	> Message du 01/10/12 09:52
>	> De : ""Kleinwächter, Wolfgang""
>	> A : governance at lists.igcaucus.org, "parminder" ,
>governance at lists.igcaucus.org
>	> Copie à : 
>	> Objet : [governance] Principles
>	> 
>	> Parminder:
>	> multistakeholderism (whats wrong with participatory democracy?)
>	> 
>	> Wolfgang:
>	> Multistakeholderism *IS* the highest form of participatory
>democracy
>	> 
>	> Parminder: 
>	> improvements to internationalism & national laws
>	> 
>	> Wolfgang:
>	> To errect (national) legal barriers for the free flow of
>information among people is a bad idea and contrary to individual human
>right to freedom of expression. Governments have an obligation under
>international law to guarantee access to and the distribution of
>information
>"regardless of frontiers". To undermine the borderless nature of the
>Internet and to introduce a system for Internet communication similar to
>global travel arrangements, (where you need a permission (visa) to leave
>or
>enter a country) brings us back into the cold war of the 20th century and
>would have bad and sad economic and social consequences in particular for
>individuals in developing countries.
>	> 
>	> In this context I repeat my proposal to start in Baku with the
>work on a global "Multistakeholder Framework of Committment" on Internet
>Governance and Internet Freedom (FoC) which could take on board all the
>ideas and proposals expressed in the 20+ Internet Governance Principles
>declarations, resolutions and guidelines which has been adopted in the
>last
>two years by IBSA, Shanghai, OECD, CoE, OSCE, UNESCO and numerous
>non-governmental platforms, including the IGF Dynamic Coalition in Rights
>and Principles. The message from Baku should be to invite the MAG to form
>a
>WGIG like multistakeholder group of experts (during its February 2013
>meeting in Paris) and to draft until the 8th IGF a first outline with the
>aim to have a substantial draft for high level discussion at the 9th IGF
>in
>2014 and to adopt such a FoC by acclamation at the 10th IGF in 2015.
>	> 
>	> wolfgang
>	> 
>	> ____________________________________________________________
>	> 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
>	> 
>
>
>
>

-------------- 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