Articles questioning and challenging ROL practices

I have been doing development work for long enough to start to ask the hard questions. Starting with HIV/AIDs rights in Thailand, then moving on to China, and Kosovo before settling down in Seattle over the last few years, I've experienced an array of development practices. Especially with my work with the NGO Leaders Conference in recent years that brings together top NGO leaders to talk, I am now seeing the development world for the industry that it is.

Anyway, this prelude is to say that I understand the debates (or at least the necessity of debates) in the field. In particular, with law and development, the revival of the field (if it is in fact one) in the last decade has emphasized the concept of 'Rule of Law' (ROL). This seemed to have resulted in aid agencies focusing on legal reform and governance work, as part of the popular "institutional building"/New Development Economics paradigm.

I recently questioned in this post if ROL programs, as practiced, are really just a resurrection of the Law and Development Movement (which I also blogged about here). My reaction was pragmatic one: While I am interested in these debates and intend to continue to follow them, my belief is that there will not be one true solution, and I seek solace in the practical differences I make to people. Still, from my humble bottom-up grassroots beginnings in the development world, in recent years I find myself focusing increasingly on strategic and institutional issues, governance and legal/judicial reform work, and high level policy and law. Definitely top-down. And at the 1000 foot level it is sometimes different to see if we do make any impact at all. 

In fact, the ROL practice have been increasingly questioned on effectiveness, and as in the post I mentioned above, challenged on not being different than in the 1960s. There seems to be increasingly more voice in academia abut ROL, such as in the following two articles:

• In Mythmaking in the Rule of Law Orthodoxy, by Frank Upham is professor of law at New York University School of Law, the criticism of the ROL practice sounds suspiciously like that of the Law and Development Movement of the 1960s: 

Summary: As governments and donor agencies struggle over questions of aid and international development, a growing consensus is emerging that there is an explicit link between rule of law reform and sustainable growth. However, this new rule of law orthodoxy ignores evidence that the formalist rule of law advocated by the World Bank and other donors does not necessarily exist in the developed world. Moreover, attempting to transplant a common template of institutions and legal rules into developing countries without attention to indigenous contexts harms preexisting mechanisms for dealing with issues such as property ownership and conflict resolution.As governments and donor agencies struggle over questions of aid and international development, a growing consensus is emerging that there is an explicit link between rule of law reform and sustainable growth. However, this new rule of law orthodoxy ignores evidence that the formalist rule of law advocated by the World Bank and other donors does not necessarily exist in the developed world. Moreover, attempting to transplant a common template of institutions and legal rules into developing countries without attention to indigenous contexts harms preexisting mechanisms for dealing with issues such as property ownership and conflict resolution.

• Also, as a follow up to his previous research work which I blogged about earlier this year, my colleague Stephen Golub (officiated with the Asia Foundation) recently published a paper not only challenging the current ROL practice, but proposing a bottom-up alternative focusing on marginal groups, an approach he calls 'Legal Empowerment'. This concept, in the last few years, seems to have made its appearance in many development circles as well. Not that it is a 'new' concept, as Stephen pointed out, because many local NGOs have been practicing it for years. It is a 'new' concept only in relative to the dominant top-down, ROL  reforms practiced today by big aid agencies. In Beyond Rule of Law Orthodoxy: The Legal Empowerment Alternative:

Summary: The international aid field of law and development focuses too much on law, lawyers and state institutions, and too little on development, the poor and civil society. In fact, it is doubtful whether "rule of law orthodoxy," the dominant paradigm pursued by many international agencies, should be the central means for integrating law and development. This working paper examines legal empowerment—the use of legal services and related development activities to increase disadvantaged populations' control over their lives—as an alternative.

Maybe I can hope: Might the big aid agencies go where the smaller grassroots have gone with the 'Rights Based'?approach? 

WSIS Geneva PLan of Action

Action Lines

There are 11 Actions Lines in the Geneva Plan of Action, which constitute the implementation framework for the post WSIS phase.

1. The role of public governance authorities and all stakeholders in the promotion of ICTs for development
2. Information and communication infrastructure
3. Access to information and knowledge
4. Capacity building
5. Building confidence and security in the use of ICTs
6. Enabling environment
7. ICT applications: benefits in all aspects of life
   
   • E-government
   • E-business
   • E-learning
   • E-health
   • E-Employment
   • E-environment
   • E-agriculture
   • E-science
8. Cultural diversity and identity, linguistic diversity and local content
9. Media
10. Ethical dimensions of the Information Society
11. International and regional cooperation

Themes

In addition to Action Lines, WSIS outcome documents have also focused on themes including Internet Governance, Financing ICT for Development and Measuring the Information Society.

1. Internet Governance Forum
2. Financing ICT for Development
3. Measuring the Information Society

Click here to view actual official documents. 

WSIS- end of Phase 1 Geneva Meeting 2003

WSIS, as fairly typical of a UN Conference of a relatively non-contentious topic, closed on happy tension. I'm just hoping that, in these early days of ICT in Development, that it is not just tech hype, and that technology is used as a relevant tool (vs an ends) to reach goals that will reduce poverty. 

Brief facts:

• The three-day Summit is the first multi-stakeholder global effort to discuss "the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for a better world". 
• 175 countries came together in Geneva 
• Documents: 
• a Declaration of Principles — or a common vision of an information society’s values – and 
• a Plan of Action which sets forth a road map to build on that vision and to bring the benefits of ICTs to underserved economies. The plan sets out an ambitious goal of bringing 50 percent of the world's population online by 2015 but does not spell out any specifics of how this might be achieved. (see next blog post for the summary plan of action)
• Other groups also created "unofficial documents", including a document by NGOs called a document called "Shaping Information Societies for Human Needs" that brought together a wide range of issues under a human rights and communication rights umbrella." 
• Go to:http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing-all-en-s|1.asp for the actual documents. See http://www.worldsummit2003.de/en/web/586.htm for a list of official and 'unofficial' documents). 
• An issue that emerged was Internet governance and the dominant role that the USA in policy making. The most radical ideas about devolving this authority were those supporting a civil society approach to Internet governance.
• The Geneva summit also left unresolved more controversial issues, including the question of Internet governance and funding.

Press Release:

Global Information Society Summit Spurs Solidarity, Alliances But Hard Work, Action Ahead

Geneva, 12 December 2003 — The World Summit on the Information Society closed on an optimistic note of consensus and commitment, but Yoshio Utsumi, Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union and Summit cautioned that the meeting was only the start of a long and complex process. 

"Telephones will not feed the poor, and computers will not replace textbooks. But ICTs can be used effectively as part of the toolbox for addressing global problems. The Summit’s successes now give us the necessary momentum to achieve this," he said.

"Building the inclusive information society requires a multi-stakeholder approach. The challenges raised — in areas like Internet governance, access, investment, security, the development of applications, intellectual property rights and privacy — require a new commitment to work together if we are to realize the benefits of the information society.

"Seeing the fruits of today’s powerful knowledge-based tools in the most impoverished economies will be the true test of an engaged, empowered and egalitarian information society, he added.

44 Heads of State, Prime Ministers, Presidents, Vice-Presidents and 83 ministers and vice-ministers from 175 countries came together in Geneva to endorse a Declaration of Principles — or a common vision of an information society’s values – and a Plan of Action which sets forth a road map to build on that vision and to bring the benefits of ICTs to underserved economies.

The three-day Summit is the first multi-stakeholder global effort to share and shape the use of information and communications technologies (ICTs) for a better world.

But the Summit was groundbreaking in other ways too. It offered a genuine "venue of opportunity" in a unique meeting of leaders, policy-makers, ICT business people, voluntary and non-governmental organizations of every possible kind, and top-level thinkers and speakers. Alongside the three-days of Plenary meetings and high-level roundtables, nearly 300 side-events helped bring the dream of an inclusive information society one-step closer to becoming reality.

Partnership announcements included a USD 400,000 grant by the US Government for ICT development in low-income countries. Cisco and ITU also signed a Memorandum of Understanding to open 20 more Internet Training Centres in developing countries. As well, Hewlett-Packard will provide low-cost products that will help overcome the illiteracy barrier to ICT. Handwritten texts for example will be recognized for e-mail transmission. Microsoft, working with UNDP, will provide a billion dollar programme over 5 years to bring ICT skills to underserved communities. One innovative initiative announced to bridge the digital divide is the Bhutan E-Post project. For faster, cheaper and more reliable communication to remote, mountainous areas of Bhutan, the Government of India will deliver e-post services to the Bhutanese Postal Service via a USD 400,000 a V-satellite network and solar panels power system. The partners include ITU, Bhutan Telecom and Post, Worldspace and Encore India. And at the very close of the Summit, the cities of Geneva and Lyon and the Government of Senegal have announced contributions totalling about 1 million euros to fund information technology in developing countries. The contributions will represent the first three payments towards the Digital Solidarity Fund, the creation of which is to be considered by a UN working group for the Tunis phase.


The second phase of the Summit takes place in Tunis in 2005 and will measure ambitious goals set this week. With WSIS phase I over, the hard work begins and hard work lies ahead in the two years before Tunis, to show that the information society is on the right path.


The overarching goal of the Summit has been to gain the will and commitment of policy-makers to make ICTs a top priority, and to bring together public and private sector players to forge an inclusive dialogue based on the interests of all. In these two respects, the Summit has been heralded a success.


United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan told delegates "technology has given birth to the information age. Now it is up to all of us to build an information society from trade to telemedicine, from education to environmental protection, we have in our hands, on our desktops and in the skies above, the ability to improve standards of living for millions upon millions of people.


Top Summit targets now remain to be achieved, including connecting all schools, villages, governments and hospitals, and bringing half the world’s population within ICT reach, all by the year 2015.


The Summit has clearly identified national e-strategies as the key vehicle to meet the targets. Connecting public places, revising school curricula, extending the reach of TV and radio broadcasting services and fostering rich multilingual content are all recognized as needing strong national-level governmental commitments. To encourage and assist national and local governments in this work, the Summit also foresees the development of international statistical indicators to provide yardsticks of progress; exchanges of experience to help develop "best practice" models, and the fostering of public-private partnerships internationally in the interests of sustainable ICT development.


Indeed, collaboration across the complex information society chain — from the scientists that create powerful ICT tools, to the governments that foster a culture of investment and rule of law, to the businesses that build infrastructure and supply services, to the media that create and disseminate content and — above all —human society which ultimately employs such tools and shapes their use —lays the foundation for an inclusive knowledge-based world on which the riches of an information society can flourish.


The Summit’s most notable achievement was across-the-board consensus earned for a Declaration of Principles and Plan of Action wording around several contentious issues, and the spirit of cooperation that permeated the Summit.


Internet governance, and financing ICT investments in underserved economies were two of the issues which called for long negotiations. On the issue of Internet management, the involvement of all stakeholders and intergovernmental organizations to address both technical and public policy issues has been underscored although global Internet governance is set to be the subject of deeper talks up to Tunis in 2005. An open and inclusive working group will be set up on the topic, in order to review and make proposals for action by the 2005 Summit.


Similarly on the issue of financing for underserved economies, a task force will be established to undertake a review of existing ICT funding mechanisms and will also study the feasibility of an international voluntary Digital Solidarity Fund.


On the areas of intellectual property rights and the need for enabling environments, universal access policies, and multilingual, diverse and culturally appropriate content to speed ICT adoption and use — particularly in the world’s most underserved economies — government-level commitment to follow a set of common values and principles has been attained.


Although these achievements fuel hope and may stoke further collaboration, Mr. Utsumi, together with many world leaders, appealed to all stakeholders keep the spirit of cooperation alive well beyond the two years to Tunis, and to back up universally agreed principles with concrete actions to spark more peace and prosperity across the planet.


"The realization of the Plan of Action is crucial to the long-term success of the Summit. We need imagination and creativity to develop projects and programmes that can really make a difference. We need commitment — on the part of governments, the private sector and civil society — to realistic targets and concrete actions. We need the mobilization of resources and investment," he said.


"With the unique occasion of a World Summit, we have the chance to scale up our ambitions to the global level, which is equal to the size of the challenge. Let us not miss this opportunity."

To access the Declaration and the Plan of Action go to:http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/listing-all-en-s|1.asp

A Legal Framework for Promoting ICT entrepreneurship in Developing Countries

My friend and colleague at the Berkman Center, Colin Maclay, facilitated a Workshop on Global ICT Education Program last month, which aims to offer training courses to young ICT leaders of developing countries. I'm hoping that I can connect my contacts in Asian eGovernance and eLaw to the program. 

What I found interesting, though, was ( Berkman Executive Director) John Palfrey's panel presentation on how to create a legal framework for ICT entrepreneurship in developing countries. You can access his well written post on his blog, but I give a summary as follows: 

• Adopt a value and culture of Rule of Law
• But understand that there is no 'one-size-fit-all' solutions
• Enact predictable and consistent laws/regulations
• Most crucial areas:
• Telecommunications regulations
• Pricing controls
• Intellectual property
• Needs an integrated approach to all existing relevant laws, not just focus on a narrow 'e-commerce law'
• Control corruption
• Promote competition

I think that this is a great overall framework, and much too have been written about the actual the policies and laws themselves, that I hope to blog about some time soon. 

Worries about WSIS in Geneva next month

The Civil Society Group for WSIS has released a statement after PrepCom 3 setting out their worries about the upcoming summit next month. This group includes NGOs, educational institutions, media and others who are participating as "civil society" in the preparations for the summit as well as the WSIS itself. It aims to broaden civil society participation at the summit and to push certain issues onto the agenda, including human rights, human-centered development, and freedom of speech and press.

The group's statement allows an intereting glimpse into the politics and chaos of the process that official documents and statements do not. I suspect that this is not exceptionally different than other high level, multi-stakeholder global conference. Note in particular the two major issues that this group warns of 1. politics, in particular who pays for it, and 2. the philosophical basis:

"Through our observation of the process we have identified two main problem areas that impede progress in the WSIS:

1. How to correct imbalances in riches, imbalances of rights, imbalances of power, or imbalances of access. In particular, governments do not agree on even the principle of a financial effort to overcome the so- called Digital Divide; this is all the mor difficult to accept given that the summit process was started two years ago with precisely that objective.

2. The struggle over human rights. Not even the basis of human life in dignity and equality, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds support as the basis for the Information Society. Governments are not able to agree on a comittment to basic human right standards as the basis for the Information Society, most prominent in this case being the freedom of expression. 

There is also ongoing fight over issues such as media, internet governance, limited intellectual monopolies such as copyright, Free Software, security and so on. This underlines our assessment that there is a lack of a common vision."

2003-11-14 Civil Society at the End of the Preparatory Process for the WSIS

---

Civil Society Statement at the End of the Preparatory Process for the World Summit on the Information Society Geneva, November 14, 2003


I. Where do we stand now?


We have come to the last day of PrepCom 3a. This extra week of preparatory work was neccesary after governments failed to reach agreement during the supposed final preparatory conference in September 2003. In spite of the extra expenditure of time and money, the deadlock continues – and sets in already on the very first article of the declaration, where governments are not able to agree on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948, as the common foundation of the summit declaration.
Through our observation of the process we have identified two main problem areas that impede progress in the WSIS:


1. How to correct imbalances in riches, imbalances of rights, imbalances of power, or imbalances of access. In particular, governments do not agree on even the principle of a financial effort to overcome the so- called Digital Divide; this is all the mor difficult to accept given that the summit process was started two years ago with precisely that objective.


2. The struggle over human rights. Not even the basis of human life in dignity and equality, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights finds support as the basis for the Information Society. Governments are not able to agree on a comittment to basic human right standards as the basis for the Information Society, most prominent in this case being the freedom of expression.


These are the essential conflicts among governments, as we see them now. There is also ongoing fight over issues such as media, internet governance, limited intellectual monopolies such as copyright, Free Software, security and so on. This underlines our assessment that there is a lack of a common vision.


II. Realpolitik or New Vision?


The underlying struggle we see here is the old world of governments and traditional diplomacy confronting challenges and realities of the 21st century.


We recognize the problems governments face in trying to address a range of difficult, complex and politically divisive issues in the two summit documents.


But this situation just reflects power struggles that we are seeing around the world. A number of governments realize that much is at stake, and they are responding defensively and nervously. They have noticed that they can not control media content or transborder information flows anymore, nor can they lock the knowledge of the world in the legal system of so-called "intellectual property".


Some governments are not prepared.


They fear the power of new technologies and the way people are using them to network, to create new forms of partnerships and collaboration, to share experiences and knowledge locally and globally.


This, combined with the fear and security paranoia of the past two years, compounds political uncertainty and is also played out in the WSIS process.


But: Do we want to base our vision of the information society on fear and uncertainty or on curiosity, compassion and the spirit of looking forward?


The WSIS process has slowly but constantly been moving from "information" to "society". It was started with a technocratic infrastracture-oriented perspective in the ITU. We are proud to say that we were crucial in bringing home the idea that in the end, the information society is about people, the communication society is about social processes, and the knowledge society is about society's values. In the end, it is not digital – it is dignity that counts.


The whole process has shown a lack of interest among some governments in forming a common vision for the information society. It is not clear if this was ever the agenda. Probably governments are just not prepared to draft a vision anyway. They are not good at that.


III. The limits of good faith


This is the first time that civil society has participated in such a way in a summit preparation process. We have worked very hard to include issues that some did not expect to be included. We have had some successes, while in a number of areas we were not heard or even listened to.


If the governments want to agree, they can agree in 5 minutes. We now have the feeling that there is no political will to agree on a common vision.


Therefore we will now stop giving input to the intergovernmental documents. Our position is that we do not want to endorse documents that represent the lowest common denominator among governments – if there will be anything like that.


We have produced essential benchmarks – our ethical framework – of which we present the latest version today. The governments risk overlooking these key issues in the hairsplitting and compromise of negotiations if they do not take into account our input more seriously.


The current stalemate deepens our belief in the need for the inclusion of all stakeholders in decision-making processes. Where rulers cannot reach consensus, the voices of civil society, communities and citizens can and should provide guidance.


IV. Bringing back vision into the process


We don't need governments's permission. We take our own responsibility. Someone has to take the lead, if governments won't do it, civil society will do it.


We have now started to draft our own vision document as the result of a two-year, bottom-up, transparent and inclusive online and offline discussion process among civil society groups from all over the world.


We will present our vision at the summit in Geneva in December 2003. We invite all interested parties, from all sectors of society, to join us in open discussion and debate in a true multi-stakeholder process.


New mechanisms and structures are possible and can resolve these impasses and enable people to work together globally and inclusively.


V. Looking beyond Geneva


Without funding and real political commitment from governments, there is no real Action Plan today. But the present draft provides an agenda, a list of issues of common concern.


Governments know they cannot address these issues alone. Any mechanism for the period following Geneva that does not closely associate civil society and other stakeholders is not only unacceptable in principle, it is also doomed to fail.


Like many other actors, including some governments, we do not want the opportunities offered by the unique gathering in Geneva to be wasted. We hope to find substantial improvement for the phase leading us to the second phase of the summit in 2005.


This process is going so badly, someone has to take the initiative to save it from destruction. If governments don't - we today declare ourselves ready to assume this important responsibility with all actors sharing our concerns.


Irrespective of the outcomes of the World Summit on the Information Society in December 2003, civil society will continue what we have been doing all the time: Doing our work, implementing and renewing our vision, working together in local and global bottom-up processes - and thereby shaping a shared and inclusive knowledge society.


(Document at http://movimientos.org/foro_comunicacion/show_text.php3?key=2272)

A Dialogue on ICTs and Poverty: The IDRC-Harvard Forum

As part of the WSIS Geneva 2003 pep process, IDRC and Harvard held their first groundbreaking forum on ICTs and poverty in September 2003, - 30 experts from around the world gathered at Harvard University to discuss how information and communication technologies (ICTs) can help to reduce poverty. The participants included members of the Harvard faculty, educators, academics, and engineers from developing countries, and Nobel prize winning economists. 


Some quick facts:



Their objectives were:

• to discuss the connections between diffusion of ICTs, and poverty, in developing countries of different kinds; 
• to consider ways which ICT policies, management and investments can be more effective for poverty reduction; 
• to consider priority areas for action and research, for increasing the contribution of ICTs to poverty reduction.

Highlights:

You can access the summary of the forum here. A summary video, interviews with participants, and an extensive background survey of ICTs for Poverty Reduction, can be accessed at the IDRC site here. This is a really new and multidisciplinary field, with much more to be learned for sure. I'm surely excited to be at the forefront of this movement in ICT4D!

‘Legal Empowerment: Advancing Good Governance and Poverty Reduction’ - An ABD/TAF pubication

I recently questioned in this post if Rule of Law (ROL) programs, as practiced, are really just a resurrection of the Law and Development Movement (which I also blogged about here). My reaction was pragmatic one: While I am interested in these debates and intend to continue to follow them, my belief is that there will not be one true solution, and I seek solace in the practical differences I make to people. Still, from my humble bottom-up grassroots beginnings in the development world, in recent years I find myself focusing increasingly on strategic and institutional issues, governance and legal/judicial reform work, and high level policy and law. Definitely top-down. And at the 1000 foot level it is sometimes different to see if we do make any impact at all.

Recently, however, The Asia Foundation, with funding from the ABD, published a paper suggesting a bottom-up approach: ‘Legal Empowerment: Advancing Good Governance and Poverty Reduction’, in Law and Policy Reform at the Asian Development Bank, by Stephen Golub and Kim McQuay Manila, 2001 (Full document at the ADB's website.) This article speaks to me, in light of my past experiences in the field, with NGOs like the one mentioned in the paper. Moving away from top-town ROL via institutions, the article uses disadvantaged groups as the focal point of asking: How can legal services and related activities increase their control over their lives? This also intersects nicely with Sen's 'freedom' concept, as well as the 'Rights Based' approaches that many prominent grassroots focussed NGOs- like CARE and Oxfam- have adopted.

Summary:

(The summary below is an adaption from DFID's id21 review which can be found online here):

The article is a result of a seven-country study over a year. Using mainly qualitative inquiries, the results indicate that many NGOs and law schools help improve governance and reduce poverty as they address human rights (including minority and gender rights), the environment, agrarian reform, labour and other issues. Typically, these NGO initiatives do not involve only lawyers and are not confined to legal services, such as litigation, representation, negotiation, counselling and training. Instead they integrate that legal work with other efforts that build the capacities and power of marginalised populations – hence the term ‘legal empowerment’. These efforts can involve group formation, community development, community organising, paralegal training, political mobilisation, administrative advocacy and alliance building (with both government and civil society elements if possible). Invoking the law, they form a rights-based development strategy.

Key findings include:

• Legal empowerment can improve the poor’s material resources and circumstances. It also alleviates poverty in the broader sense of strengthening the poor’s participation in decisions affecting their lives.
• Legal empowerment helps the poor understand and influence government, particularly regarding the rights, needs and issues to which they attach highest priority.
• While basic legal knowledge is helpful, often the disadvantaged cannot assert their rights unless they are organised. Thus the notion of ‘knowledge is power’ does not carry as much weight as that of ‘organisation is power’.
• Civil society shows greater dedication and creativity than government in constructing legal empowerment strategies. Vibrant civil society, and laws that protect it, are important for such strategies.
• Many of the poor’s legal needs and avenues for addressing them do not involve the courts. Administrative bodies, local governments, legislatures, alternative dispute resolution and informal processes often offer better vehicles for seeking justice.
• Lawyers do not always play leading roles in legal empowerment. They may instead support the work of development NGOs, community leaders and the poor themselves.
• While legal empowerment contributes to good local governance and getting laws enforced, it can also advance national legal and institutional reform by educating, mobilising and drawing on the experience of disadvantaged groups.

Policy recommendations include the following:

• Legal empowerment should be integrated into mainstream socio-economic development projects. This could benefit projects and populations concerned with natural resources, women’s health, rural development, land tenure, decentralization and other fields by helping the poor engage with legal issues and institutions involved.
• Legal empowerment should also be supported under the rubric of building the rule of law and human rights, because it directly addresses many of the poor’s greatest legal needs.
• Such support should be focused on NGOs and law school programs wherever possible.
• Law and development should be integrated by building bridges between the professionals involved. Law students should be engaged with development work through innovative clinical programs. Development workers should be introduced to legal knowledge and services.
• The recent qualitative studies should be complemented by supporting surveys and related research that quantify the impact of legal empowerment. For example, demographically similar intervention and control populations should be compared.
• Especially where civil society is weak, long-term strategies should be employed, realistic expectations should be retained, and inter-community and international exchanges should be used to fuel the flow of new ideas.

Worldsummit2003.org- information on WSIS, seen with German lens.

Stumbled upon a great 'unofficial' resource of WSIS, with lots of good facts and repository of documents. In Germany, a WSIS working group initiated by the Network New Media and the Heinrich Böll Foundation, has been meeting continuously since mid-2002. This group has gradually developed into a broader Germany-wide civil society coordination for the WSIS, and worldsummit2003.org is their site:


Worldsummit2003.org offers background information and latest news on the WSIS process and on the issues and debates around the summit. It was set up by the Heinrich Boell Foundation in February 2003 and is part of the efforts of the Foundation to spread knowledge and information about the summit, both in Germany and internationally. The site editors are members of the German WSIS Civil Society Coordinating Group and are also active in the international civil society activities on WSIS.

The site seeks to combine several objectives. It is
1. a general info site about the WSIS for civil society worldwide
2. an information source for German civil society, particularly
3. a window for the rest of the world to find out about WSIS preparation in Germany


http://www.worldsummit2003.de

Berkman Center's Internet Law Program at Stanford, June 30-July 4

The Berkman Center's Internet Law Program, presented in conjunction with Stanford's Center for Internet and Society, will take place at Stanford on June 30-July 4.

Fees range from $700 (for a day session) to $2,500 (standard registration). No prior background in the subject of Internet Law is required; however, American lawyers may be eligible for Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credit. Check out the agenda - it spans across a wide and interesting range of subjects (as fitting for this cross cutting, emerging topic)  to explore all aspects of contemporary Internet Law, delivered via a series of lectures and discussions designed. I am suspecting that, like all Harvard programs, this will be intensive, interactive, group based and case-method centered.

(updated 9/4/05): Check out a the even wider scope schedule for the 2005 program.

Are Rule of Law (ROL) programs a repeat of the Law and Development Movement?

There has been a resurgence in the notion of law in development in the last decade. I suspect that it was fueled by the end of the Cold War giving rise to a plethora of 'Transitioning Economies' that needed, among other things, to 'transition' their legal and judicial systems. I do wonder, though, how this phase of programs by international donors is different than the Law and Development Movement in the 1960s.

I ask this from afar, as the type of work that I did in Thailand and China in the 1990s were of a different nature, being more of a grassroots type of work such as:

• legal assistance and empowerment of HIV patients in rural Thailand, 
• legal issues faced by Thai and China hill tribes 
• grassroots advocacy of human rights of Aung San Suu Kyi and Burma 
• human rights monitoring in Kosovo 

My satisfaction in my work was complete. While we didn't do any impact monitoring per se (those were the earlier days where M&E was just becoming a topic), it was obvious to see the difference our efforts made in the lives of the people I was working for. I have friends in the legal and judicial reform world (also broadly known as 'Rule of Law'), where most of bilateral and multilateral money seems to be pouring into. It was frustrating when we were trying to raise funds for our programs so see so much funding go into government reforms where the 'trickle down' effect was truly questionable.

Anyway, I wonder if this 'flavor of the month' really helps, or if it is just a repeat of the 1960s Law and Development Movement of top-down, 'technical assistance'. I realized that I was not alone in asking this question, as there has been much debate about this question.

The proponents are saying that this is different because:

• While some of the big World Bank or USAID projects appear similar, the implementation is different because the focus are on the substantive laws and institutions that promote growth (with local consideration taken into context), as opposed to a wholesale import of laws and legal culture. 
• Recent economic analysis have shown that legal reform projects arguably have contributed to growth 
• Moreover, there have been much documentation of lessons learned, that can be applied this round 
• Rule of Law, even if arguably not central to development, should be a goal in itself 

The skeptics's arguments are:

• The assumption that legal reform contributes to economic growth is still highly questionable, and there is not enough current research to refute it 
• There is little agreement about priorities and strategy- each aid organization seems define and implement 'Rule of Law' entirely differently 
• This is still a transfer of the 'American legal system' 
• This is still a top-down approach that is dependent on the state government (which usually is the problem itself) 
• This is still a 'technical assistance' that does not take political reality into consideration when designing projects (this argument is most directed at the Banks, many who have policies of 'non-intervention' in a country's politics) 
• Law in Development is not a stand-alone legal field. It is in fact a complex, multidisciplinary field that should be both top-down and bottom up, as well as integrated into other aid sectors 

My takeaway

is that the development field, is more a social science field than a purely economic field. What that means is that unlike the latter which tends to create simple and general frameworks, it is a complex evolving learning which will never be complete. Unless we know the Truth of 'Life', it is hard to uncover what the Truth of 'development', or 'Law in Development' is. So I'm comfortable with not knowing, and in fact, find comfort not in the theories of development, but the impact I make which I can experience first hand.

Read more:

• Faundez, Julio. 1997. Good Governance and Law: Legal and Institutional Reform in Developing Countries. New York: St. Martin's Press.
• McAuslan, Patrick. 1997. "Law, Governance, and the Development of the Market: Practical Problems and Possible Solutions." In Faundez 1997.
• North, Douglass C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Thome, Joseph R. 1997. "Comment on McAuslan's 'Law, Governance and the Development of the Market: Practical Problems and Possible Solutions.'

World Summit Information Society (WSIS)- What is it?

WSIS stands for World Summit on the Information Society, and is a UN summit that is to be held in two phases- in Geneva in 2003 and Tunis in 2005. Its legal basis is in the UN General Assembly Resolution 56/183 adopted on 21 December 2001, a result of the instigation the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) which placed the question of the holding of such a conference on the agenda of the United Nations. In January 2002, the United Nations General Assembly endorsed a proposal for a global summit on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) issues. The International Telecommunications Union (ITU) took the lead in organizing the event, which included the participation of more than 50 heads of state. WSIS is also related to UNESCO.


What is a UN Conference?

A UN Conference (or "Summit") involves Heads of state and government and other high-profile world leaders from intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations as well as from civil society and the private sector, usually dealing with themes of humanity. Summit events have put long-term, difficult problems like poverty at the top of the global agenda. The participation of thousands of NGOs, citizens, academics and businesspeople, in both the official and unofficial meetings, has turned these conferences into "global forums".

UN Summits have been held on a variety of issues that have commanded the attention of the world. The World Summit on the Information Society is unique in that it was envisaged to meet in two phases: The Geneva Summit in December 2003 will lay the foundations with a Declaration of Principles and a Plan of Action. The Tunis Summit, meeting in 2005, will monitor and evaluate progress on the Action Plan and devise an Agenda that will target goals for achievement by 2015.


Why a Summit on the 'Information Society'?
(from the formal ITU-WSIS) literature

The Digital Revolution

The digital revolution, fired by the engines of Information and Communication Technologies, has fundamentally changed the way people think, behave, communicate, work and earn their livelihood. It has forged new ways to create knowledge, educate people and disseminate information. It has restructured the way the world conducts economic and business practices, runs governments and engages politically. It has provided for the speedy delivery of humanitarian aid and healthcare, and a new vision for environmental protection. It has even created new avenues for entertainment and leisure. As access to information and knowledge is a prerequisite to achieving the Millennium Development Goals – or MDGs -, it has the capacity to improve living standards for millions of people around the world. Moreover, better communication between peoples helps resolve conflicts and attain world peace.


The Digital Divide

Paradoxically, while the digital revolution has extended the frontiers of the global village, the vast majority of the world remains unhooked from this unfolding phenomenon. With the ever-widening gulf between knowledge and ignorance, the development gap between the rich and the poor among and within countries has also increased. It has therefore become imperative for the world to bridge this digital divide and place the MDGs on the ICT-accelerated speedway to achievement.

Read more at the ITU website's WSIS section.

The 1960s Law and Development Movement

What is the Law and Development Movement?

In the 1960s, about a decade after the aid industry started, USAID and Ford Foundation (with other smaller donors), started an ambitious project on legal and judicial reform in developing countries. Some key assumptions and features of this movement included:

• Law is CENTRAL to development (ie is it not a means nor context-dependent)- law is an engine of change and can lead to development.
• Law reform (changes in substantive laws, in large part based on US laws) needs to take place
• The major actor is the legal profession (judges and lawyers) who will spearhead and push for reform, so legal education was key
• A technical, top-down transfer of the American legal system and its culture
• Led by US lawyers and law professors (not multi-disciplinary)

Did it fail?

A little more than a decade later, key academic participants (Trubek and Galanter 1974; Merryman 1977) and a former Ford Foundation official (Gardner 1980) declared the program a failure, and support quickly evaporated. Reasons cited for failure:

• The assumption that law is central to development (ie law reform will impact development) might be incorrect
• It was a packaged, top down approach (from US to developing countries) with no participation from the recipients- the simplistic transfer of the US legal system does not work
• There was little consideration of local realities, such as culture and informal legal systems

However, not everyone agrees that the movement failed, mainly for the following reason:

• Impact of reforms usually take decades before they can be seen, it was too soon to concede failure only after one decade. Some recent works (30 years later) report that some impact can be currently witnessed.  

Read more: 

• Trubek, David M., and Marc Galanter. 1974. "Scholars in Self-Estrangement: Some Reflections on the Crisis in Law and Development." Wisconsin Law Review 1974: 1062–1101
• Burg, Elliot M. 1977. "Law and Development: A Review of the Literature and a Critique of 'Scholars in Self-Estrangement.'" American Journal of Comparative Law 25:492–530.
• Gardner, James. 1980. Legal Imperialism: American Lawyers and Foreign Aid in Latin America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

• McClymont, Mary and Stephen Golub, eds. 2000. Many Roads to Justice: The Law-Related Work of Ford Foundation Grantees Around the World. New York: The Ford Foundation.
• Tamanaha, Brian Z. 1995. "The Lessons of Law-and-Development Studies" American Journal of International Law 89:470-486.

Technology hits the international development scene?

In November 2002, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan issued a Challenge to Silicon Valley^[1] to create nearly up-to-date computers and communications systems that would enable villages to afford Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D). Some examples from around the world were:

• the Simputer movement in India
• Pocket PC from Microsoft in Redmond, Washington, United States
• free metropolitan wireless systems
• the MIT Media Lab program to create a $100 laptop
• localization of Linux into languages not supported by commercial vendors