Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
1|Page
remembered for the MDGs, but actually located these in a more general
framework of rights and justice, viz
‘We consider certain fundamental values to be essential to international
relations in the twenty-first century. These include:
Freedom. Men and women have the right to live their lives and raise their
children in dignity, free from hunger and from the fear of violence,
oppression or injustice. Democratic and participatory governance based on
the will of the people best assures these rights.
Tolerance. Human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of
belief, culture and language. Differences within and between societies
should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of
humanity. A culture of peace and dialogue among all civilizations should
be actively promoted.
2|Page
Shared responsibility. Responsibility for managing worldwide economic
and social development, as well as threats to international peace and
security, must be shared among the nations of the world and should be
exercised multilaterally. As the most universal and most representative
organization in the world, the United Nations must play the central role.’
More recently, similar themes have been picked by by David Held and
David Mepham, in their book Progressive Foreign Policy. They say that
‘progressives can be thought of as those committed to human rights, social
justice, sustainability, democracy, the international rule of law and
multilateralism.’
I don’t pretend that all this is consistent and that we can draw a perfect
circle which encompasses Miller, Sen, the Millennium Declaration, Held
and Mepham. Distributional issues, for example, are treated rather
differently in the different formulations. Nevertheless, these contributions
provide a platform for discussion.
Now, where do ministers stand? In a blog back in October, I explored the
values being promoted by the new administration in the UK, and wrote
this:
‘On the question of values, I had occasion to re-read a selection of recent
ministerial speeches, and thought there were some strong statements which
could usefully be linked together into a new narrative about social justice
or social inclusion seen from a global perspective. Some key quotes are:
Gordon Brown, UN, 31 July: called for a ‘new age of empowerment’ and
said ‘our task is to support and empower you in the open, transparent
decision making and reforms you need to make’. He talked about being
‘committed to the rights of every child’.
Gordon Brown, Mansion House speech, 12 November: talked about ‘the
timeless values that underpin our policies at home – our belief in the
liberty of all, in security and justice for all, in economic opportunity and
environmental protection shared by all’. He said ‘it is possible for the first
3|Page
time in human history, to contemplate and create a global society that
empowers people’.
David Miliband – Bruges speech, 15 November: ‘across Europe, people
are feeling a divergence between the freedom and control they have in
their personal lives, and the sense of powerlessness they face against the
great global challenges we face: from preventing conflict and terrorism, to
addressing climate change, energy security, and religious extremism. They
are confident about personal progress, but pessimistic about societal
progress’.
Douglas Alexander, Washington Speech, 12 July: ‘we must now advance
the case for change by better articulating the commonly held values around
which we must rally the whole international community . . . we must be
driven by core values, not special interests. Our place in the world depends
on us making choices based on values – values like opportunity,
responsibility, justice.’
For links to these speeches and for further thoughts, see my blog on 15
October: ‘Important messages from the UK Government on International
Development. Are we listening?’
4|Page
The net is cast much wider in the Millennium Declaration (freedom,
equality, solidarity etc . . .), and this is reflected in the current
preoccupation with voice and the accountability of public institutions – not
just for instrumental reasons, as a route to good government, but also, at
least in the case of ‘voice’, as intrinsic goods.
Second, rights are central – especially economic, social and cultural rights.
As the ODI programme on Rights in Action has demonstrated, there are
many issues about legislative frameworks, the administration of justice
and the responsibilities of national and international ‘duty-bearers’ to
deliver progressive (i.e incremental) improvements in access. A key point
for me has always been that having a right to, say, education or health, is
about more than having access to schooling or treatment: having a ‘right’
to education means being able to go to school, that goes without saying,
but also having recourse through the administration or the courts, if a
school is not provided.
5|Page
is around 0.65, higher than for any national gini, and at a level which, if
seen in a single country, would pretty well guarantee social unrest. What, I
wonder, would those who campaign for global social justice see as a
reasonable global gini? And what measures would they recommend, and
over what time scale, to achieve it?
6|Page
Individuals are able to maximise their capabilities and potential;
1656.pdf
Authors
Simon Maxwell
7|Page
Senior Research Associate
See more:
8|Page