Draft Declaration on the right to communicate

Since the announcement of the WSIS several draft declarations on the right to communicate have been formulated to be presented at the Summit itself. The idea is that an internationally authoritative statement on the right to communicate could be presented. These draft declarations follow the aforementioned categories, with some exceptions and perhaps different wordings in some instances. The draft declarations have been circulating in the civil society before any of them have been published so that the end result has received many contributions from various individuals and organisations, though they have been compiled by Cees Hamelink. A particular version, of December 2002, which received much attention and criticism (specifically from ARTICLE 19, a global campaign for free expression) will be discussed below.

The draft declaration begins from the Preamble section in which recognition for the already established principles of the international law is articulated. Other important statements recognise the right to communicate as "essential to the broader cause of defending all human rights world wide" and "a foundation of all social organization"

82

and therefore a fundamental human right. Following points include emphasising communication as a "fundamental and interactive process" and the importance of the role of dialogue for inclusion, cooperation and solidarity. A further elaboration on the point that none of the existing rights should be substituted by the right to communicate is made. From this framework articles of the right to communicate are put forward.

They are divided into six categories which are information rights, cultural rights, protection rights, participation rights, duties and responsibilities and implementation and monitoring methods. The content of the articles follows to large extent what was already discussed in the previous chapter with the exception of adding two categories, cultural rights and duties and responsibilities. The duties and responsibilities are recognised as complementing the right to communicate. A slight difference in the implementation and monitoring methods section is that it talks about creation of an international "Communication Rights Ombudsman" rather than the establishment of a committee.

5.5.1. Critique

This particular draft declaration produced criticism specifically from ARTICLE 19 which is an anti-censorship organisation or what they call "a global campaign for free expression". Their critique (2003) gives an excellent illustration on the problematic nature on formulating a right to communicate. The sources of criticism are compiled subsequently.

ARTICLE 19 responded to the draft declaration of December 2002 initially by arguing that it "seeks to impose a number of vague, broad restrictions on the right to freedom of expression, contrary to international law". Moreover, ARTICLE 19 asserted that the declarations left open the question on what implications the right to communicate would have and what states would need to do in order to respect the right to communicate.

The most distinct problem that ARTICLE 19 argued for was the undue restrictions on freedom of expression of which they as an example the article on protection against misleading information. ARTICLE 19 asserts that if this declaration on the right to communicate were to be accepted, it would mean the same as giving governments the license to repress critical or oppositional viewpoints.

83

Another source of criticism is, according to ARTICLE 19, that the declaration on right to communicate would undermine the already existing and recognised rights and human rights more generally. They argue that the additions made to the existing rights are unhelpful. Yet again the issue of freedom of expression is seen as the main reason for the argument that existing provisions would be undermined and further, that the restrictions go beyond legitimacy of international law.

A further source of criticism for ARTICLE 19 is the fact that the declaration does not adequately respond to the issue of equitable access to the media and means of communication in that only one clause refers to this issue. In their view equitable access is integral to the right to communicate and therefore should be given more attention in the declaration; the issue should be articulated in more detail and also, the concept of equitable access need further examination on how it can be promoted. This leads ARTICLE 19 to conclude that the draft declaration does not elaborate on the concepts that they perceive to be at the locus of the right to communicate and furthermore, argue that "essence" of the right to communicate is not interpreted correctly.

ARTICLE 19's standpoint is that it is unnecessary to have an international statement on the right to communicate because the clarification on the meaning of the right to communicate would not be made any clearer. Further, they argue that the implementation mechanisms for the already existing system should be developed rather than setting up new mechanism such as the Ombudsman that the draft declaration proposes. Ultimately what ARTICLE 19 is saying, is that the right to communicate already exists as an umbrella term under the already established human right framework.

The critique that ARTICLE 19 provided at the process of producing the draft declarations seemed a harsh attack when it was published, not the least because it called for others NGOs not to endorse the declaration. Some of their criticisms were of course valid. However, the forceful attack seemed inappropriate particularly because ARTICLE 19 is fighting ultimately for the same cause as the drafters of declaration although their approach may be different. Clearly the critique from ARTICLE 19 served as a reminder of how difficult a task it is to formulate a right to communicate with reference to the already existing human rights law. An examination on the events and

84

outcomes of the first phase of the WSIS in Geneva will result in the reiteration of the same argument.