by

Understanding Global Frameworks with Private International Law

I know that my work on this blog has referenced international law extensively, but I have included another version of my argument from my final paper here with the hope that any peers reading this will ask me questions that will help challenge my project’s validity. The efficacy of global frameworks relies on their being operational. The operation of all of these frameworks rely on understanding international law within their frameworks. The prohibitive complexity of private international law (PIL) has kept it from becoming involved to any significant degree in the mainstream discourse occurring at most of the more prominent conferences on international law, let alone international development. Diversity and ambition of the Sustainable Development Goals make it literally impossible for a conference to cover every issue. That being said, there are several forums in which PIL could be discussed as a relevant dimension where it has to this point been neglected to the detriment of each of these forums. For example, in the conversation concerning inclusive cities, PIL is fundamental to, but not included in, the topics covered. Individuals working with certain international corporations that have local offices in specific cities need to be able to interact legally with their employers. This is a major issue in cities which act as hubs of international trade and commerce. Often the corporations for which these individuals work are established in one country but open smaller offices all over the world. Occasionally these corporations are created as limited liability corporations of LLCs which add further separations between the employee and employer as legal entities. These barriers make the employee legally mute in many cases from making it legally impossible for him to interact with the real employing company. This can greatly complicate any employment-related cases which the employer wishes to try against the parent company or, theoretically, when the parent corporation looks to try a case against employees or a group of employees. Without an ability to navigate PIL effectively, these urban workers cannot interact legally with their employer, and they cannot have full access to justice.

This obstacle between employers and employees is also relevant to the High-level Political forum. Of their listed goals, Goal 9 codifies a commitment to “Build resilient infrastructure, promote inclusive and sustainable industrialization and foster innovation”. The persistence of the aforementioned problem inhibits any international firm investing in physical infrastructure. It impedes any organization or individual seeking to invest in an industry in another country, and it impedes a worker from the industrializing country engaging legally with an industry that may have its headquarters on the other sides of national borders. The information barrier also acts as a disincentive to individuals or corporations which seek innovation through international cooperation. It is ironic that this forum based on international cooperation is another forum that fails to address a substantial impediment to international cooperation.

by

Grand Challenges

To build upon what other classmates have pointed out, when we talk about Grand Challenges we are referring to goals that are ambitious to say the least. Louis Branscomb defines them as “technically complex societal problems that have stubbornly defied solution” (Branscomb). Multidimensional, complex, and cross-cutting are all accurate ways in which other classmates have defined these challenges. Moreover, when we hear the word “challenge” in our academic setting, our automatic response is to focus on solutions. In the case of the global Grand Challenges, the innovations that result from brainstorming possible solutions also deserve recognition – even if the concrete answers haven’t been discovered. The White House highlights on their “21st Century Grand Challenges” webpage the caliber of science, technology, and innovation that are required to brainstorm solutions and “capture the public’s imagination.” This is one example of how Grand Challenges have acted as a catalyst for innovative ideas.

In an effort to overcome the challenges that face the globe, humanity has expanded our frontiers of knowledge. We have also been forced to collaborate with sectors of the population that do not always see eye-to-eye. Branscomb emphasizes the importance of intellectual curiosity in developing new ideas – and the Grand Challenges are often discussed as a framework to inspire innovation rather than issues to be resolved by a specific date. The MDGs and SDGs provide a perfect example of how the international community approaches Grand Challenges. The MDGs were the first step towards goals such as eradicating poverty and promoting environmental sustainability. However, there were details lacking in this framework. The SDGs serve as the replacement and have included a wealth of information that was lacking in the MDGs. This demonstrates how the development literature adapts over time in order to become more inclusive and to overcome some of the issues brought up within the Grand Challenges discourse. The intellectual environment that is created by the Grand Challenges allows for quicker, more effective ideas to develop over time.

The cornerstone of developing ideas that will help us overcome Grand Challenges is the marriage of science and policy. Public policies that steers scientific innovation in the direction of helping society overcome certain challenges is crucial to making progress overcoming any of the Grand Challenges. What is more, there are stakeholders beyond the government and the scientists that can benefit from the conversation in overcoming grand challenges. Therefore, both international multistakeholder cooperation and technological innovation are both necessary if the global society is to overcome the Grand Challenges.

by

Crossroads in Development

Intersectionality in international development is a largely feminist theory, originating in response to the lack of gender sensitivity and overall presence of gender-based inequalities in traditional development approaches. While its roots are in feminism, intersectionality can be and has been extended to cover a larger scope of development topics, including gender, disability, poverty, and age, among others. Basically, intersectionality in development is the idea that there are inevitably crossovers in who and what development agendas seek to address. No person or topic lives in a vacuum, and instead, our population is made up of unique individuals, each with their own complex identity. For example, one female can be hearing impaired and live in poverty, while another female might be visually impaired and homosexual; so while they may have similar gender concerns and even disability concerns, they could also have different disability, economic, and social concerns.

Recently, I have been interning at a development consulting firm on a project based in Ghana that seeks to address private-sector midwives in six of the ten regions in Ghana. While the project is mainly focused on providing these midwives with the business skills needed to run a successful clinic, we also partner with a national midwives association and work to build the capacity of this organization. As an intern with some experience and knowledge in the area of disability, one of my roles has been to support the incorporation of disability into the project. That being said, the concept of intersectionalities in development has been a recurring theme in my research; the intersection being between disability, poverty, and gender, with an added component of maternal concerns. While “general” gender inequalities have been addressed with greater effort and sensitivity in recent years, there remains little to be done for women with disabilities, especially in the area of sexual and reproductive health. I found that there are stigmas around the world that include the perception that PWDs can not have sex, should not have sex, and/or should not be parents. These stigmas contribute to the exclusion of PWDs from learning about sexual health and have led to many unplanned pregnancies, unsafe deliveries, and the spread of STIs, among other issues. This week, one of my supervisors was able to meet with a couple of the leading disabled persons organizations (DPOs) in Ghana to discuss potential training opportunities for midwives so as to provide better services for women with disabilities, among other discussion points. This type of discussion is promising for the future and shows that there is always room for improvement in various disciplines by recognizing and attempting to address intersectionalities in development.

When designing development frameworks, it is important to recognize these intersectionalities so as not to further marginalize populations by ignoring certain groups and/or by unknowingly using language that is too specific and leads to further exclusion. The best way to address these concerns is through discussion between relevant stakeholders, as can subtly be seen with the implementation of the UN Major Groups Framework and invitations to other relevant stakeholders.

 

by

Intersectionality

Intersectionality refers to the concept that social identities are overlapping, connected, and fall within systems of power, oppression, and discrimination. In other words, a person can be many things at once and each identity always has an “other” that it is pitted against and possibly discriminated against. In relation to inclusive sustainable development, intersectionality is key.Historically, vulnerable populations – like women, children, and persons with disabilities (PWDs) – have been excluded and absent from global development policy making it extremely difficult to elevate the groups that need it the most. My capstone on refugee menstrual health aims to highlight an intersectionality between global development and women’s health.

Recent policy and global frameworks – like the Major Groups Framework and the SDGs – have made great strides in the fight to make development much more inclusive of different intersectionalities. For example, the major groups included nine groups that were previously excluded from the decision-making process (women, children and youth, indigenous peoples, non-governmental organizations, local authorities, workers and trade unions, businesses and industry, scientific and technology community, and farmers). In addition, the SDGs are much more inclusive, describing a wide array of identity types in their indicators and sub-goals. The major groups framework allows many groups to have a say in the development decisions that directly affect their communities on the local level.

Despite the progress made to make development more intersections, there is still a major blind spot. For example, even though they make up about 15% of the world’s populations PWDs are still excluded as a major group and often struggle to literally get a seat at the table. As we’ve discussed this semester, PWDs face a very specific set of barriers in nearly every aspect of development from physical accessibility to cognitive accessibility. If these issues aren’t addressed and eradicated, development will never be fully inclusive. Any person can have a disability regardless of race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc. it is one of the only identities that can transcend and cut across nearly every identity. If you’re alive, you could have a disability. Because PWDs are often excluded and made invisible, policy often lacks providing necessary and adequate support. Therefore, if the development community can make every single policy keeping in mind that PWDs will be affected, we are one step closer to creating a much more inclusive, sustainable world.

by

Multi-Stakeholder Internet Governance

Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information Lawrence E. Strickling of the Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration said “The multi-stakeholder model of Internet governance is the best mechanism for maintaining an open, resilient, and secure Internet because, among other things, it is informed by a broad foundation of interested parties arriving at consensus through a bottom-up process regarding policies affecting the underlying functioning of the Internet domain system.” This sentiment is the best summary of the sentiments of the frameworks in this class regarding internet governance. Specifically, the Internet Governance Forum has epitomized the prioritization of uniting many varied stakeholders together to maintain the internet as open, resilient and secure.

The Internet Governance Forum serves to bring together people from various stakeholder groups as equals. They focus on community leaders, NGO and corporate representatives, and governments. The Forum seeks to unite these dispirit entities in discussions on public policy issues relating to internet governance and the Internet as a tool. While the IGF has no negotiated outcomes as of the end of 2016, it serves a purpose similar to the Sustainable Development goals by uniting those with policymaking power in both private and public sectors towards an end that benefits the world. The Internet Governance Forum facilitates a common understanding of how to optimize Internet opportunities while simultaneously addressing the risks and challenges inherent in reliance on internet use.

The Internet Governance Forum community holds an annual meeting to allow relevant stakeholders normally attended by over 2000 delegates. This meeting is intended to produce tangible outcomes through its scheduled activities. The IGF’s annual meeting is organized by the multi-stakeholder advisory group (MAG), which is intended to represent equally the interests of every stakeholder group. The MAG also encourages members of each group to see the other groups as equal partners. At the IGF’s annual meeting, delegates exchange information and best practices. The most recent meeting actually started on December 6th of this year in Guadalajara, Mexico. The IGF’s schedule focuses on best practices as well as other initiatives intended to facilitate general IGF community activities. This intersessional program was designed in accordance with a 2012 report recommending the development of additional tangible outputs to ‘enhance the impact of the IGF on global Internet governance and policy’.

 

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/multistakeholder-1.pdf

by

Intersectionality in Sustainable Development

Intersectionality is the study of intersecting social identities – such as race, gender, social class, etc. As we highlighted in class, intersectionality exists among the Major Groups Framework. The nine major groups include: women, children, farmers, indigenous people, local authorities, businesses, civil society, and worker and trade unions. It is entirely plausible that intersectionalities among the Major Groups Framework exist. This is especially problematic because an individual has to separate their identity and choose their priorities due to a highly politicized process. It is even more challenging when intersectionalities exist that are not within the major groups framework. For example, persons with disabilities are not included in the framework. Therefore, if a disabled child was chosen as a representative of the children major group, he/she would have to separate his/her identity and choose their priorities. When viewed from this perspective, intersectionality is quite challenging. Further, as mentioned by several classmates, intersectionalites are not often not given enough attention or are often misunderstood. This is problematic because it has detrimental effects on development theory as a whole. As Ana mentioned in her post, inclusive sustainable development can only be achieved when intersectionalities are taken into account.

However, intersectionality can also be viewed as how frameworks and ideas correlate to one another. As such, intersectionality can also exist among global grand challenges within international frameworks. For example, the grand challenge of disaster risk management is tackled in the Sustainable Development Goals, the New Urban Agenda, and the Sendai Framework. Specifically, The Sustainable Development Goals, the Sendai Framework, and the New Urban Agenda share a commitment to mainstreaming disaster risk management at all levels to reduce vulnerabilities, specifically in at-risk areas. Further, the Sendai Framework plays an important role in the implementation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. The integration of disaster risk into sustainable development planning is essential to the success of the SDG’s, the Sendai Framework, and Habitat III. All three international frameworks highlight the necessity of disaster risk management. Specifically, the SDG’s and the Sendai Framework highlight the importance of building resilience in vulnerable communities via education.

Specifically, in regards to the SDG’s, there are a total of 25 targets specifically related to disaster risk reduction in ten out the seventeen SDGs. Disaster risk intersects with the global challenges of poverty eradication, food security, education, inclusive cities, and climate change. As such, it is evident that building resilience to natural disaster is fundamental to achieving the grand challenges set forth in the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.

These global frameworks work in cohesion to reinforce the importance of the global grand challenge of disaster risk management in the international community. As such, when viewed from the perspective of global grand challenges, intersectionality is highly beneficial.

by

Inclusive Education

“All are born into humankind, so all have a right to grow up and receive their education together. Breaking down all barriers that prevent this is an important part of human progress and the development of a sustainable future.” – Richard Rieser

Universal primary education is a priority of the SDGs as seen in SDG 4 to “ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.” Two words in particular are of interest – “inclusive” and “equitable” – two concepts the world is farthest from achieving in relation to persons with disabilities (PWDs). It is estimated that between 93 and 150 million school aged children are living with a disability and many of these children face barriers that make primary education nearly impossible. As a result, many children aren’t “achieving the necessary basic skills for long term social and digital in  luxgion” (G3ICT Model Policy). According to WSIS, knowing how to use technology is a global skill for global citizenship.

There are four types of barriers to primary education that PWDs face – physical, cognitive, content, and didactical. Physical barriers fail to accommodate PWDs with a physical disability while cognitive barriers don’t accommodate for intellectual disabilities. In addition, content barriers are when information isn’t in the mother tongue of the learner and didactical barriers occur when classrooms aren’t flexible to the needs of each individual student. These barriers are not mutually exclusive and are different among each student.

According to UNICEF, every child has a right to education and “quality education is a critical component of child development and a means of self-empowerment, independence, and social integration.” Without education, children with disabilities are at risk to grow up to be emotionally and socially dependent and vulnerable to long term poverty. Therefore, in order to achieve other SDGs – like to eradicate poverty – the global development community must incorporate PWD specific policies into achieving SDG 4.

One possible solution to this issue is making information communication technologies (ICTs) inclusive for all children with disabilities. This can be done by mainstreaming technologies, creating assistive technologies for those who can’t use mainstream services as is, ensure compatibility between mainstream and assistive technologies, and make sure all media is accessible. If the development community can incorporate those components, education can be much more inclusive and the world will benefit.

by

Inclusive Education

The term “inclusive education” is defined (according the United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organization —UNESCO) in the 2014 Model Policy for Inclusive ICTs in Education for Persons with Disabilities as, “the process of strengthening the capacity of the education system to reach out to all learners.” It is important to remember that inclusive education does not mean separate schools for through traditionally left out of the public school education system nor does it mean special classes within schools. Instead, truly inclusive education dictates the full integration of those traditionally ignored by the public education system into the mainstream classroom. Including children with disabilities into the traditional education system is often key to implementing inclusive education within a given country or region. Children with disabilities often struggle to access to education at all. A lack of education, as has been demonstrated time and time again, can have serious implications in terms of financial security and employment opportunities.

There are a variety of countries and even regions that are currently attempting to implement inclusive education policies. One region currently engaged in implementing inclusive educational policies is East Asia and the Pacific. The 2003 UNESCO report titled, “Inclusive Education Initiatives for Children With Disabilities: Lessons from the East Asia and Pacific Region” explores the success and challenges associated with the implementation of inclusive educational policies. Each chapter explores the various experiences of different countries in the region. By including children with disabilities in the education system, countries exponentially expand the options available to this vulnerable sub-group.

Aside from the ever-important human-aspects associated with implementing inclusive education policy, it is also vital to achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and more specifically, SDG 4.   Lack of education among children with disabilities also poses a direct threat to SDG 4— “Ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education and promoting lifelong learning opportunities for all. “ By introducing more inclusive education policies within countries, governments are taking an active step to reducing educational inequities towards children with disabilities. This in turn, clears the way for “ensuring inclusive and equitable quality education.” Implementing inclusive educational policies also goes a great way towards achieving some of the educational goals laid out by the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Therefore, while implementing inclusive educational policies may at times by challenging, they are absolutely paramount towards achieving the SDGs and alleviating inequities that exist among children with disabilities.

 

by

Efficacy of Global Frameworks

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are arguably the most well known global frameworks in recent years. As the SDGs have only come into effect in the past year, it is easier to assess the MDGs as a global framework in both its successes and its failures.

In his work, “The MDGs after 2015: Some Reflections on the Possibilities”, Deepak Nayyar provides critical reflection on the MDGs. While many works related to the MDGs focus on the problems of what did or didn’t happen with the goals, Nayyar takes a more optimistic approach that evaluates the past and presents ideas for how to move forward. Like many others, he makes the common point that the MDGs were too vague. However, unlike others, goes further to explain that the vagueness of the goals was not really the problem and that it was actually the way the MDGs were supposed to function: as general global themes. Instead, he explains, the problems came from the vagueness of implementation methods and the lack of reference to initial starting points. While Nayyar’s review is thorough, a brief summary of his recommendations for the future is as follows:

  1. There needs to be recognition of national differences and flexibility that acknowledges and allows for these differences.
  2. Inequalities must be recognized and included in assessing future data and other evaluation outputs.
  3. There needs to be stronger emphasis on the means of implementation instead of simply focusing on the ends.

In reference to our class discussions, a principle example of problems with current global frameworks, namely the MDGs, is their lack of inclusive measures. While global leaders are taking moves towards inclusive agendas, it is happening at too slow a pace. For example, persons with disabilities (PWDs) were not once referenced in the MDGs and did not even come up in published documents until the 2010 MDG Progress Report. This came FOUR years later after the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.   The SDGs mark a step forward from the MDGs as they make 11 explicit references to PWDs, but considering that there are 17 goals and 169 targets, it would seem that there is even more room for inclusion.

To quote Nayyar, “people are not just beneficiaries of development. They are the ones that can empower the people to facilitate the implementation of policies and goals” (14). While more and more global frameworks are taking steps to address criticisms of vagueness and exclusionary/non-inclusive language, there remains a need to give a voice to those who are currently unheard before we can truly regard global frameworks as successes.

 

 

by

Inclusive Education

Achieving universal education is a grand challenge that has been afflicting the global community for decades. The Millennium Development Goals set out to achieve universal primary education by 2015, but obviously fell short of meeting its’ goal. Sustainable Development Goal 4: Ensure Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education maintains the commitment of the international community in achieving universal education, with an emphasis on inclusive education. Education is highly important as it the foundation for development. Specifically, inclusive education is integral for children with disabilities. According to Investigating Teachers’ Concerns and Experiences in Teaching Children With Special Educational needs in Bhutan, 80% of persons with disabilities live in developing countries.

As mentioned in Inclusive Education Initiatives for Children with Disabilities: Lessons from the East Asia and the Pacific Region, every child has a right to education as highlighted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). Disabled children are not an exception to this rule. In fact, the lack of educational opportunities offered to children with disabilities is increasingly problematic, because without education, children with disabilities “face huge barriers to full social and economic participation in society.” This is evident from our guest speaker, Mr. Nay Lin Soe. Mr Nay Lin Soe mentioned that he was initially denied education in Myanmar because of his disability. This lack of inclusive education has large implications, as Mr. Nay Lin Soe demonstrated in his presentation. In Myanmar, 53% of disabled children do not have access to primary education. A total of 1% of the population is a university graduate with a disability. Further, 85% of disabled adults are not employed. This data indicates the larger impact of the lack of inclusive education measures. More than half of all disabled children in Myanmar do not have access to education; this translates to 85% of disabled adults without employment. Persons with disabilities are subject to unfreedoms that should be guaranteed to individuals. These unfreedoms cause persons with disabilities to face barriers in social and economic participation in society, resulting in an 85% of disabled adults unemployment rate in Myanmar.

Because of this, the adoption of disability inclusive education practices is essential. Disability inclusive education is “a process of including children with disabilities in mainstream classes in a way that addresses and responds to their individual learning needs” (Inclusive Education Initiatives for Children with Disabilities: Lessons from the East Asia and the Pacific Region). However, achieving disability inclusive education is rather challenging. In an effort to make disability inclusive education less challenging, UNESCO and the Global Initiative for Inclusive Information and Communication Technologies (G3ict) compiled a model policy document to assist Member States in developing policy geared toward inclusive education. This model is an extremely important in the effort toward achieving inclusive education.