CRIS - Assessing Communication Rights: A Handbook

ASSESSING COMMUNICATION RIGHTS:

A HANDBOOK

CRIS CAMPAIGN

SEPTEMBER 2005

libro ingles 21/10/05, 19:071

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:

This Handbook was produced as part of the CRAFT project (Communication RightsAssessment Framework and Toolkit) of the CRIS Campaign.

HANDBOOK PRODUCTION:Seán Ó Siochrú, with contributions from Research Teams and the Coordinating Group.

PROJECT COORDINATOR: Seán Ó Siochrú.

COORDINATING GROUP: Karen Banks, Myriam Horngren, Philip Lee, Randy Naylor,Seán Ó Siochrú, Pradip Thomas.

PROJECT ADMINISTRATION: World Association for Christian Communication.

NATIONAL RESEARCH COORDINATION:

Brazil: João Brant, Marcio Kameoka.Colombia: Astrid Carolina Cañas Cortés, Astrid Elena Villegas.Kenya: Alice Munyua, Wamuyu Gatheru, Muruiki Mureithi.The Philippines: Alan Alegre, Philip Arnold Tuano.European Union: Claudia Padovani, Jason Nardi, Iginio Gagliardone.

Graphic design: MONOCROMO

The Handbook, Framework, Advocacy Tools and Research Reports, and the researchand organisational process that produced them, were supported by a grant from the FordFoundation in New York. We are very grateful for the assistance.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:182

Table of Contents

1. IntroductionBackground to the Handbook 7

Why Assess Communication Rights? 8

2. Introducing Communication RightsIntroduction 13

An Early Debate on Communication Rights 15

A “Right to Communicate” and “Communication Rights” 19

Communication Rights and Freedom of Expression 21

The Value-Added of a Right to Communicate 25

Are Communication Rights Enough? 27

Communication Rights: Why Now? 29

A Worst-Case Scenario 32

The Case for a United Front 35

References 36

3. The Assessment Framework: Theory and practiceStructuring Communication Rights 39

Four Pillars of the Framework 40

Key Rights Associated with Pillars 42

The Pillars in Practice 45

4. Applying the FrameworkKey Preliminary Decisions 53

The Research Phase 56

Using, and Troubleshooting, the Framework 59

The Verification Process 60

The Follow up: From Output to Outcome 62

Annex 1: An Assessment Framework on Communication Rights 65

Annex 2: Communication Rights in the International Bill of Rights 77

Annex 3: International Resources for Framework Implementation 81

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:183

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:184

1Introduction

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:185

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:186

7

1 The report of the meeting can be seen at: http://www.ourmedianet.org/documents/Framing%20Communication%20Rights.pdf

I N T R O D U C T I O N

This Handbook, and the associated research re-ports and toolkits, have been developed througha collaborative project of five research teamsaround the world, working with a CRIS coordi-nating group. The project acronym, CRAFT,stands for Communication Rights AssessmentFramework and Toolkit, and was fundedthrough a grant from the Ford Foundation.

The idea grew from a feeling among Communi-cation Rights in the Information Society (CRIS)campaign activists in different countries and re-gions that we could fruitfully compare, if onlyloosely, diverse experiences and meanings of“communication rights”. Over several yearsworking together, we had come to use the termcasually, we believed, in a more or less commonlyunderstood manner. Yet we sometimes encoun-tered unexpected and diverse nuances –often morethan nuances– suggesting that in reality we usedit differently when applied to different contexts.Our use of “communication rights” at the globallevel too, in the context of the World Summit onthe Information Society and at civil society eventslike the World Social Forum and national coun-terparts, was something less than uniform.

Our experience led us to the conclusion that ifwe, as civil society activists, are to engage suc-cessfully with global and regional governancestructures, we must be very clear about what wemean by communication rights, from local toglobal levels. This is essential to communicatingour ideas to others.

A “Framing Communication Rights” Workshopwas held in Geneva1 in December 2003, along-side the WSIS, and this certainly helped to focusthe work of this Project. It was clear that thequestion was not simply one of enabling inter-national comparison, or adopting commonterms, but one of formulating –indeed inventingand reinventing– the concept of “communica-

tion rights” within different national and re-gional contexts. We could not begin from an as-sumption of a common conceptual core, butwould rather have to open up a gamut of possi-bilities to be explored and tested against the re-ality of different circumstances. It was the local,national and regional circumstances that mustdrive the process and demarcate the concepts,just as it is these levels –rather than the globalper se– that must drive forward the cause of com-munication rights.

Thus, this project, called Global Governance andCommunication Rights, was launched by theCRIS Campaign in February 2004.

Teams were selected through an open process towork in Brazil, Colombia, Kenya, and the Phil-ippines, and at the level of the European Union.Each team combined advocacy and research ex-pertise, and all had been involved in some waywith CRIS campaign members. Over the fifteenmonths to March 2004, they undertook researchin their territory, organised verification work-shops, and wrote reports, all the while collabo-rating through e-mail and a face-to-face Work-shop, held in Marrakech in November 2004. Theproject coordinator and central CRIS coordinat-ing group provided conceptual support, draft-ing the Framework on Communication Rights,indicating resources, commenting on outputs,organising a website, and so forth.

This Handbook is based directly on the experi-ence of the research teams, and drawn up withtheir collaboration.

The final component of the work was the jointproduction of a Communication Rights Advo-cacy Toolkit [http://www.crisinfo.org/craft/], acomplementary package of practical tools andmaterials, designed to assist activists, advocatesand others directly involved in communicationrights issues in their own areas. The CRAFTtoolkit is comprised of two elements –a Hand-book and an Advocacy Toolkit– which can beused independently or, as they were developedin our CRIS project, in succession.

Background to the Handbook

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:187

8 A S S E S S I N G C O M M U N I C A T I O N R I G H T S

Building bridges between groupsin communication and media

The process of implementing the Frameworkhelped to build bridges between different advo-cacy groups, researchers and CBOs working ondifferent aspects of communication rights,through enabling them to link their issues to thoseof others, and to recognise the commonality ofstruggle in the communications arena.

Through this rich interaction between or-ganizations and specialists, the team be-lieves that the concept of communicationrights, broad as it is, greatly assists the de-velopment of actions among them, allow-ing them to realize that all are participat-ing in the same struggle. For example,small villages in Amazonia, with a notionof CRIS-related concepts, helped to builda network of community radios and to pre-serve their cultural identity and traditionalknowledge. Communication rights relateto many different aspects, but they mustalways be observed as a whole. (Brazil)

In the Philippines, a similar process was noted:

We feel that the Research project had a posi-tive impact in integrating various threads ofadvocacies under the Communication Rightsumbrella. This was positively seen by the factthat different constituencies —media rightsadvocates, ICT for Development practitio-ners, telco regulators, NGOs using onlinetools— were brought together in the valida-tion workshop and began to see the threadof their issues as being interrelated, at leaston the conceptual level. (The Philippines)

The process of implementing the Framework andthe Report itself can point, in a very concrete man-ner, to linkages between different communicationrights components that are often disconnected inthe context of a shared larger picture:

Each group deals with a distinct combina-tion of communication rights. … It is pos-sible to look specifically at cultural diver-

Why Assess Communication Rights?

This Handbook is a tool to assist an assessmentof the current state and ongoing dynamics of com-munication rights in a given territory. It offersguidance, based on our experience, on how aCommunication Rights Assessment Framework(Annex 1) can be deployed most effectively andto address different goals.

It is designed for use primarily by civil societyorganisations and institutions, such as NGOs,research centres and academic institutions, withan interest in assessing their environment in termsof communication rights, or with a view to advo-cacy or pedagogic work in the area.

The following chapter offers an introduction tocommunication rights from a number of differ-ent perspectives. It argues that the concept ofcommunication rights can draw together undera single conceptual umbrella what might appearto be, at first sight, a diverse set of issues anddynamics. The idea of communication rightslinks them all to a process of societal communi-cation that is central to political, cultural andeconomic life, and to individual and collectiveidentities.

We asked the implementing teams to documentthe benefits and difficulties of the research pro-cess and the Communication Rights Framework,and their full reports are available from ourwebsite (http://www.crisinfo.org/craft/). They of-fer a few useful insights into the benefits as theysaw them:

• Building bridges between groups in commu-nication and media.

• Instigating debate on communication, usingthe language of human rights and highlight-ing neglected areas.

• As a tool for advocacy in communication.

• Enabling the identification of key common ar-eas for action, and development of strategiesfor action.

• As a contribution to international dialogue oncommunication rights.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:188

9

2 There was no obligation on teams that their work in the project shouldcontribute to the CRIS campaign, only to the communication rightscontext in general.

sity and media ownership; intellectualproperty and cultural diversity; social ap-propriation of ICTs and freedom of ex-pression. The way each organization ap-proaches communication rights is differ-ent. But they have in common, on the onehand, an overall picture that is central toan understanding of communicationrights, and on the other, the possibility ofusing each of the indicators separately orin various combinations. (Brazil)

Instigating debate on communication, usingthe language of human rights and highlightingneglected areas

Communication issues are seldom discussed in thecontext of human rights, a context that can bring aspecific meaning to, and impact on, the politicalprocess. This has particular resonance in Colombiawhere, through a process of interaction betweenacademic research and grass-roots organisations, theteam attributed significant value to the process of:

… opening a space for communication asa right, institutionally and within theframework of the demands of diversegrass-roots sectors. (Colombia)

The Brazil team also concluded:

In the long term, however, it could be in-teresting to use this generic framework asa tool for political intervention in the com-munication rights status quo. (Brazil)

Implementing all components of the frameworkalso opened areas that were previously ignoredor obscured from public view.

The research itself has also been an op-portunity to interrogate and highlight of-ten marginalized yet significant issues inmass media such as access to information;decriminalization of libel; and foreignownership in media; as well as link up theissue of IPR as a communication rights is-sue for all. (The Philippines)

As a tool for advocacy in communication

The above suggest that the Framework can beused as a tool to assist in developing a campaignaround communication rights. This was explicitlythe case where the team involved was already par-ticipating in the CRIS Campaign:2

The research process and generic frameworkwere extremely useful for establishing CRISBrazil. This approach had the advantage ofbringing concrete issues into the debate,which allowed dialogue over a common ba-sis, but without obliging any actor to followany previous political orientation. Theresearch report was political enough to unifythose interested in communication rights andwide enough to reunite actors of several dif-ferent areas. (Brazil)

The Kenyan team suggested that regularly updat-ing the work would enhance its advocacy impact:

Generally the team believes that the frame-work will eventually add impetus to ad-vocacy efforts in communications rights.We anticipate that the status review, if up-dated, will play a significant role in creat-ing a linkage between hitherto disparatesectors: information and telecommunica-tions, broadcasting regulation and com-munication rights in general. (Kenya)

“Localisation”, enhancing its focus and relevanceto local issues, was also an issue:

Stakeholders in Kenya positively wel-comed the Communication Rights frame-work and affirmed the findings of the Re-search Team. They acknowledged that theconcept of Communication Rights was alegitimate and important one, and was apositive contribution—however some par-ticipants wanted to engage the concept fur-ther to localise/indigenise it. (Kenya)

I N T R O D U C T I O N

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:189


As a means to identify key common areasfor action, and develop strategies for action

Based on the research results, all four nationalstudies identified areas of key concern, a processthat began with the Verification Workshops andwas completed by the teams themselves in col-laboration with local interests. The rationale forthe selection varied, but in all cases it included aperception of both the gravity of the issue forpeople's communication rights and the potentialfor practical advocacy action through a broad col-laborative effort.

All teams have also gone on to develop tools foradvocacy. These have a common component fo-cusing on communication rights in general (ofwhich this Handbook comprises a part), but alsoa component tailored to their specific needs andcircumstances. These can contribute to consoli-dating bridges between actors, and to building amore secure base for a campaign in the future.

However, future teams taking up the Frameworkin their own contexts may decide to build on theoutcomes in different ways, i.e. the developmentof advocacy materials may not always be the cho-sen way to take the work forward. Perhaps thefocus will be on an authoritative publication; ondesigning a common strategy; on organising anongoing forum for interaction; on direct lobby-ing of political powers; or any number of waysthat committed people go about addressing criti-cal social concerns.

This Handbook is intended to leave it open tolocal groups to select any and/or all such ways ofmoving forward.

As a contribution to international dialogueon communication rights

Behind the idea of the project, and of the toolkit,was the need to develop a common understandingof communication rights, which was nuancedenough to sustain meaningful interaction and com-parison between different circumstances globally.

The teams came together towards the end of thework to discuss the process and results, to identifyareas of key concern, including of common con-cern, and to design the conceptual basis for theadvocacy toolkits to be developed from the re-search. The encounter, and the level of interaction,agreement and subsequent work together, has un-derlined the extent to which the teams had devel-oped a common, but variegated, understanding ofcommunication rights throughout.

The deployment of the advocacy tools developedunder a common conceptual scheme will continueinto the future, and hopefully lead to further in-teraction as well as additional use by many groupsand organisations outside of this project.

All but one of the teams (along with groups in-volved with the research) are already actively en-gaged together, and with others, in two interna-tional fora on communication issues –the WorldSummit on the Information Society and UNESCO'sConvention for the Protection and Promotion ofthe Diversity of Cultural Expressions– both ofwhich cover issues that emerged strongly from theresearch. We believe that the extent and quality ofinternational collaboration will continue to growas an additional outcome of this work.

* * *

This Handbook is, in the end, directed at any and/or all groups who are concerned about commu-nication rights issues in their areas. Along withthe associated materials, it forms just part of alarger set of resources available from the CRISCampaign, working in collaboration with numer-ous other groups worldwide. It is hoped that theymay encourage and facilitate many more to takeup the challenge of communication rights. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1810

2Introducing Communication Rights

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1811

THIS SECTION OFFERS A PRIMER ON THE CONCEPT

OF COMMUNICATION RIGHTS.

IT ASPIRES TO BE NEITHER COMPREHENSIVE NOR DEFINITIVE.NOR DOES IT CLAIM TO REPRESENT A CONSENSUS AMONG THOSE

ADVOCATING COMMUNICATION RIGHTS WITHIN OR OUTSIDE THE

CRIS CAMPAIGN. BUT IT DOES EXPLORE ISSUES FROM A NUMBER

OF PERSPECTIVES, AND IS HOPEFULLY AS GOOD A STARTING POINT

AS ANY.

EACH SECTION, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST AND LAST,ARE PREFACED WITH A SHORT SUMMARY.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1812

13

Introduction

I N T R O D U C I N G C O M M U N I C A T I O N R I G H T S

Consider the following:

• In 2004, Thai media activist SupinyaKlangnarong was brought before the courtsfor alleged defamation of the Shin Corpora-tion, the communications conglomerate ofPrime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. Hercrime? She wrote in the Thai Post what manyalready believed –that the US$980 milliongrowth in Shin Corporation profits since thePrime Minister's party gained power mightbe a direct result of the administration's poli-cies.

• The Amazigh (or Berber) languages of NorthAfrica are not recognised in the constitutionsof Morocco or Algeria, where French is theofficial language of society and education.Neglect and suppression of this mother tongue(Berber speakers represent 60% of the popu-lation in Morocco and 30% in Algeria) is aviolation of linguistic human rights.

• In late 2004, the play Behzti (Dishonour) wascancelled by Birmingham Repertory Theatreafter a weekend of violent protests by the Sikhcommunity in this UK city. The play's femaleSikh author, Gurpreet Kaur Bhatti, went intohiding following threats of abduction andmurder. Protesters claimed that the play, whichdealt with human fallibility and hypocrisy,demeaned Sikhism by depicting rape andmurder within a temple.

• Although the precise number is not known,there may be as many Sign languages as thereare spoken languages, i.e. some 7,000. Signlanguages are fully-fledged, multi-purpose,complex languages –the mother tongue of thedeaf. Yet many countries do not officiallyrecognise them or allocate adequate resources,especially in the early development of childrenand for vital services.

• In Korea, the government is under enormouspressure to drop a policy of requiring that aminimum percentage of Korean-made filmsbe shown, a policy that has lead to a thriving

and sophisticated film industry. This is partof US efforts to force everywhere the elimina-tion of barriers to its media exports –a policyvigorously pursued in all their bilateral andmultilateral negotiations.

• The USA Patriot Act of 2001 allows govern-ment to investigate citizens and non-citizens,to engage in surveillance, and to threaten civilrights and liberties guaranteed under theUnited States Constitution and Bill of Rights.The Act was challenged by the American Li-brary Association, which opposed any use ofgovernmental power to suppress the free ex-change of knowledge or to intimidate indi-viduals exercising free inquiry.

• The head librarian of a university in Cork, Ire-land, has far more information at his disposalthat he did ten years ago –but can make freelyavailable only a fraction of what he could then.Meanwhile, African universities are finding itharder and harder to pay for escalating academicjournal prices. The reason? Concentration ofownership of journals globally, ever tighter copy-right, and digital rights management.

What do these examples have in common? Theyall weaken the capacity of people and communi-ties to use communication and media to pursuetheir goals in the economic, political, social andcultural spheres. They –and countless other ob-structions and infringements– undermine keyhuman rights that collectively support people'scapacity to communicate in their general interestand for the common good.

Such rights have come to be known as “commu-nication rights”. They go beyond mere freedomof opinion and expression, to include areas suchas democratic media governance, participation inone's own culture, linguistic rights, rights to en-joy the fruits of human creativity, to education,privacy, peaceful assembly, and self-determina-tion. These are questions of inclusion and exclu-sion, of quality and accessibility. In short, theyare questions of human dignity.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1813


Encouraging examples can also be pointed to:People successfully demanding the right to createtheir own media, especially radio; mobilisingagainst new legislation in many countries that re-strict communication in the name of fighting “ter-rorism”; a campaign successfully halting the con-centration of media in the USA; the World Intel-lectual Property Organization (WIPO) beingcalled to account on its development commitment;communities building and cooperatively owningtheir own telecommunication networks.

But the balance in communication rights in re-cent years has been moving against the peopleand against democratisation in many dimensions.Many oppressive governments still maintain a gripon the means of communication by traditionalmethods, but new ways to control communica-tion, driven by a global thirst for profit and geo-political dominance, are coming to the fore.

Yet democratic, participative and informed com-munication, individually and collectively, is moreimportant now than ever as we face unprec-edented threats to global sustainability, to humanwelfare and wellbeing, and to cultural diversity.

Our introduction to communication rights beginsin Section 2, below, with an account of the ori-

gins and evolution of debates on the concept,with a focus initially on the intergovernmentallevel, then moving to civil society.

Section 3 reviews the closely related conceptsof a “right to communicate” and “communica-tion rights”, to dispel confusion that sometimesarises.

Communication rights are contrasted with free-dom of expression in Section 4, to illustrate thebreadth of the concept, followed in Section 5 byconsideration of the specific “value-added” ofcommunication rights.

Section 6 asks whether it is enough for the vari-ous components of communication rights to sim-ply exist in law, internationally or nationally, andsurmises that it clearly is not, if they are unen-forceable. The subsequent Section argues thatcommunication rights are especially relevant to-day, to help make sense of a diverse set of globaldynamics that threaten to undermine the socialcommunication process; and Section 8 consid-ers a “worst-case” scenario.

The final section makes the case for a united frontas one likely to be the most effective in advocat-ing and acting for change. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1814

15

An Early Debate on Communication Rights

Rights relating to communication have been cen-tral to the concept of universal human rightsemerging in the middle of the 20th century, con-solidated in the United Nations Charter and theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights. KeyArticles define basic preconditions and compo-nents of a right to communicate, though no di-rect reference is made to the concept.3

Jean d'Arcy is generally credited with being thefirst to explicitly make the case for a right to com-municate. In 1969, then Director of Radio andVisual Services in the United Nations Office ofPublic Information, he wrote:

The time will come when the Universal Dec-laration of Human Rights will have to en-compass a more extensive right than man's[sic] right to information, first laid down21 years ago in Article 19. This is the rightof man to communicate. It is the angle fromwhich the future development of commu-nications will have to be considered if it isto be fully understood. (d'Arcy 1969)

There the issue might have rested –an interestingobservation to be tested by historians of the fu-

ture– were it not catapulted to the forefront ofgeopolitics much sooner than he expected. Withina decade, the idea of a right to communicate wasat the centre of an international diplomatic rowthat lasted several years and still reverberates to-day– the only time a broad range of communica-tion issues was debated on the international stage.The debate focused on what became known as aNew World Information and Communication Or-der (NWICO).

The New World Information andCommunication Order (NWICO)

The NWICO debate must be seen in its broadergeopolitical context. The growing number andpower of poorer sovereign states followingdecolonisation, and the ensuing rebalance ofpower in the UN, provide the political platform.By 1974, these countries had succeeded in for-mulating and asserting an economic philosophyin the United Nations, against the resistance ofthe more powerful nations: the New InternationalEconomic Order (NIEO) was born. Many con-cerns that gave rise to the NIEO had their coun-terparts in the information and communicationssectors. The NWICO focused on the following:

The first broad-based debate on media and communication globally, limited mainlyto governments, ran for a decade from the mid-1970s. Governments of the South,now a majority in the UN, began voicing demands in UNESCO concerning mediaconcentration, the flow of news, and “cultural imperialism”. The MacBride Reportin 1981 articulated most comprehensively a right to communicate. The debate wascompromised, however, by the Cold War, and fell apart after the US and the UKpulled out of UNESCO, clouding discussion in UN bodies ever since.

At the same time, NGOs and activists from the 1980s onwards became increasinglyactive in a variety of communication issues, from community media, to languagerights, to copyright, to Internet provision and free and open source software. In the1990s, these began to coalesce into umbrella groups tackling several issues. Theidea of communication rights began to take shape, this time from the ground up.

3 See Annex 2.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1815


• The “free flow” doctrine of informationflow, in place since the 1940s, was reinforc-ing the dominance of western media andnews content;

• The growing concentration of media and com-munication industries was translating intogreater foreign ownership of media in smallerand poorer countries;

• The rising importance of western-controlledtechnologies in media production and dissemi-nation was making it difficult for others tokeep up.

Against a backdrop of the crucial role of mediaand communication in the context of “nationbuilding” and decolonisation, many countries be-came seriously concerned at the impact on na-tional identity, cultural integrity, and political andeconomic sovereignty. Doubts about trends incultural and media “imperialism”, and its long-term implications, were voiced not only by lessdeveloped countries but in many others, includ-ing France, Canada and Finland.

The NWICO was spearheaded by the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) of UN countries. Asthe only UN body equipped to debate the rangeof issues raised regarding media, communication,culture, news distribution and so forth, it wasinevitable that the action would be staged prima-rily at UNESCO. At a series of meetings between1973 and 1976, the NAM moved from a simplecritique of transnational media corporations andpowerful governments to a much more sophisti-cated plan for a New World Information Order(as it was known then). At the same time, respond-ing to movements within the UN as a whole,UNESCO was convening a number of expertgroups and commissioning background papers onissues such as Direct Broadcast Satellites, whichmany countries feared would beam unwantedmessages with impunity; and on the developmentof national communication policies.

Both strands met at the 1976 UNESCO GeneralAssembly, under Director General M'Bow, and a

wide gulf became apparent between the views ofthe NAM and western countries, including theUSA, the UK and several others. A showdownwas avoided only by the creation of an Interna-tional Commission for the Study of Communica-tion Problems, generally called the MacBrideCommission after the Chair, Seán MacBride. Butthe NWICO was now firmly on the UNESCOagenda, explicitly linked by M'Bow to the NIEO,and would stay there for a decade.

The 1978 UNESCO General Assembly saw fur-ther acrimonious debate and furious diplomaticbattles. Nevertheless, there was a significant out-come, at least on paper, in that agreement wasreached on a Declaration on Mass Media(UNESCO 1978). This contained a diluted ver-sion of the original, much broader, proposal, andthe “free-flow” doctrine supported by the USA,the UK and others was amended to one of a “free-flow and wider and better balanced dissemina-tion of information”.

The MacBride Commission undertook a hugeprogrammes of consultation and research, andreceived numerous submissions including a num-ber on the right to communicate, and one fromd'Arcy, where he noted: “From the very first, thisfundamental right was implicit in, and underlay,all the freedoms that have successively been won:Freedom of opinion, freedom of expression, free-dom of the press, freedom of information”(d'Arcy, 1978). The Commission reported to the1980 UNESCO General Assembly.

The Many Voices One World report, which waspresented to the 1980 General Assembly, bore thehallmarks of a fractious political process, fudg-ing many issues and with numerous caveats en-tered by some Commission members from the USand elsewhere. But it was comprehensive (with anotable weakness in relation to gender), wide-ranging, and came with a long list of recommen-dations, among them the following:

Communication needs in a democratic societyshould be met by the extension of specific rightssuch as the right to be informed, the right to in-

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1816

17

form, the right to privacy, the right to participatein public communication –all elements of a newconcept, the right to communicate. In develop-ing what might be called a new era of social rights,we suggest all the implications of the right to com-municate be further explored. (UNESCO 1980Recommendation 54, p. 265)

For the first time, the NWICO had a generalframework, a detailed justification, a set of pro-posals, and a unifying concept –the right to com-municate. After teetering on the brink of collapse,the Commission's findings were endorsed.4 Thiswas the defining moment for NWICO, one whosegenesis exclusively in the intergovernmental con-text was soon to bear the compromising and de-structive imprint of the Cold War.

For the veneer of agreement was thin. Instead ofbringing the sides together, the process had ex-posed the gulf between them, and entrenched thepositions, especially of the West. A counteroffen-sive was not long in coming.

The USA led the attack on UNESCO, supportedstrongly by the private media industry and lob-bies such as the World Press Freedom Commit-tee. The central allegation was that less developedcountries were attempting to impose governmentcontrol of the media and to suppress freedom ofthe press –despite the fact that freedom of thepress was strongly endorsed at every turn byNWICO.

At the end of 1983, however, the USA notifiedUNESCO of its intention to withdraw fromUNESCO, carrying out the threat a year later. Its

strongest ally, the UK, left the following year. Thedecisions were taken partly because of NWICO,but probably represented also the USA and UK'sbroader rejection of multilateralism, of whichUNESCO was a key component. NWICO man-aged to stay on the UNESCO agenda, though withlittle action, until 1987. The replacement ofM'Bow in that year by Federico Mayor, and thechanged overall mood, led to its final disappear-ance. UNESCO's medium-term plan for 1990 to1995 made only cursory mention of NWICO, andreinstated the “free-flow” doctrine at the centre.

Yet the disparities animating the NWICO move-ment were not so easily disposed of, and in somerespects continued to deepen. Concern over thesewas not going to disappear, and the concept of aright to communicate helped carry them forward.

From Intergovernmental to Multi-Stakeholder

For many involved, the main lesson of NWICOwas that the way forward must be through thedemocratisation of media and communication,rather than through state- or industry-driven ef-forts to create new global orders. A major shiftwas needed towards civil society, which hadlargely been excluded from discussions. Thosecivil society actors that had been involved, mainlyjournalists' organisations and some academics,continued debating in the form of the MacBrideRound Table. It met annually from 1989 to 1999,reaching out to other civil society actors, actingas a bridge also between them and sympatheticacademics and governments.

Concurrently, other elements of civil society hadlong been active on the ground in media and com-munication issues, even if not under the bannerof communication rights.

During the 1980s and into the 1990s, numerousnon-governmental organisations, most acting in-dependently of the NWICO debate and largelyunaware of it and often of each other, activelypromoted communication issues in theory andin practice. Community radio, video and other

4 One outcome was agreement to set up an International Programme forthe Development of Communication (IPDC), seen by some as aninstrument to coordinate a huge range of resources into realisingNWICO aims. It still exists today, but although it does useful work, itsbudget has been small in relation to the size of the problem, andindeed in relation to the hopes of many in less developed countries.Between 1980 and 2000, IPDC spent some US$85 million on morethan 900 projects, with funds donated from many countries. Its aimsare to strengthen mass communication in developing countries, todevelop technical and human resources, to promote the transfer oftechnology, and to foster pluralism and independence of the media,democracy and human rights.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1817


alternative media became bastions of a moredemocratic and participatory way of communi-cating, going beyond traditional (though vital)demands for free speech to challenge the domi-nance of the mass media and the hegemony ofcorporate interests. Social protest movements inLatin America especially, but also in the USAand the Philippines for example, were pioneersin exercising communication rights. Free andopen source software emerged as alternatives toexpensive and tightly controlled Microsoft andother software giants; women's groups ques-tioned the gender bias in communication tech-nologies and in media generally; non-profitInternet pioneers opened up cyberspace to NGOsand civil society long before it became the normeven in industry; and truly independent mediabegan to flourish.

A diverse set of actors thus began or continuedto question trends in media, knowledge and com-munication, including associations of communitymedia, faith-based organisations active in com-munication, international trade unions, emergingInternet NGOs, advocacy and activist groupsspringing up to address issues as diverse asInternet surveillance, concentration of mediaownership, commercial censorship, and copyrightexcesses. These were now set alongside more tra-ditional concerns of government censorship andcontrols.

Moving on

Through the 1990s, groups began to coalesce, andmoves were made to address the larger dynamic un-derlying many of these concerns, among them thePeople's Communication Charter and the Platformfor Democratisation of Communication. In addi-tion to MacBride Round Tables, numerous broad-based conferences and meetings were held by indi-vidual organisations to pull the threads together andexchange understanding internationally. Gradually,a new civil society-based constituency was emerg-ing to take up the same issues that had been raisedat the NWICO, but now from a very different per-spective and with the benefit of strategic hindsight.

Many of these came together, in October 2001,in the CRIS campaign. The CRIS Campaign haddecided to focus on the upcoming World Summiton the Information Society in 2003, as a key glo-bal networking opportunity for civil societyaround media and communication issues. Despitethe limitations of the event itself, focused narrowlyon the neo-liberal agenda in telecommunicationand ICTs, it represented a significant opportu-nity for civil society to mobilise on communica-tion issues at local, national and global levels.Many others had made the same decision, andindeed the WSIS introduced a new dynamic intothe discussion and action on communicationrights in civil society (Ó Siochrú 2004). !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1818

19

The terms “right to communicate” and “commu-nication rights”, though closely related, are notsynonymous. Distinct histories and tactics arebound up in their use by different groups.

As we have seen, the term “right to communicate”became associated with a (mis)reading of theNWICO promoted by its opponents, including USand UK governments and certain NGOs and in-dustry-led associations. Continuing today in thecontext of the WSIS, some claim that attempts topromote a right to communicate are merely veiledefforts to revive the NWICO.5 In one respect thisis true –many of the issues involved in the NWICOdebate have never been resolved. But the accusa-tion is based on a characterisation of NWICO asan effort to curtail freedom of speech and enhancegovernment control. Such groups find the idea of“communication rights”, as distinct from a rightto communicate, more difficult to criticise since itavoids direct connotations of NWICO.

At the political level, there have been calls over theyears, beginning with NWICO, for the creation ofa new right under international law, a right to com-municate. This would build on, and add to, the ex-isting international legal framework without weak-ening it, establishing a right to communicate as aclear and unambiguous right of all people. This po-sition recognises that many components of a right

to communicate already exist, in the form of exist-ing human rights. But the explicit declaration of aright to communicate would both bolster such ex-isting rights and provide a better framework forensuring that communication as a right is achievedon the ground. However, the specifics of this newright, whether it would be an individual and/or acollective right, its relationship to existing rights, theprecise wording, and the legal form in which it wouldbe incorporated, have not yet been teased out.

On the other hand, the use of the term “commu-nication rights”, since it is in the plural form, im-plicitly points towards existing human rights thatrelate to communication, and away from promot-ing a new formal right to communicate, in thesingular, in international law. The emphasis shiftssubtly to realising the existing communicationrights on the ground, not on establishing a newright under international law.

Within the CRIS campaign and those associatedwith it, there is agreement on all sides that thestrategic requirement is to focus on the substan-tive issues around communication rights, and thefact that existing legal rights are ignored, or se-lectively and partially implemented to suit thepowerful. This involves, for instance,

• promoting and disseminating the concept,

• undertaking advocacy,

• highlighting the abuse of these rights, and

• evaluating the adequacy of national law andenforcement.

A “Right to Communicate” and “Communication Rights”

A “right to communicate” and “communication rights” are closely related, but notidentical, in their history and usage. The former is more associated with the NWICOdebate, and points to the need for a formal legal acknowledgment of such a right, asan overall framework for more effective implementation. It also makes intuitivesense as a basic human right. The latter emphasises more the fact that an array ofinternational rights to underpin communication already exist, but many are toooften ignored and require active mobilisation and assertion. The two are not inconflict, and are used by the CRIS campaign in nuanced and complementary ways.

5 The World Press Freedom Committee explicitly declares this to be thecase. See http://www.wpfc.org/site/docs/pdf/Publications/Working%20Papers-Conf%20Booklet.pdf


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1819


The toolkit resources are being designed to sup-port or respond to these needs, initially at a gen-eral level, but with a longer-term aim ofcontextualising materials in local contexts andlanguages.

Continuing exploration and specification of whatis a formal right to communicate is part of this,but the creation of an international legal instru-ment is not among strategic demands for the im-mediate future. For many, if not most, the legalrecognition of a right to communicate remainsan ultimate and necessary goal, but the CRIS cam-paign in practice offers a space for collaborationfor those who remain agnostic on this demand.

The idea that everyone has a right to communi-cate is a powerful one, irrespective of whether itis explicitly embodied in international law. At-tempts by opponents to distort its history shouldnot discourage its use –quite the opposite, a tac-tical case can be made to expose such use and theunderlying agenda.

That calling for a right to communicate need notimply an immediate demand for an internationallegal instrument is demonstrated by recent usesof the term. A “right to communicate” wasstrongly endorsed at several points by influentialactors during the WSIS process. The issue gainedsome prominence, although efforts to discredit itand a fear of controversy were probably respon-sible for its exclusion from the final text.6 TheSecretary General of the UN, Kofi Annan, statedthat: “millions of people in the poorest countriesare still excluded from the “right to communi-cate”, increasingly seen as a fundamental humanright.” (UN 2003). And the European Commis-sion noted: “The Summit should reinforce theright to communicate and to access informationand knowledge” (European Commission, 2002).

Other key NGOs, not members of the CRIS cam-paign, have also endorsed it. Article IX, in its over-view of the right to communicate, describes it as:

… an umbrella term, encompassing withinit a group of related, existing rights. Thismeans that any elaboration of the right tocommunicate must take place within theframework of existing rights. (Article 19,2003)

It concludes:

A Declaration on the Right to Communicatealong these lines will contribute to the ongoingprocess of implementation of the InternationalBill of Rights.

Its Law Programme Director notes why it is im-portant to retain the right to communicate as a dis-tinct concept. First, the rights it brings together “cu-mulatively, are more than the sum of their parts”.And second, it is a “powerful organising theme foraspects of existing rights… which… are often givenlittle priority” (Mendel 2003, pp. 5–6).

Calling for the realisation of communication rightsand reaffirming that everyone has –or should have–a right to communicate are entirely complemen-tary. The right to communicate can be used as aninformal rallying cry for advocacy, appealing to acommonsense understanding and the perceivedneeds and frustrations of people in the area of com-munication. It can also be used in a formal legalsense, in which a “right to communicate” shouldtake its place alongside other fundamental humanrights enshrined in international law. “Communi-cation rights” is a useful term that relates imme-diately to a set of existing human rights denied tomany people, and whose full meaning can only berealised when they are considered together, as aninterrelated group. The whole is greater than theparts. !

6 After considerable discussion, the Final WSIS Declaration included thewords: “Communication is a fundamental social process, a basichuman need and the foundation of all social organisation” Paragraph4, Geneva 2004.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1820

21

A good entry point to the concept of communi-cation rights is to contrast it with that of free-dom of expression.

Freedom of expression rightly ranks among thesacrosanct foundation stones of all human rights.It is contained in numerous international Trea-ties, Conventions and agreements, and enshrined,in varying formulations, in virtually all nationalconstitutions and legislation. The most frequentlycited reference point is to Article 19 of the Uni-versal Declaration of Human Rights, endorsedby every member of the United Nations:

Everyone has the right to freedom of opin-ion and expression; this right includes thefreedom to hold opinions without inter-ference and to seek, receive and impart in-formation and ideas through any mediaand regardless of frontiers.

Its strengths include simplicity and clarity, somethingthat all of us can understand: both the weak and themighty must have identical freedom to seek, receiveand impart information. It is regarded as a central

pillar of democracy, protecting the right to call ourrulers to account, vital to preventing censorship, anindispensable condition of effective and free media.

The question facing communication rights advo-cates in theory but also sometimes in practice is:Why is anything more than freedom of expressionneeded? Furthermore, given that such a basic rightis still denied to many in practice, surely our ener-gies should be focused on securing freedom of ex-pression for all? Would securing freedom of expres-sion not, in effect, secure communication rights?

The ideal from which freedom of expression drawsits legitimacy is that of a group of communicatingindividuals, each with an equal right to conceive,impart and receive ideas from others and thereby torationally arrive at decisions of mutual benefit –so-ciety as a kind of debating club. The trouble withthis is that we do not live as a group of equally em-powered individuals. We live in a society of hugelyvarying levels of access to power, a society in whichmost interactions between people are heavily medi-ated and filtered, with mass media, governments,

Communication Rights and Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is a basic human right. But the idea behind communicationrights contends that such freedom can be achieved only through securing a broaderset of flanking rights. For freedom of expression to rise above the dominance ofpowerful voices, the hugely varying levels of access to power and to the means ofcommunication in society, especially mass media, must be addressed.

Communication rights demand that the conditions needed for a positive cycle ofcommunication are, in practice, created. This cycle involves a process not only ofseeking, receiving and imparting, but of listening and being heard, understanding,learning, creating and responding. Although we cannot oblige others to listen or torespond, communication rights would optimise the environment for this.

Communication rights thus include a right to participate in one's own culture andlanguage, to enjoy the benefits of science, to education, to participation in gover-nance, to privacy, to peaceful assembly, to the protection of one's reputation, andmore –are all contained in the “International Bill of Rights”.

(http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu6/2/fs2.htm) It also requires measures to ensure di-versity of media ownership and content, and a right for everyone to access the media.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1821


commercial corporations, special interest groups andmany others all vying for attention, seeking to in-fluence and control the creation process and the con-tent and flow of communications.

An exclusive insistence on freedom of expressionsays too little about the process by which society'smeans of expression –such as newspapers, televi-sion, radio, films, music and educational mate-rial– are controlled, and the interests they ulti-mately uphold.

In this context, freedom of expression, in the formof laws to prevent direct government interferenceand to defend free speech, can do little to preventthe domination of the loudest voices, i.e. thosewho can most strongly influence the means ofcommunication within society, whether they arethe government, newspaper proprietors and me-dia corporations, or powerful interest groups.

A poor person seeking to highlight injustice intheir lives and a powerful media mogul each have,before the law, precisely the same protection fortheir right to freely express their views. In prac-tice, however, the former lacks a means to haveher/his voice heard, while the latter can power-fully amplify her/his message and ensure it iswidely heard.

How real is “freedom to receive and impart in-formation” if you cannot read or write, or speakthe official language of the country? Or freedomto “seek and receive information”, where gov-ernments and corporations are under no obliga-tion to provide it? Or you cannot afford to payfor educational material, or access key means ofcommunication such as telephony or (increas-ingly) Internet? Or know your means of commu-nication are being spied on? All of these are symp-toms of unequal access to power, of a world inwhich communication is possible only throughcomplex and contested media and mechanisms.

Thus, a key challenge for freedom of expressionis the conceptual shift from the idea of a “collegedebating society” to a complex and variegatedsociety with heavily mediated communication andvaried and differential configurations of power.

Tackling this requires an additional set of con-cepts and instruments, and points to the core ofthe concept of communication rights. Supportersof communication rights must firmly stand by andpromote the principle of freedom of expression.But a lot more is needed to articulate, let alonesecure, communication rights for all.

What is the Goal of Communication Rights?

Communication rights can therefore be seen asproviding the conditions for the full exercise offreedom of expression in a complex and medi-ated society where power and control of resourcesare distributed very unevenly.

However, we can go further, for communicationrights are premised not only on “holding opinions”and “seeking, receiving and imparting informa-tion” –all of which are rights of a single individualor entity– but also on communicating; that is, onthe completion of an interaction between people.They imply and seek to bring about a cycle thatincludes not only seeking, receiving and impart-ing, but also listening and being heard, understand-ing, learning, creating and responding.

The idea of communication rights maintains thatfreedom to interact with others is ultimately aboutgenerating a cycle of communication from whichlearning, understanding and cooperation may en-sue. The miracle of language is not that we canencode our thoughts in an external form (spo-ken, written, film etc.), but that we can recreate athought of our own in the mind of another, whocan add to that thought and communicate it back,enhanced and transformed. We can share ideas,and, from that, new ideas emerge and human cul-ture is furthered. Similarly, while freedom of ex-pression guarantees that we can speak ourthoughts freely, it by no means guarantees thatanother can or will listen and (re)transform suchspeech into new thoughts and actions. Commu-nication rights thus imply, at least in part, theinitiation of an ongoing cycle, without which lan-guage is just so many dead words.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1822

23

An initial approximation of the goal of commu-nication rights is thus:

To secure conditions for the generation of a creativeand respectful cycle of interaction among individualsand groups in society which in practice endorsesthe right of all to have their ideas expressed, heard,listened to, considered and responded to equally.

The Paradox of Communication Rights

But here a paradox emerges, at the level both ofhuman rights law and in practice.

The idea of communication rights implies not onlythat one has the right to speak and be heard, butthat others have an obligation to listen, to con-sider the validity of the ideas expressed, and evento respond. Yet others cannot be forced to listen,let alone to understand or to respond, since thatwould be tantamount to a denial of their free-dom of opinion, freedom to think about what-ever they like, or nothing at all.

Is this an irreducible contradiction, or a paradoxamenable to resolution? How can communica-tion rights be realised if they require all parties toengage in active dialogue, although at the sametime any compulsion to secure this (even were itpossible) would deny one party a key componentof those rights? In demanding that you listen tomy argument and give it due consideration, I amalso insisting that you entertain certain thoughts,or at least pursue a certain thought process. Whatright do I have to do that?

This contrasts with, for instance, the right to free-dom of expression. It is possible to claim one'sright to freedom of expression without simulta-neously denying to another that same right. Butthe same cannot be said, it appears, of a person'scommunication rights. Thus, whether or not theright to express one's views is resolved into a cycleof communication would seem, if it is to avoidcontradicting itself, to rest on the (arbitrary) will-ingness of another to engage in genuine dialogue.In practice, does not everyone have the right torefuse to communicate? Thus, one might argue,

is it not best to leave it at that, and revert simplyto a right to freedom of expression?

This is not just an issue for arcane debate amonghuman rights specialists. It is linked to very prac-tical questions.

Should people have a right to have their views heardby others, to demand that others listen to their views?The question can be turned around: Should societyensure that the broadest possible range of opinionsand views are disseminated via society's instrumentsof mass communication? Should there be a right ofreply where opinions and ideas are misrepresentedin media? Should there be an obligation on publicauthorities and private corporations to respond tolegitimate questions of public interest? Should peoplehave access to information and deliberations in cen-tres of power that concern them?

These practical questions go beyond freedom ofexpression –to seek, to receive and to impart– to-wards communication rights, and in the paradoxi-cal direction of the obligation on others to re-spond and interact.

Communication Rights Beyond Freedomof Expression

The paradox can be resolved. Freedom of expres-sion is indeed at the heart of communication rights.But communication rights must be built on the ba-sis of a set of additional rights that construct theenvironment in which freedom of expression maybe fully consummated at the level of society, andindeed surpassed, through a full and rounded cycleof human interaction and communication.

Communication rights draw on aspects of otherkey human rights –“flanking” or “enabling'rights”– contained in the three main human rightsagreements (also known as the International Billof Rights): the Universal Declaration of HumanRights (1948), the International Covenant onCivil and Political Rights (1966) and the Inter-national Covenant on Economic, Cultural andSocial Rights (1966); and supplemented by manyother Treaties, Declarations and legal precedents.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1823


The following are all legally binding human rightsexplicitly granted by these agreements (thoughenforcement is a different matter):7

• A right to participate in one's own culture,and use one's mother language, including eth-nic, religious or linguistic minorities;

• A right to enjoy the benefits of scientificprogress and its applications;

• A right to information regarding governanceand matters of public interest (freedom of in-formation);

• A right to the protection of the moral and ma-terial interests of authorship;

• A right to one's honour and reputation, andto protection against unwarranted damage tothem;

• A right to privacy;

• A right to peaceful assembly and association;

• A right to self-determination and to take partin government;

• A right to free primary education and pro-gressive introduction of free secondary edu-cation.

Although not usually their primary intent, at leasta dimension of each of these bears strongly onthe process of communication in society (all couldbe suffixed with “in relation to media and com-munication”).

These might be termed “top-level” communica-tion rights. However, they are further specified,and sometimes additional dimensions added, inother international and national fora and legalprecedents.8 A very important example is the rightto a diverse and independent media, and to ac-cess the media, interpreted as a right in fora as

diverse as the European Court of Human Rights,Supreme Court of Sri Lanka, the German Fed-eral Constitutional Court, UNESCO Declara-tions, and Resolutions of the Council of the Eu-ropean Union (Article XIX 2003).

Some communication rights aim at overcomingbarriers to listening, such as prejudice, hatred, dis-crimination and intolerance. They advocate cul-tural and social self-determination, appeal for asensible balance between rewarding creativity andensuring that all can reap the benefits, and pro-mote education. Together they widen access to in-formation, culture and knowledge that comprisethe substance of communication; protect againstvarious abuses of communication from public andprivate sources; and reinforce the capacity of peopleto participate in culture and creativity, and in gov-ernance and policy. At the same time, communi-cation rights establish more clearly the basis forthe limits to freedom of expression, for instance,in cases of incitement to hatred or violence, or de-liberate and unjustified character assassination.

By breaking down barriers, putting in place en-abling mechanisms and enhancing self-determi-nation, communication rights build an environ-ment in which people are better equipped to re-ceive messages, to understand and respond tothem , and to communicate critically, competentlyand creatively. They nurture an environment oftolerance and mutual respect in the context ofcommunication.

This, then, is the resolution of the paradox. Com-munication rights do not seek to impose an abso-lute obligation to listen and respond. Rather, theybuild an environment in which interaction andcommunication are more likely to occur freelyand to mutual benefit. At the end of the day, ofcourse (with a few important exceptions aroundfreedom of information and so forth), decidingto communicate with others is a free choice.

Communication rights attempt to strip away lay-ers of social, historical, economic and psychologi-cal barriers to communication, to reinforce an en-vironment of mutual respect, and to build the ca-pacities of all in communication and interaction. !

7 See Annex 2 for the full text.

8 See Hamelink 2003 for a review of other relevant internationalinstruments.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1824

25

This interpretation of communication rights hasa number of implications, both for human rightsand in practice, that take it well beyond the rightto freedom of expression.

First, the whole is greater than the sum of theparts. Communication rights bring together rel-evant dimensions from a set of component rightsthat constitute the circumstances and environmentfor communication. The whole, the set of com-munication rights, yields something more thanthe sum of its parts: freedom of expression, pro-tection of privacy, the right to cultural expres-sion, and so forth. A right to communicate trans-forms mere expression of opinion (potentially)into interaction, and deepens understanding. Itturns imparting knowledge (potentially) intolearning. In this respect, communication rightscan, in an important sense, be seen as meta rights.

For instance, effective enforcement of freedom ofexpression might not, as already noted, on its ownresult in enhanced communication society-wide.The absence of plural media and of a widely avail-able means to access and disseminate content andopinions via the media; the “chilling effect” of sur-veillance and the absence of privacy; or the domi-nance of a single language may each present deci-sive obstacles to communication. Freedom of ex-

pression may, in practice, be freedom merely for afew, and indeed few others may choose to listen.

Thus, while communication rights can be realisedonly through a set of enabling rights, securingthem at the same time gives new and additionalmeaning to those enabling rights. The dividendcomes through the empowerment of all as equalswithin the communication arena, and the poten-tial for a virtuous cycle of communication. Thisgeneralised capacity for ongoing dialogue, in turn,leads to further communication, and to a cyclethat ultimately deepens democracy, mutual un-derstanding and respect.

Second, an integral part of the emergence of com-munication rights in practice is the creation of aclimate of mutual respect and tolerance, not justbetween individuals –although these rights areheld by individuals– but between diverse com-munities and cultures, ethnic groups and nation-alities. Calling for communication rights at thesame time endorses and supports the notion andvalue of diversity, since at its core are processesof listening, exchanging ideas and mutual re-sponse. Communication rights cannot be achievedby imposing uniformity of thought, but only byaccepting and valuing diversity as a starting point.Thus, communication rights have major implica-

For communication rights, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts in several ways.

• Without communication rights, freedom of expression can privilege the power-ful. With them, it can achieve its full potential.

• Communication rights have implications for social and collective rights, beyondthose of the individual, since they assert the right of cultural and ethnic groups, oflanguage communities and others. Support for diversity is also integral to commu-nication rights, through the high value attached to mutual respect and tolerance.

• Communication rights cannot be construed as simply about communication be-tween equal individuals. They already imply social structures that differentially con-strain and enable the capacity of different groups to communicate. They thus pointto changes to, and the governance of, inequitable social structures and dynamics.


The Value-Added of a Right to Communicate.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1825


tions for social and collective communication, andfor diversity. Supporting communication rightsis not just staking a claim for individuals; it hasimmense implications for relations among and be-tween groups and societies, and for how we ap-proach such issues as difference and diversity.

Finally, communication rights unavoidably im-plicate social processes and dynamics. Commu-nication rights cannot be fully understood in thecontext of, or using the metaphor of, a group ofinteracting individuals. By their very nature, they

The shaded boxes represent the domain of individual freedom of opinion and expression.Adding the others constitutes the domain of communication rights, insofar as they createthe environment for the communication process to be realised. The “other”, i.e. the secondparty in communication, is in brackets, signifying also a free decision to participate.

Even between formally equal individuals, each step may encounter potential constraints andbarriers to cycle completion: level of education, capacity to articulate, language differences,cultural prejudices, and so forth. Although in principle there is equality, in reality barriers cansignificantly distort the outcome. Transposing this to the level of society hugely exacerbatesthe situation, since a set of social, economic, political and cultural obstacles comes to the forewith differentiated impact on people and groups according to their access to power in society.Thus, the high cost of seeking and receiving ideas, driven up by copyright monopolies, isprohibitive for whole classes of people; lack of access to the means to generate ideas, fromeducational capacities through to media tools, can exclude many; centralised control of massmedia, whether by government or corporations, can deprive the (poor) majority of the meansto air their concerns; lack of access to media, for instance, mother tongue newspapers ortelephony and ICTs, can make it difficult to hear the voice of others and to interact with them.

For these kinds of issues, even the most forceful implementation of freedom of expression isinsufficient. The situation demands the more comprehensive and proactive implementationof communication rights. The challenge, just as in freedom of expression, is that even exist-ing communication rights are too often ignored on the ground by national authorities andothers responsible.

seek & receive ideas

generate ideas & opinions

express & speakbe heard (listen)

be understood (uderstand)(learn, enhance,

create)(respond & share)

point directly to questions of whether social struc-tures differently constrain and enable the capac-ity of different individuals and groups to com-municate effectively in society. The concept ofcommunication rights forces us to engage muchmore comprehensively the spirit of “freedom ofexpression” as a freedom that demands not sim-ply the absence of constraints on individuals, butalso both the elimination of constraints on wholesections of society and the creation of instrumentsand resources to build the access and capacitiesof those who are excluded. !

BOX 1: THE SOCIAL CYCLE OF COMMUNICATION

The contrast and complementarity between freedom of expression and communication rightscan be illustrated as follows: The Cycle of Communication

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1826

27

Are Communication Rights Enough?

We have argued that freedom of expression, initself, is insufficient to guarantee communicationrights in any meaningful sense. In reality, it maysimply mean that the voices of the powerful domi-nate, while others are stifled. We have also pointed

to a set of additional rights enshrined in interna-tional law that together offer a much broaderrange of rights, and that have the potential togreatly enhance communication rights. But canpeople exercise these rights in practice?

The legal constitution of rights is not in itself enough. Far from it, even when legallybinding, mechanisms are needed to make it possible to establish non-compliance.Redress must be available, and sanctions must be enforceable. Communication rightsestablished in international law have none of these. Most governments have tried toincorporate international laws in national law. Yet they are often undermined byexceptions, and weakened by qualifications. Some governments fail to enforce eventheir own laws.

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenanton Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), as we have seen, are intended to guarantee freedomof expression. But unlike the former, the latter includes a mechanism for enforcement.

However, there are limitations. As a Treaty Rule, its binding force applies only to states thathave ratified the treaty. (A treaty comes into effect only when it is ratified by legislation ineach signatory country, which can be much later or, in some cases, never.) Furthermore,derogation from this Article, unlike for some others, is permissible.

The means of enforcement is based on an Optional Protocol to the ICCPR (meaning it is notobligatory to subscribe to it), and on Resolution 1503 adopted by the [UN Economic and SocialCouncil] (ECOSOC) in 1970. The former authorises the Human Rights Committee of ECOSOC,made up of eighteen experts, to receive and consider communications from citizens of signato-ries of the Optional Protocol who claim to be a victim of a violation of the rights contained inthe covenant. The Protocol provides for communications, from governments and others, in-cluding the complainant, as well as for analysis and reporting. The procedure is slow and confi-dential, and at the end of it all, there are no sanctions or compensatory measures available. Themost that can be done is the publication of the evidence, along with the Commission's views onit. In practice, even these possibilities have never been fully exercised by the Commission.

Although it is an important mechanism since it is one of the few that asserts the right of anindividual as against the rights of a state, it is hardly surprising that few have ever embarkedalong this route. (from Ó Siochrú et al 2002)

BOX 2: ENFORCING FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1827


This, of course, is the problem. Although the In-ternational Bill of Rights is legally binding on allsignatory countries, its implementation is anothermatter.

If an individual feels their government is not liv-ing up to its commitments, these instruments of-fer only very limited and ineffectual means of re-dress. Though they are legally binding, it is diffi-cult to establish non-compliance. And where thiscan be established, sanctions are virtually non-existent. But even were sanctions to hand, thereare no means to enforce them.

And, although governments are obliged to trans-late these agreements into national-level legislation,little can be done to those that fail to comply.

Nevertheless, almost all governments have at-tempted in one way or another to apply thesethrough national law –governments are generallyunder internal and external pressure to produce atleast a semblance of compliance. Unfortunately, itonly too often goes no further than that.

Widespread failure to comply with the spirit andarguably the letter of international law in rela-tion to communication rights should come asno surprise. Though the international Bill ofRights may have significant moral power, changedoes not emanate from such top-down direc-tions. The Bill of Rights represents a benchmarkof aspirations initiated at a time when globalconditions allowed for them to be fixed at a rea-sonably high level, in the aftermath of the hu-man catastrophe that was the Second WorldWar. Thus, the existence of communicationrights at the level of international law is bothan inspiration and a practical advocacy tool thatcan be used to exert pressure at all levels. Whilea goal must be to strengthen these rights, themeans to achieve this primarily lie outside ofinternational law.

The next section moves towards the idea of com-munication rights on the ground, and specificallyaddresses the trends that are currently influenc-ing them. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1828

29

Communication Rights: Why Now?

At this point, a legitimate question may be posed.Why is it that “communication rights”, as a con-cept, is especially relevant now, more than it wasin the past?

Put from the perspective of the argument above:Even allowing that communication rights are validas a concept, is it not sufficient to maintain a fo-cus on achieving freedom of expression and work-ing outwards from there? Do recent dynamics andcircumstances justify the creation of this new con-cept of communication rights?

The answer is “yes”. Communication rights havegrown greatly in relevance in the last decades, dueto a number of factors including the following.

• Corporate Media Dominance

• Identity and Culture

• Copyright and Public Domain

• Universal Service and ICTs

• Civil Rights in the Digital Environment

Corporate Media Dominance

Direct government control and manipulation ofmedia, long regarded as the major threat to free-dom of expression, is in significant decline in allregions of the world. Governments worldwide arerelinquishing the crude instruments of direct cen-sorship and state-controlled media. The mush-rooming of alternatives to government media andof the Internet has rendered it almost (but onlyalmost) impossible to exert direct control. Thoughmuch remains to be done, freedom of expressionhas thus received a major and welcome boost.

The trouble is that increased freedom of expres-sion is not generating a corresponding floweringin media diversity, including diversity of contentand plurality of sources. While the sheer volumeof media outlets and channels has increased, evi-dence suggests that –following an initial openingin hitherto repressed countries– the diversity ofviews represented, and of the sources and formatsof these views, is very narrow. This is largely the

A set of global dynamics gives communication rights special relevance today:

• Mass media are now dominated by a few global corporations. This significantlybiases content towards profit generation and reduces diversity of sources andcontent.

• Mass media play a growing role in identity formation and cultural processes, butthese are shifting towards an unsustainable individualist and consumerist ethos.

• The ongoing extension of copyright duration and stiffer enforcement in the digi-tal area, is impeding communication and use of knowledge, and the public do-main is shrinking.

• Access to ICTs, and their use to tackle poverty and exclusion, has almost groundto a halt under neo-liberal policies.

• Under the pretext of a “war on terrorism”, civil rights in the digital environmentare being severally eroded.

These trends emerge alongside ongoing discrimination against minority languagegroups, “traditional” denial of freedom of expression by governments, and numer-ous other curtailments of communication rights.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1829


result of the commercialisation of media and afocus on generating profits, and of the concen-tration of ownership into fewer and fewer globalcorporations. Genuine public service media,where it exists, is under threat; and where it doesnot, is perceived by governments as an expensiveand possibly less compliant option than commer-cial media. Community media in their many forms(citizen's media, autonomous media, civil societymedia etc.) are struggling hard, but still receiveminimal recognition or active support, andprogress is slow. The net effect is a corporate,consumerist and northern bias in global massmedia, inadequate local media in most poor coun-tries, and little or no media directly focusing onand arising from people's needs and interests.

Yet, as we have argued, the idea of freedom ofexpression is incapable of tackling these newforms of corporate media dominance, either con-ceptually or in terms of the instruments availableto it. In fact, freedom of expression, narrowlydefined, is largely compatible with corporatemedia dominance, especially in jurisdictionswhere corporations are deemed, just like people,to have a right to freedom of expression.

Freedom of expression can also do little to counteremerging links between government leaders andprivate media industry, in explicit forms, in coun-tries such as Italy and Thailand, where respectivePrime Ministers Berlusconi and Thaksin controlmuch of the media; in more or less hidden forms,as in the Russian President's manipulation of me-dia; or in more subtle forms, as in the United King-dom, where Prime Minister Blair and RupertMurdoch's media empire are believed to havestruck a mutually beneficial deal.

In these situations, robust measures are neededto actively bring about genuine and broad diver-sity in content, ownership and opportunity to par-ticipate, such as firm regulation of commercialmedia to limit concentration and cross-ownership,greater accountability of government and publicparticipation in media policy, and positive sup-port for government-free public service and com-

munity or independent local media. These are allaimed at securing broader aspects of communi-cation rights.

However, the value of the concept of communi-cation rights does not rest simply on the fact thatfreedom of expression is largely redundantagainst this new threat. A number of other is-sues also loom above the process of communi-cation in society.

Identity and Culture

Media commercialisation affects more than sim-ply media content. Many are concerned that italso has a strong tendency to promote thehomogenisation of identity and cultural expres-sion towards a consumerist ethos, which valuesconsumption of goods over all else and contrib-utes to the environmental threats faced by theplanet. Commercial media and advertising, bytheir own admission, are central to a dynamic ofever-growing consumption by the middle classesand wealthy, that in turn boosts ever-growingproduction, consuming more resources and fuel-ling environmental degradation.

Copyright and Public Domain

Threats have also emerged to the creative capac-ity of society.

Many argue that ever-lengthening duration ofcopyright and concentration into corporatehands, the imposition of uniform copyright re-gimes and their extreme enforcement through theWTO are leading to the “enclosure” of knowl-edge into profit-generating corrals and the effec-tive denial of access to much of it, especially bypoor countries and communities. With thedigitisation of much knowledge, contractual ar-rangements supported by Digital Rights Manage-ment are threatening even limited existing rightsto fair use for educational or non-commercialpurposes. Again, a key moment in the communi-cation cycle is under threat.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1830

31

Universal Service and ICTs

In terms of achieving universal access and effec-tive use of postal services, telephony and ICTs,including the Internet, progress appears to haveground to a halt. Claims that liberalisation andprivatisation can address the “digital divide” haveproven unfounded.

Since 1999, investment in telecommunication hasslowed greatly, growth has stalled, and evidencesuggests the market-driven approach has reachedits limits. Having satisfied highly profitable pent-up demand, there is little appetite for investmentto reach lower-return users at national or inter-national levels. The biggest losers are rural areasand poorer communities, still underserved orunable to afford the available services.

Innovative technologies are still emerging, but forsimilar reasons, enthusiasm for experimenting andimplementing them has waned. A period of con-solidation has set in, and those looking to the pri-vate sector, including the G8's DotForce andWSIS, to bridge the “digital divide” are to be dis-appointed. The market-driven logic of provision,lacking firm international and national politicalwill to implement effective universal access poli-cies, and still traumatised by the late 1990s spend-ing spree and subsequent hangover, has stalledwhere huge profits tail off, far short of reachingareas of most need. Donor-led, and sometimessuccessful, attempts to reach these users outsidethe market, promoting community access, low

cost technology etc., can do little to compensatefor such systemic failure.

What is needed is a paradigm shift to one or morealternatives that place people, rather than prof-its, in the driving seat. In addition to focusing onthose in most need, appropriate technology de-velopment and consideration of environmentalcost and benefit are also important.

Civil Rights in the Digital Environment

Finally –though this list is by no means exhaus-tive– there are huge concerns about the erosionof civil rights in the emerging digital environment.Often in the guise of anti-terrorist measures andreinforced by “mission creep” and policy laun-dering (effectively, the “cutting and pasting” ofpolicies developed in the USA or the EU into thenational strategies of resource-poor countries),there is widespread and growing Internet surveil-lance and control. Commercialisation ofcyberspace is also opening to new forms of cor-porate censorship, exerted through reluctant ISPs,search engines and bandwidth retailers. For someof these, “traditional” defences of freedom ofexpression can be deployed; but others, such asthe emerging corporate element, require new con-cepts and solutions.

All of these concerns and fears can be conceptu-ally analysed and understood using the conceptof communication rights. !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1831


In a worst-case scenario, the risk to society is great. A severe deterioration in thecommunication cycle of society could enfeeble democratic debate and participa-tion, undermine creativity, and severely constrain individual and collective interac-tion and mutual understanding.

Communication rights underline the role of communication in the reproductionand sustainability of economic, social, cultural and political processes.

In combination with ongoing and “traditional”denials of communication rights, these dynamicsgreatly influence each step of the communicationprocess in society.

Earlier, the process of communication and inter-action was illustrated to highlight interactions anddialogue between people. (Box 1) At the level ofsociety –it was noted– communication may beseen as a cycle of interactivity through which keysocial components relate to each other, complet-ing a process of knowledge generation, mutualexchange and learning, and potentially enhanc-ing the social wellbeing of all. As with individu-als, the process constitutes a series of “moments”in a cycle that runs through creativity, communi-cation, access, interaction, mutual understandingand learning, and on to further creativity.

The illustration below recalls this earlier one, butwith an emphasis on how knowledge is embed-ded in economic, political and cultural structures.

In a positive cycle, all sections of society benefitfrom more fertile and widespread creativity,broader distribution and deeper interactivity andmore profound levels of mutual understandingand social learning. These feed into more demo-cratic social institutions, sustainable economicactivity, and diverse and rich cultural life.

Of course, this is highly schematic and simplistic.Creativity, knowledge and learning are involvedat every stage, and cannot be functionally iso-lated out. Media are integrally involved in thepublic sphere, in culture and so forth. However,

splitting the process into these “moments” en-ables us to distinguish more clearly the impact ofthe dynamics outlined earlier on the social com-munication process. Such impacts include:

• The process of knowledge creation (A) isdeeply influenced by the regime of knowledgeownership. Excessive concentration of knowl-edge ownership into corporate hands, with ex-tremely powerful copyright enforcement, hasa major influence on the distribution of socialincentives for creativity in society. The “cul-ture industries”, for instance, highly rewardonly a few artists and largely ignore the rest;investment is channelled only towards com-mercially profitable activities; and audiencesare targeted according to their profitmaximisation potential (C).

• Excessive concentration of media ownershipcan have a somewhat similar impact (A). Re-sources are directed towards journalism andcontent production that maximises profits;media concentration can generate specific dis-tortions in information reaching the publicsphere (D), biased towards media owners andcorporate capital generally.

• Commercialisation of media (C) can lead tomany being priced out of access to media.Coupled with advertising, (D) it generates astrong bias towards untrammelled individu-alist consumerism in the cultural and eco-nomic spheres, and generally contaminates thecultural environment.

A Worst-Case Scenario

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1832

33

A. Knowledge Creation

B. Dissemination Distribution

E. Social Learning

C. Acces/ Capacity to use

D. Use & Interaction

Public sphere

Economic activity

Cultural identity/ diversity

(A) Knowledge creation and recreation (which in practice occurs all through society) ispotentially an activity for everyone, whether devoted to material production, tocultural and artistic endeavour, or to building social and political institutions.

(B) Dissemination and distribution is through mass media, publishing, the Internet anda variety of other means, including interpersonal communication. Many of theseact as gatekeepers and filters, denying or permitting entry to knowledge.

(C) However, gaining practical access to the dissemination process is a distinct require-ment, as is the capacity to use such knowledge effectively to achieve goals.

(D) Knowledge passing through this process goes into use, becoming the substance ofinteraction and communication between people and society in general. Knowledgecan broadly be grouped into several interlinked areas: knowledge for the publicsphere that underpins the democratic processes and social institutions; for economicactivity that supports material existence; and for the vital process of communityand individual identity formation, for cultural and artistic endeavour and so forth.

(E) Out of all of this comes what can be termed the process of social learning, thecapacity for society to address and resolve problems in the general social interest.This in turn feeds back into, and hopefully further enhances and reinforces, thecreative process of knowledge generation.

THE PROCESS OF SOCIAL COMMUNICATION

• Liberalisation and privatisation in telecommu-nication, if driven solely by commercial inter-ests, can seriously limit access to electronicsources of information and means of commu-nication (C).

• The erosion of civil rights in the emergingdigital environment can inhibit dissemina-tion of electronic material through censor-ship (B); and limit interaction in the publicsphere (D).


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1833


Thus, these trends between them can fundamen-tally shape the outcomes of social communica-tion and who benefits from the process, throughcontrolling the creation and ownership of knowl-edge, the processes and media of disseminationand communication, and its use to solve politi-cal, economic and social goals. The imminentdanger is that each moment in the cycle is be-coming harnessed to the needs of capital and themarket. The source of creativity becomes con-taminated, and the flow of knowledge is inter-rupted at various points in the process, the fruitsof creativity diverted to feed ever more power-ful and wealthy corporate interests. It is a gradualhollowing out of social communication, muchof its value sidetracked and stockpiled in corpo-rate coffers.

The ultimate danger is that the cycle of society'ssocial communication process is interrupted, theprocess of social learning becomes ever morefeeble, and in the end the process of creativity istransformed and reduced to short-term, unsus-tainable, generation of profits to benefit a smallminority. Society may find itself before too longhaving virtually lost the capacity for creativity,for an inclusive and equitable sharing of knowl-edge, for democratic participation in our politi-cal structures, for diverse cultural expression andexpression of identity, even the capacity to learnfrom past and present generations.

“Communication rights”, as a concept and aspractice, potentially has the depth and breadthneeded to tackle these dangers. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1834

35

The Case for a United Front

A case can also be made that these apparentlydiverse issues must be tackled together, as an en-semble.

First, the root causes, the driving forces, of manyof these are interlinked. Behind most is the glo-bal agenda of unregulated capitalism with its ten-dency to monopoly, private ownership and con-sumerism. Wielding enormous political and eco-nomic clout, its logic is forcefully impressed uponevery barrier it encounters, whether resistance tothe destruction of the public sphere, efforts toprotect cultural diversity, or a desire to deploythe fruits of human creativity for the greater so-cial good. The need to maximise profits, and tocreate the ideal conditions for this, endeavoursto sweep aside such obstacles and transform theworld in its own market-driven image.

Second, there are many linkages and interdepen-dencies between the industrial sectors driving theprocess, and their dynamics are intertwined. Glo-bal media corporations are central actors almosteverywhere, often incestuously entwined, and theline between them and telecoms companies andISPs has long been blurred. These in turn areclosely associated with a small number of power-ful governments. Such interconnectedness meansthat, on the one hand, it is almost impossible to

deal with each domain in isolation; but, on theother, a campaign can gain leverage in one do-main by working on another.

Third, many of these issues fall under the sphereof influence of the WTO, especially under TRIPSand GATS. This is no coincidence, since corpo-rate and government interests long ago identifiedthe WTO (then the GATT) as the most amenable,controllable and powerful of the global gover-nance organisations. Suitably armed, it could rideroughshod over the UN agencies, human rightsand development instruments.

All suggest that tackling any of these issues inisolation would be ineffectual. The main actors,interests and strategies are too interdependent forthem to permit any one area to submit to change.Indeed, their success in pushing their agenda glo-bally has relied heavily on acting collectively, andon shared, often arms-length, agendas –a goodlesson for the opposition to learn.

The advantage of communication rights is thatit can embrace such diversity within a single con-ceptual framework, which in turn strengthensthe potential for broad-based concerted opposi-tion and the development of comprehensive al-ternatives. !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1835


Ó Siochrú, Seán, Girard, Bruce, and Mahan, Amy(2002), Global Media Governance:A Beginner's Guide, UNRISD, Rowman& Littlefield, Geneva, Boulder, London.www.comunica.org

Ó Siochrú, Seán (2004), “Will the Real WSIS pleaseStand Up? The Historic Encounter of the InformationSociety and the Communication Society”, Gazette–The International Journal for CommunicationStudies, Vol 66 No. 3/4, June–July. Sage, London,Amsterdam. Pre-publication can be downloadedfrom www.comunica.org/sos/

UNESCO (1980), Many Voices, One World, Reportof the International Commission forthe Study of Communication Problems, Paris.

UNESCO (1978), Declaration of FundamentalPrinciples concerning the Contribution of the MassMedia to Strengthening Peace and InternationalUnderstanding, to the promotion of Human Rightsand to Countering Racialism, Apartheid andIncitement to War, 20th Session of the UNESCOGeneral Conference, Paris 1978.

United Nations (2003), Statement on WorldTelecommunication Day. UN Secretary General,May 17. New York.

Article 19 (2003) Statement on the Right toCommunicate, February. www.article19.org/

d'Arcy, Jean (1978). The Right to Communicate.Paper #36 prepared for the InternationalCommission for the Studyof Communication Problems underthe chairmanship of Seán MacBride.

d'Arcy, Jean. (1969), “Direct Broadcast Satellitesand the Right to Communicate”, in Right toCommunicate: Collected Papers, eds. L. S. Harms,Jim Richstad, and Kathleen A. Kie, University ofHawaii Press, Honolulu, 1977 (1–9. Originallypublished in EBU Review 118 (1969): 14–18)See http://righttocommunicate.org/

European Commission. (2002), Positionon the WSIS. May 22. Brussels.

Hamelink, Cees (2003), “Human Rights for theInformation Society”, in Communicating in theInformation Society, eds. Bruce Girard and SeánÓ Siochrú, UNRISD, Geneva. www.unrisd.org

ITU (2002), World Telecoms Development Report;Reinventing Telecom Services, Geneva.

Mendel, Toby (2003), The Right to Communicate:An Overview, Article 19, October.

References:

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1836

3The assessment framework:

theory and practice

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1837

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1838

39

The overall goal of the Assessment Framework isto enable civil society groups to generate an un-derstanding of communication rights, the realityof their implementation and key issues in a givenenvironment, and to plan actions that can helpimprove the situation in practice. The previoussection offers several ways in which communica-tions rights can be conceptually grouped, depend-ing on what we have in mind and the perspectivewe take.

For instance, we can group them as relating tomain holder of the right (children, cultural com-munities, journalists, women etc.); or we cangroup them according to the formal nature of therights as they are ordered in the main interna-tional instruments (e.g. social, political, civil andcultural). Looking from the ground up, we canconsider them in terms of those most threatenedor least enforced.

For this exercise, of conducting an assessment oftheir current empirical status with a view to ac-tion, we have chosen to group them under FOURPILLARS that we feel can both be manipulatedconceptually and organised around in practice.

Each Pillar relates to a different domain of socialexistence, experience and practice, in which com-munication is a core activity and performs keyfunctions. The rationale for the four is that eachinvolves a relatively autonomous sphere of socialaction, yet depends on the others for achievingits ultimate goal –they are necessary interlockingblocks in the struggle to achieve communicationrights. Action can be coherently pursued undereach, often in collaboration with other social ac-tors concerned with the area more generally; whilebridges can and must be built to the other areasif the goal is to be achieved.

Significant progress and improvement can bemade in each Pillar, but the greater the progress,the more it becomes clear that issues covered byother Pillars must also be tackled. The concept ofcommunication rights is, in this sense, immanentwithin this grouping of Four Pillars of communi-cation rights.

Each of the Four Pillars is outlined below. Annex2 contains the detailed Framework, including aset of practical questions associated with each ofthe Pillars. !

Structuring Communication Rights

T H E A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E W O R K : T H E O R Y A N D P R A C T I C E

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1839


Communicating in the Public Sphere

The First Pillar of communication rights relatesto the existence of spaces and resources for thepublic, everyone, to engage in transparent, in-formed and sustained democratic debate. It is vi-tal that our political structures prioritise the cre-ation of such spaces and provision of such re-sources. At the same time, there are political andeconomic forces opposed to this, whose powerbase and privileged positions would be threatened.

Access to knowledge of public interest, its aggre-gation, processing and manipulation in relationto matters of public concern, and its dissemina-tion and circulation within society are central.Governance of mass media, and means for peopleto interact, are thus at the core of this. We callthis Pillar Communicating in the Public Sphere.

Communication Knowledge

The Second Pillar looks at the communicationand exchange of knowledge more broadly, andnot just of that knowledge essential to publicdebate and democratic interaction. The goal isto create a regime where creative ideas andknowledge are encouraged, that can be commu-nicated as widely and freely as possible for edu-cation, enlightenment, practical application,entertainment and other uses. Furthermore, adistributed and decentralised structure of pro-duction and communication of knowledge isdesirable, geographically and among differentgroups and communities.

Inherent dynamics pull in different directionshere, too. An example is in the area of copy-right. The original role of copyright was to strikea balance between, on the one hand, grantingmonopoly control over the communication ofknowledge for a limited period, thereby creat-ing an incentive for further creativity, and onthe other, releasing it into the public domain foruse by, and benefit of, all.

However, “knowledge products” have become amassive industry, and copyright is now in prac-

tice largely controlled by private corporations,and so the underlying dynamic has changed. To-day, controlling demand for, and production andcommunication of these “knowledge products”is critical to maximising profits and extractingthem into private hands. The current tension isbetween those who want to return to the originalrationale behind copyright and build a new re-gime that both encourages innovation and cre-ativity, and maximises the use of knowledge; andthose corporate and government interests thatseek to maximise profits to industry.

Meanwhile, huge sections of the population lackmeans to gain access to information and to use iteffectively, even were it in principle in the publicdomain. Affordable universal access to conven-tional and ICT-based networks is an importantgoal in this respect, in forms that are built fromthe bottom-up, based on real needs.

This Second Pillar we call Communicating Knowl-edge for Creativity and Equity.

Civil Rights in Communication

The Third Pillar is about ensuring that civil rightsassociated with communication of all kinds aresecured, and the need to protect the dignity andsecurity of people in relation to the communica-tion process. In includes the right to defend one'sreputation against attacks by the media, one of afew areas in which the exercise of civil rights nec-essarily limits media freedom. It also includes aright to know what happens to information youprovide, or is gathered about you.

Led by the US and UK, the growth in the global“security” agenda, and all that entails, has be-gun to seriously undermine established andpreviously enforced rights in this area, and hasgiven governments all over the world a welcomepretext by which they can control informationflows and communication to their own ends.This is especially the case in “cyberspace”, wherethe ground rules are still only being established.Thus, important here are the right to privacy in

Four Pillars of the Framework

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1840

41

communication and freedom from surveillance.This Third Pillar is called Civil Rights in Com-munication.

Cultural Rights in Communication

The Fourth Pillar covers another key function,that of enabling the communication of diversecultures, cultural forms and identities at the in-dividual and social levels. Communication iscentral to the production, practice and repro-duction of culture and identity. Goals includeencouraging diversity of cultural forms and cul-tural authenticity based on real human experi-ences and possibilities, and respecting, preserv-ing and renewing existing cultures. It is also in-advisable and impossible to divorce culture fromhuman goals of peace, global equity, andsustainability, and from human rights includingwhere local culture can be at the expense ofhuman rights. The modalities and forms bywhich culture is communicated and dissemi-nated, increasingly through various mass me-dia, are central to the outcome.

One major concern here is a process of culturalhomogenisation caused by the commodificationof communicated (or mass media-driven) culture,and an emerging dominance of “for-profit cul-ture” produced in a few global and regional cen-tres. This has serious knock-on effects on bothindividual and collective identity formation, frag-menting some cultural forms and encouraging anunsustainable consumerist ethic, both individu-ally and collectively. Linguistic segmentation ofthe world based on the dominance of English ineconomy, politics and culture, is a further causefor concern, since it is accompanied not just bythe elimination of many languages but by the ef-fective exclusion of many people from these dis-courses. Finally, in many societies minority cul-tures are seriously discriminated against in termsof recognition and communicating within thenational cultural context.

The Fourth Pillar we call the Cultural Rights inCommunication. !

TABLE 1: THE FOUR PILLARS

A. Communicating in Public Sphere: Concerning the role of communication and mediain exercising democratic political participation in society.

B. Communicating Knowledge: Concerning the terms and means by which knowledgegenerated by society is communicated, or blocked, for use by different groups.

C. Civil Rights in Communication: Concerning the exercise of civil rights relating to theprocesses of communication in society.

D. Cultural Rights in Communication: Concerning the communication of diversecultures, cultural forms and identities at the individual and social levels.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1841


Each of the Pillars encompasses a set of key, some-what overlapping, components relating to com-munication rights as defined by international lawand more broadly by international agreements.But each also has rights associated with them thatare not specific to, or directly related to, commu-nication. These are worth identifying, since theymight suggest directions for collaboration withother social actors.

Reference is made below to rights relating to com-munication, even where indirect, contained in theInternational Bill of Rights (the acronym and ar-ticle of the appropriate instrument are in brack-ets: see Annex 2.). However, many are consider-ably elaborated, broadened and deepened in thecontext of a whole range of additional interna-tional conventions, declarations and other instru-ments, as well as precedents in national law, toonumerous to mention here.9

Rights relating to Pillar A, Communicating in thePublic Sphere, include:

• Freedom of expression, including the right ofthe media to operate freely (UDHR 18, 19,21, ICCPR 19);

• Access information from public and privatesources that pertains to the public interest(UDHR 19, ICCPR 19);

• A diverse and plural media, in terms ofsources, content, views and means of trans-mission (UDHR 19, ICCPR 19);

• Universal access to the media necessary to en-gage with the public sphere, including directcommunication and a right to assembly(UDHR 19, ICCPR 19, 21, 22).

An effective public sphere also requires rights notdirectly related to communication, such as theright to literacy and to a basic education (UDHR26, ICESCR 13).

Those relating to Pillar B, Communicating Knowl-edge, include rights to:

• A knowledge-communication regime thatboth encourages creativity and maximisessharing (UDHR 27, ICESCR 15);

• Affordable and equitable access to the meansand media for knowledge-sharing (UDHR 19,27, ICCPR 19, 27);

• Reasonable access to the material means toproduce ideas and disseminate them via me-dia (UDHR 27, ICESCR 15);

• Skills and capacities needed to utilise mediaand communication effectively (UDHR 19,ICESCR 15, ICCPR 19).

Rights regarding knowledge and ideas that dohave an indirect communication component in-clude: the right to apply knowledge in practicalways such as industrial patents (UDHR 27), andthe collective right to determine the appropriateuse and protection of our natural heritage (e.g.patenting of life-forms), and of culture knowl-edge (e.g. patenting of indigenous knowledge andbio-piracy).

Those relating to Pillar C, Civil Rights in Com-munication, include rights to:

• Protection against incitement to legal discrimi-nation (UDHC 7, 12 ICCPR 10, 17, 20);

• Protect one's honour and reputation (ICCPR17, 19.3);

• Privacy and protection of personal data andinformation, held by you or others (ICCPR17);

• Privacy of personal communication (ICCPR17);

• Freedom from excessive workplace and pub-lic surveillance in communication.

Civil rights that relate indirectly to communica-tion include a right to freedom of assembly, tosafe and healthy working conditions, includingfor journalists (ICESCR 7).

Key Rights Associated with Pillars

9 For a fuller account, see Hamelink, Cees (2003), “Human Rights forthe Information Society”, in Communicating in the Information Society,eds. Bruce Girard and Seán Ó Siochrú, UNRISD, Geneva.www.unrisd.org for the full text.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1842

43

Pillar D, Cultural Rights in Communication, in-cludes rights to:

• Communicate in one's mother tongue in keyspheres such as politics and media (ICCPR10f, 27);

• To participate in the cultural life of the com-munity, via national and other media and com-munication structures (UDHR 22, 27,ICESCR 15, ICCPR 27);

• Support for balanced sharing of all culturesand identities, promoting understandingand tolerance (UDHR 22, 27, ICESCR15.4).

Here, too, other rights are relevant to culture thatdo not bear directly on communication. Theseinclude the right to education, basic freedoms thatare a precondition of creative activity (ICCPR 25),the right to freedom of religious thought, and soforth.

TABLE 2: BASIC FRAMEWORK STRUCTURE

A. COMMUNICATING B. COMMUNICATING C. CIVIL RIGHTS D. CULTURAL RIGHTS

IN PUBLIC SPHERE KNOWLEDGE IN COMMUNICATION IN COMMUNICATION

A1: Freedom ofexpression.

A2: Freedom of thepress and media,including electronic.

A3: Access to, and readyavailability of, publicand governmentinformation.

A4: Access to corporateinformation.

A5: Diversity andplurality of mediaand content.

A6: Universal accessto relevant media.

E: INTERNATIONAL DIMENSION OF COMMUNICATION RIGHTS

E1: The role of non-national, transnational and cross-border media and communication.E2: The role and relevance of international agreements.

F: DEMOCRACY AND PARTICIPATION IN COMMUNICATION GOVERNANCE

F1: Effective participation by civil society in governance nationally.F2: Effective participation by civil society in governance transnationally.

B1: A balancedknowledge-sharingregime, with practicalsupport measures.

B2: Publicly fundedknowledge enters thepublic domain.

B3: Affordable andequitable access to allmedia for knowledge-sharing.

B4: Availability ofrelevant knowledgefor all communities.

B5: Widespread skillsand capacities to usemedia, especiallyICTs.

C1: Right to equalitybefore the law, tohonour and reputation.

C2: Information privacyand data protection.

C3: Privacy ofcommunication.

C4: Communicationsurveillance in publicand workplace.

D1: Communicatingin one's mother tongue.

D2: Participation inthe cultural life of one'scommunity.

D3: Stimulate thesharing of cultureand cultural identity.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1843


Cross-cutting Communication rights

Finally, a few rights cut across all Four Pillars.

First is the extent to which rights contain a trans-frontier dimension, explicitly referred to, for in-stance, in Article 19 of the Universal Declarationof Human Rights (UDHR 19). Other aspects con-cern the legal enforceability of existing rights atthe international level, including going beyondthe Bill of Rights to include other internationalagreements to which governments have commit-ted themselves; and to the relative absence of gov-ernance structures beyond the national level forcommunication and media-related matters.

The second area straddling all Pillars is the rightto participate meaningfully in the formulation andgovernance of the communication sphere, in prin-

ciple and practice. These include the right to ac-tive participation in the formulation of laws,policy and implementation affecting these areas(UDHR 21, ICCPR 1, 25) at national level, butalso in the context of international relations. Theright and the capacity of all people to participateactively in the formation and governance of theprocess of social communication, as the hub ofinteractions within society, is a central dimensionof all Pillars. It articulates the difference betweenthe right merely to “access” information and com-munication, and the right to actively engage in,create and recreate, society's communication pro-cesses.

In the following sections, each of the Four Pillarsis explored with reference to the four nationalareas in which they have been applied. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1844

45

The national research reports, from Brazil, Co-lombia, Kenya and the Philippines, were by nomeans uniform. Although they all conformed tothe outline above, considerable freedom was per-mitted, and taken, in relation to what to focus onand how to organise the material. Below, a flavourof a few of the issues arising is presented. A singleissue is highlighted to illustrate each of the Pil-lars, and quotations are from the country sum-mary reports.10

Pillar A: Communicating in the Public Sphere

All the teams devoted considerable effort to thisarea, for understandable reasons. It covers suchkey issues as freedom and plurality of the press,freedom of information, and the universality ofaccess to media. The area of media freedom anddiversity is a good one to illustrate contrasts inwhat are formally similar situations –they all claimto have free media broadly along the liberalmodel.

Colombia is going through a process of privatisingits media, with public funding being withdrawn.At the same time, the private media are more andmore inclined towards “legitimizing thegovernment's model, the handling of internationalaffairs, and domestic public policy”. From a gov-ernment point of view, it appears that a compli-ant, profit-driven, private media is most effectivein terms of managing public opinion.

Journalists work under constant threat in Colom-bia, and not only of violence.

Journalists are often the object of seriouspressure, either from the companies theywork for, from sectors interested in con-cealing public interest matters, or fromarmed actors that control the territory.(Colombia)

The Philippines also has one of the highest mur-der rates of journalists in the world, seven in 2004alone, and fifty-six since 1986, “mostly becauseof their reports exposing corruption and/or mal-feasance by members of the government and themilitary, particularly at the local levels. There havebeen no successful convictions to date.”. The gov-ernment stands accused of not doing enough. Theongoing so-called “war on terror” is also leadingto censorship attempts by the military.

Media in the Philippines are largely private andunregulated in relation to serving the public in-terest, possibly in reaction to the repressive tac-tics implemented during the martial law period.However, indirect state pressures are brought tobear on the media, for instance through govern-ment advertising boycotts, the use of libel suits,the bribing of journalists by candidates, and pay-ments to secure television appearances. Accord-ing to the Philippines Centre for InvestigativeJournalism, “40 percent of reporters were of-fered bribes to produce glowing reports of po-litical candidates, and 35 percent accepted theseoffers”. Underlying all this, a “disturbing trendof media commercialization or “commodifica-tion” is seen in more and more areas of massmedia, with enormous public interest implica-tions”.

Kenya faces a situation of government-linked pub-lic broadcasting and the absence of public serviceobligations on private broadcasters, coupled withthe ubiquity of western and South African televi-sion. A deteriorating economic and political situ-ation has prevented a much-delayed media law –as well as a new constitution– from being enacted.In the context of the political hopes raised afterthe ending of Daniel Moi's rule in 2002, “theabsence of a broadcasting regulatory frameworkrepresents a lost opportunity to build strongdemocratic broadcast media”.

Brazil, although experiencing little direct govern-ment interference, also suffers from a similardearth of media regulation in the public interest,resulting in extreme concentration of ownership

The Pillars in Practice

10 All summary and complete National Reports are availableat www.crisinfo.org/resources, as well as reports on the experienceof each of the research teams.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1845


–about 88 per cent of media and communica-tion companies are in the hands of just nine pri-vate corporations, most belonging to familiesand supporting the interest of local oligarchies.

The situation becomes worse when we re-alize that many radio and TV channelsare owned by politicians, who supportmedia legislation for their own benefit…In a country with immense economicalinequality, only powerful economic andpolitical groups can effectively participatein the public sphere. (Brazil)

All four country teams, and that of the Euro-pean Union, express concern about the growingconcentration of ownership of media, a globaltrend brought about by corporate pressure toprevent or eliminate limits on media ownership,a trend that seriously threatens media diversity.This was found to be one of the few commonconcerns of all the research teams. Most alsoshow strong evidence of formal or informal linksbetween the political sphere and private media.

Nevertheless, community and locally owned me-dia, mainly radio but including participativevideo and independent film, manage to exist ev-erywhere, engaging with the interests of the lo-cal communities. They do so, however, largelyin the absence of specific supports, and often inthe face of strong tacit or explicit opposition.Community media are one of the bright spotsin otherwise difficult landscapes for media thatgenuinely pursue the public interest.

Pillar B: Communicating Knowledge

Much of the substance of Pillar 2 is around theidea of copyright and the public domain. Copy-right, in particular, is a contested issue at theglobal level at present, with a growing civil so-ciety advocacy constituency claiming that it hasin recent decades shifted significantly in favourof the interests of corporate owners of copyright,especially in wealthy countries, to the neglect ofboth public access to knowledge and the major-

ity of writers, musicians and other creative pro-ducers. These struggles are reflected in the na-tional studies, though the difficulty of obtain-ing useful and definitive information is also evi-dent.

In Kenya, copyright is largely disregarded and“as a result Kenya's growing music and film in-dustry is stifled and yields little to artists”. But,at the same time, it is noted:

Kenya's new national legislation on in-tellectual property rights was initiated inorder to comply with Kenya's WTO ob-ligations, rather than to protect and pro-mote local innovation and knowledge cre-ation. As a result aspects of Kenya's na-tional heritage and culture have becomeincreasingly vulnerable to piracy of in-digenous knowledge by private interests.(Kenya)

The motivation in the Philippines to legislate in1998 for intellectual property was also compli-ance with the WTO. “Thus existing laws havebeen aligned accordingly, in many ways strength-ening IP rights protection according to globalstandards largely dictated by the highly devel-oped economies of the North.” As a result,

… the information commons has beenmet with increasingly greater restric-tions, while proprietary rights and re-gimes are the “default” … [and] inven-tors, artists, writers—creators of knowl-edge which the TRIPS-patterned IP weresupposed to protect—often end up moredisenfranchised while profit-driven cor-porations and research institutionsgained greater economic benefits. (Phil-ippines)

The situation in Brazil is more complex still,though again their law is based on TRIPS. Thereport claims that excessive copyright royaltieslead to very high prices, which, among a verypoor population, inevitably leads to mass coun-terfeiting.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1846

47

As this illegal market naturally gravitatestowards organized crime, big corpora-tions develop extensive marketing cam-paigns against “piracy”, emphasizing thatrelationship. But they fail to mention thatone of the causes of this vicious cycle isthe excessive prices charged for legitimateproducts: Sales drop, unit prices areraised to compensate. The companies saythey are there to protect the rights of au-thors, but what they are really protect-ing is their profit. (Brazil)

Brazilian musicians, as a result, are creating in-dependent labels, generating a “re-formaliza-tion” of copyright protection, cutting out theconnection with big corporations”.

But Brazil has also recognised and encouragesCreative Commons,11 a more flexible and opensystem of protection, alongside copyright, andalso strongly supports free and open source soft-ware, both nationally in public administrationand internationally, for instance, at the WSIS.Yet intellectual property in general is used as abargaining chip in WTO negotiations, and Bra-zil itself also has a major stake as the largestregional media producer.

Though only indirectly relating to communica-tion rights, country reports also express strongconcerns about the “piracy” of indigenous knowl-edge and biodiversity by foreign corporations.

Against a background of poverty, civil war andhuge social divisions, it is perhaps understand-able that governments and indeed civil societyhave paid only limited attention to these areas.For many poorer countries, the obligation toimplement WTO agreements represents the firstreal encounter with copyright and intellectualproperty issues. Brazil, being the largest andmost industrialised, is somewhat an exceptionhere, but for others public debate and under-standing is limited.

Pillar C: Civil Rights in Communication

Data protection is included here: the right to knowthe use to which personal information you pro-vide, or is collected about you, is put. The Euro-pean Union has a particularly strong Directiverelating to this, applying in all member states andoffering a relatively high degree of protection –though they are constantly under threat and aretoo often ignored.

Colombia's constitution grants its citizens theright to “know, update, and rectify data that hasbeen gathered about them in databases and filesof public and private entities”. However, thetrouble is that

… there is no law that regulates the pro-tection, use, and management of informa-tion and data in Colombia. Moreover, inrecent years, attempts have been made tolimit the conditions of the exercise of thisright through the modification of this ar-ticle of the Constitution, within the frame-work of the initiative to create an anti-ter-rorist statute. (Colombia)

However, habeas data demands before the Con-stitutional Court have established some limitedparameters.

No such constitutional guarantee –enforced ornot– exists in Brazil, and there is no specific leg-islation, though again a habeas data may be ap-plied for. Unfortunately, there are no sanctionsfor misuse, and no means to ensure that informa-tion is removed from databases. As a result, “per-sonal information pillage prospers. Stolen data isused in frauds and even sending spam, and thereis no specific legislation to handle such cases”.

In Kenya, there is no protection.

The absence of a regulatory framework forthe ICT sector contributes to the lack of amechanism to access and correct data, orto secure privacy rights regarding the useof the information collected by varioussectors, including public and privateorganisations, the government etc. No11 www.creativecommons.org


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1847


mechanisms exist to protect the privacy ofcitizens, impose or limit government,organisations or private companies sharingthis information with other agencies of gov-ernment or even outside government.(Kenya)

Concerns centre on government, which is in theprocess of implementing a five-year plan to digitiseits data –thus rendering it far more vulnerable toabuse; but also on the private sector:

With increasing commercialisation, market-ers are misusing personal data causing a nui-sance to the person receiving the unsolic-ited mail. Spam is clogging email systems,post boxes are full of unsolicited post andsms are now being used to solicit business.(Kenya)

There is some evidence that data-protection rightsare largely neglected until the problems generatedsimply become too large to ignore. Yet, by thatpoint, they are also more difficult to resolve, sug-gesting a case for the introduction of legislationand protection before matters proceed too far.

Pillar D. Cultural Rights in Communication

The issue of indigenous and minority languages,and the status and rights they are accorded, isamong the most basic of cultural rights. Whilethere are few constraints on the (spoken) use oflanguage within language communities, a num-ber of issues arise as to whether such languagesare valued equally as part of the national culture.The implications, of course, can extend beyondcultural production and participation in culturalactivities, to issues such as the right to partici-pate in the public sphere (Pillar 1) and in theknowledge production of society (Pillar 2).

This is particularly so in the Philippines, which ishome to about 120 distinct ethno-linguisticgroups. The official languages, English and Ta-galog (Filipino), are the main spoken languagesof only 27% of the population, yet the ten main

newspapers choose to publish solely in these mi-nority languages, and all laws and regulations arewritten in technical English:

All television programmes are either En-glish or Filipino, although television is nowthe most widespread of mediums, surpass-ing radio over the past few years. Also inthe past few years, there has been a pre-cipitous decline in the number of films pro-duced using the vernacular or local lan-guages; the number of locally-producedfilms dropped from 210 in 1997 to 90 in2003. (Philippines)

This impacts mainly on the poor population, whoare least likely to speak the official languages.Government policies or actions to address the is-sue are few.

Although Brazil's 235 indigenous peoples speak180 different languages, most of this populationof under three-quarters of a million also speakPortuguese. The issue is therefore primarily cul-tural.

Yet, no programmes are produced for Indi-ans or by Indians. Moreover, there are nospecial programmes or content covering in-formation and communications technolo-gies directed towards Indians. (Brazil)

Worse still is the representation of black peoplein Brazilian television.

Several studies have shown that blackpeople and their descendants comprise aminority in soap operas and fiction pro-duction, the main products offered by Bra-zilian TV, although they represent around50% of the population. In general, whenpresent, they hold secondary or stigma-tized roles, such as housemaids. To giveone example: only in 2003, after 38 yearsof Rede Globo broadcasting (the biggestTV broadcaster in Brazil), was a blackwoman given a main character role in asoap opera. (Brazil)

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1848

49

Kenya, too, is a country of many languages, andpolitics since colonial times have tended to di-vide, sometimes dangerously, along ethnic lines.KBC, the state broadcaster, devotes a channel toseventeen local languages. About 20% of thepopulation speak English, yet

… [m]ainstream media target an educatedand English speaking middleclass popula-tion, a relatively small group with west-ern-oriented education, mostly alienatedfrom and even disdainful of indigenouscultural expression. The result is predomi-nantly English language mass media andother forms of cultural expression, withwestern forms of advertising targeting thehigh-consuming middle class a strong de-terminant of this bias. (Kenya)

But there is also hope. Although the concept ofcommunity radio is undeveloped, local FM radiois experiencing something of a cultural revival.

A few FM stations broadcast in local languages,including content such as folklore, music andhumour that is very rooted in cultures of ethnicgroups… Today some local language FM stationsare popular even among the English-speakingmiddle class, confirming that the media can po-tentially play a role in shaping culture…

These FM stations have played a majorrole in generating a music renaissance inthe country. Over the last three yearsKenyans have began [sic] to produce mu-sic of exceptional quality that is nowgreatly appreciated throughout the coun-try. This music is mainly hip-hop dancemusic in “Sheng” (a mixture or recreationof Kiswahili or other local language withEnglish). Music awards and concerts arenow serious events. Both the print andbroadcasting media now dedicate time andpages to music news, personality profiles,music charts, local videos and interviewswith musicians. Successful artists also fea-ture in advertisements. (Kenya) !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1849

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1850

4Applying the framework

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1851

12 Individual summary descriptions of the process of implementing the Framework in each of the countriesare available at www.crisinfo.org/craft

THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK IN FOUR

COUNTRIES AND IN THE EU REGION GENERATED A WEALTH

OF EXPERIENCE. THREE OF THE FIVE TEAMS UTILISED A FIRST DRAFT

VERSION OF THE FRAMEWORK IN THEIR RESEARCH. BUILDING ON

THIS EXPERIENCE, A SECOND VERSION OF THE FRAMEWORK WAS

PRODUCED SEVERAL MONTHS INTO THE PROCESS. THOSE STARTING

A LITTLE LATER COULD THUS DEPLOY THE REVISED VERSION. (THE

SUMMARIES IN ANNEX 3 ALL FOLLOW THE FINAL VERSION.)

THIS SECTION IS BASED MAINLY ON THE EXPERIENCE OF THE TEAMS

IN IMPLEMENTING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK. MANY OF THE

EARLY LESSONS LEARNED AND IDEAS EMERGING WERE

INCORPORATED INTO THE LATER VERSION OF THE FRAMEWORK,AND THESE ARE NOT DWELT ON HERE.12

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1852

53

Key Preliminary Decisions

Any group embarking on implementing an assess-ment of communication rights must ask them-selves some preliminary questions concerning therationale underlying the decision, the impact theyhope to achieve, and the approach to take toimplementation.

The Purpose and Approach to FrameworkImplementation

The goal behind implementing the AssessmentFramework, we anticipate, will be to enhance orsecure communication rights. It is difficult to seewhy any group would otherwise take the consid-erable trouble involved.

Several different strategic approaches can be takento achieving such a goal, depending on the spe-cific characteristics and conjuncture of the coun-try, and the orientation and capacities of the initi-ating body. The Assessment Framework is delib-erately structured so that it can be

• applied by different types of groups,

• using various methodologies, and

• with different specific objectives.

At least two (overlapping) approaches may beadopted, each emphasising a different strategicpurpose.

The “political-influence-approach”

First, the assessment can be utilised to guide theproduction of a comprehensive, rigorous, system-atic and authoritative analysis and documenta-tion of the current state of communication rights.

The emphasis here is on the credibility and au-thority of the implementing group and researchteam, and of the overall process. The goal is toproduce a document that will help to define theconcept of, identify key issues regarding, and in-fluence the political environment for communi-cation rights. It achieves this by being demonstra-

bly objective, dispassionate and non-partisan inapproach, by being inclusive in process and en-gaging with many stakeholders, and by present-ing itself in a manner that gains widespread pub-licity and commentary. Its impact ultimately de-rives from having presented to many constituen-cies evidence that is not easy to ignore, and diffi-cult to refute. Its immediate focus is on the me-dia, public opinion and the political systembroadly speaking.

We refer to this as the “political-influence ap-proach.”

The “mobilisation approach”

Second, the assessment from the beginning canemanate from within those civil societyorganisations already active around communica-tion and human rights issues. The assessment pro-cess is used as a way to deepen their understand-ing of the issues and to systematise them in a waythat more clearly establishes links between nor-mally disparate aspects of communication. Civilsociety organisations that usually work in one dis-crete aspect of communication, such as copyright,freedom of information, language rights of indig-enous people or concentration of media owner-ship, come into contact with each other. This maylead to the recognition of a web of links and af-finities between these issues, and to more effectiveexchange and coalition building.

The identification of priorities, shared by severalgroups, may then be followed up by the develop-ment of specific advocacy tools and the implemen-tation of joint actions. The immediate focus hereis civil society itself, with a view to developing acommon understanding of the concept, identify-ing issues of mutual interest, and building toolsand structures for advocacy and mobilisation. Itstarget is ultimately the political system, throughwidespread mobilisation and activism among thegeneral public, and political pressure often throughdirect action.

A P P L Y I N G T H E F R A M E W O R K

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1853


We refer to this as the “mobilisation approach.”

Each is legitimate and can to some extent be pur-sued in tandem. Each produces an assessment ofthe current situation in communication rights. Butthe form of the report may vary, and the nature ofthe process is somewhat different. The approachadopted will also have resource and timing impli-cations that to some extent cancel each other out.The mobilisation approach requires additional re-sources and time for the post-research phase, de-veloping the advocacy tools and disseminating andusing them. The political-influence approach mayrequire additional time to build the appropriateconstituencies and stakeholders, and the researchphase is likely to be considerably more expensive.

The communication rights assessments under-taken during the piloting of the Framework weregeared mainly towards the mobilisation approach.But several (especially Kenya and the Philippines)also seriously engaged with many stakeholdersduring the process, including government andprivate sector, and managed to achieve some ofthe benefits of both approaches.

One way or the other, it will be important to de-cide which approach, or which set of elementsfrom each approach, will be undertaken beforedetailed planning commences. Drafting a conceptnote, covering the assessment, its purpose, actorsand means of influence, and expected outcomes,would be a useful exercise for any group consid-ering embarking on this course of action. Thiswill require a careful examination of the currentpolitical and social circumstances in relation tocommunication rights, the possibilities for influ-encing change, and the level and nature of civilsociety organisations. In practice, it is also likelyto be influenced by the nature of the group initi-ating the idea and the resources available.

Such a concept note would comprise the openingpart of an Assessment Plan, outlining how thework is to be completed. This Plan would con-form to any of the usual structures for a researchand action project of this nature.

Assessment Oversight and Advice

Having decided on the approach and goals, itmight be useful to consider whether an advisorygroup or a steering group should be constituted.Its goal would be to formally advise and/or over-see the work, but it may also be a useful devisefor securing commitment to the process from vari-ous institutions.

The Philippines assessment, for instance, set upan Advisory Group at the outset, which includeda member of the House of Representatives, a se-nior from the Department of Science and Tech-nology, the Chair of a Department of PoliticalScience, a member of an advocacy group, and amember of Foundation. Five meetings were heldduring the course of the work, with additionalonline interactions. At the early stages, it sensitisedthe team to the challenges of data-gathering, andprovided useful ongoing advice and feedback.Also valuable was the credibility lent to the pro-cess, and the doors opened for the assessment.

Whatever its formal role, and irrespective of theapproach adopted, it is important to ensure thatthe Advisory or Steering Group is provided withfull documentation, has transparent access to alldecision-making processes and administration,and is kept involved and motivated by any meansnecessary. Formal meetings may be supplementedby informal gatherings and additional tasks forspecific members. Such a group may be impor-tant to the success of the research process andalso the follow-through, and should be treatedwith the respect and consideration it deserves.

The Implementing Team

The team implementing the assessment is not nec-essarily the same as that initiating the idea. Suchwas the case in the CRIS pilot. A selection pro-cess for the core research team (referred to as theTeam for short) may thus be required.

The Team could comprise a group of research stu-dents or academics, a research centre concerned

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1854

55

with these issues, one or more advocacy NGOs,or, for that matter, simply a set of concerned in-dividuals. Implementation does require a mini-mum set of research skills, including the abilityto identify and source published and unpublishedmaterial, to analyse it, and to write a report. Ad-ditional capabilities, such as interview and work-shop facilitation skills, might also be needed. Be-ing experienced and well connected with NGOs,academia, public service, and media and commu-nication in general, will also ease the process andenhance the output.

The composition of the team will also depend onthe goal and approach of the work, as discussedabove. If the approach is to be weighted towardsadvocacy and mobilisation, then the Team willbenefit from close links to the main national net-works and entities, from research and advocacyto community-based organisations, and shouldhave credibility with them. On the other hand, ifthe approach is geared towards an authoritativeacademic output that lays a premium on cred-ibility –the political-influence strategy– then ex-perienced and highly respected academics andresearchers might take the lead.

In the case of the pilot assessment, a call for pro-posals was submitted through CRIS and CRIS-related networks internationally, both for the se-lection of countries to be covered, and the teamsto undertake them. This had (given the nature ofthe CRIS Campaign) an explicit bias towards theadvocacy side, and among the criteria was thatthe Team selected should be involved in commu-nication issues through advocacy, capacity-build-ing, policy work, research or other activities, andwould have objectives related to the promotionof communication rights. The Teams selected wereled by NGOs involved in networking and advo-cacy, though most incorporated additional people,including academics and researchers specialisingin the area. The EU Team was led by committedacademics, but also included NGO members inthe work. !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1855


The Research Phase

The general research methodologies required tocomplete the assessment are relatively straight-forward, and their deployment needs little elabo-ration. But the problems likely to be encounteredin gathering and analysing information specifi-cally on communication rights do require atten-tion and should not be underestimated. While areasonable amount of data was available, for in-stance, on quantitative aspects of media concen-tration, ICT network spread or legal provisionsregarding data protection, the extent to whichlaws are actually implemented, as well as areassuch as cultural rights and knowledge-sharingregimes, proved much harder to pin down.

A rough guide to methodological steps and prob-lems likely to be encountered, based mainly onthe experience of the pilots, might include thefollowing.

Developing a Common Understanding

Developing a common understanding among theTeam of the Assessment Framework is an essen-tial first step. Few experts or activists are famil-iar with the full range of issues, and at least anoverview of them all will lead to better sharingand integration of the research process. But theFramework is generic, in the sense that it is de-signed with no particular place in mind, and willneed to be reconsidered and refined in the lightof the local realities. Each of the Pillars, their at-tributes, and even the individual questions, couldbe debated among the group as an initial exercisein identifying the most relevant areas, those likelyto encounter difficulties, and where further assis-tance may be needed; and those that might re-quire fine-tuning in the light of specific circum-stances faced by the Team.

The Team in Kenya used such an exercise also togenerate lists of NGOs and other actors in eacharea, and to construct a map of communicationrights issues, independent of the Framework, re-flecting the range of issues and processes underway there.

Assigning Tasks

In the pilot assessments, Team tasks were as-signed thematically (by Pillar) rather than, forinstance, by methodology or target groups. Eachof the Pillars was designed to cover a broadlyrelated body of knowledge, divided into discrete“attributes”. But there is considerable, and un-avoidable, overlap between the Pillars. Coordi-nation and ongoing interaction between research-ers was thus necessary to reduce duplication andshare sources.

It may also be useful to commission tightly fo-cused short pieces (two or three pages) from highlyexperienced practitioners or experts, perhaps af-ter the Team has completed its initial draft ideasand gaps have been identified. However, appro-priate experts should, if possible, be lined up earlyon to ensure they can set aside the time to under-take the work at short notice.

In-Depth Review of Existing Documentation:

A thorough review must encompass a vast rangeof published documents, academic, official andothers, very often demanding recourse to origi-nal sources for more detailed or updated infor-mation. Unpublished sources, many Internetsourced, are also very important, as they are of-ten the only information available on currentissues.

Significant problems can be experienced in rela-tion to gaining access to information, and inmany cases it simply does not exist. For muchof the quantitative analysis, newspaper reportsare often the primary source, raising issues ofreliability.

International sources are also useful –United Na-tions specialised agencies, international institu-tions, International NGOs and associations, andnumerous others may provide quantitative andqualitative information on dozens, if not hun-dreds, of countries. Quality varies considerably,and international sources should not be assumed

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1856

57

to be more reliable than national. But they areespecially useful for comparative purposes. An-nex 3 comprises a compendium of many of the-ses resources by subject area, indicating how theycan be accessed.

As well, an in-depth examination of the positionsof governments in relation to international Trea-ties and agreements can yield valuable insightsfor civil society into the thinking of governmentin key areas. (Some sources are contained in An-nex 3.)

It can reveal contradictions with the formal posi-tions promoted domestically. Virtually everycountry long ago endorsed the international Billof Rights (the three main International RightsTreaties). But the numerous UN Summits, includ-ing the most recent World Summit on the Infor-mation Society, Conventions such as the UNESCOConvention for the Protection and Promotion ofthe Diversity of Cultural Expressions, and ongo-ing negotiated positions in arenas such as WIPOand WTO, and regional arenas such as FTAA,UA, EU and ASEAN, offer significant sources for“inside” views.

In tandem with the search for material, the Teammight also construct a bibliography, annotatedif time and resources allow, for inclusion in thereport.

Interviews, Group Discussions and Feedbackfrom Key Stakeholders:

Interviews are a valuable source of information,sometimes the only source of qualitative infor-mation about communication rights. Obviouscandidates for interview included public officials,academic specialists, legal experts, NGO staff andmedia practitioners.

Focus Groups, Round Tables or other group in-teractions can also be an effective way to gaininsights into specific stakeholder groups on quali-tative issues, especially when properly organisedwith feedback and review mechanisms for the

ensuing report. Stakeholder consultation may alsobe requested in the form of written submissions,especially from those judged to have a particularinterest in the assessment.

In Kenya, a very well attended and successfulBreakfast Consultation was held late in the re-search, as a means of obtaining initial feedbackand indicating new directions and sources for re-search.

Sorting, Analysing and BenchmarkingInformation

The Assessment Framework (Annex 1) is intendedto assist this part of the research process, fromdata collection to final documentation.

The “attributes” under each Pillar offer clear and(within each Pillar) relatively non-overlappingcomponents of communication rights. In principleat least, the Team should deal with each attributeseparately. The questions associated with eachthen flesh out the attribute in a concrete and em-pirical form. These can be rephrased and restruc-tured for use in interviews. They also offer asimple checklist for the analysis. Though manywill be deemed irrelevant or perhaps simply un-answerable in the context, all should at least beconsidered by the Team. (The Colombia reporttook its structure from the attributes, simply an-swering each question in turn.)

The limitations of data availability and access in-evitably carry over into analysis, and may callfor a series of judgments based on the availablematerial. Striking the right balance between apaucity of supporting documentation and assert-ing qualitative conclusions concerning specificaspects of communication rights is not easy, andit would be wrong to claim it can be achieved inevery case. Some questions may be better ignoredaltogether, in preference to providing unsubstan-tiated conclusions based on flimsy evidence,though such decisions and concerns should benoted in the assessment.


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1857


Where quantitative information is available, time-series can be used to illustrate trends. Yet for muchof the analysis, qualitative sources will constitutethe main bulk of evidence. Reference points orbenchmarks may be useful here, in relation to re-cent history or from comparisons with neighbouringcountries emerging from somewhat similar circum-stances. There may also be national targets or bench-marks set by government or other bodies, againstwhich progress can reasonably be measured.

International benchmarks are also available (somein Annex 3) that include legal aspects as well asthe more practical aspects of implementation. Interms of international law, national commitmentsshould be clearly noted, including any reserva-tions and (as relevant) the positions adopted bygovernment in relation to endorsing them.

Where governments have endorsed these, they of-fer general benchmarks. But a key question is pre-

cisely whether and how these have been trans-lated into national law. In some cases, in-depthexamination of these might be warranted.

Beyond legal norms, significant work has beendone internationally, for instance, in relation topractical standards for implementation of free-dom of expression, media regulation, and free-dom of information. But care must be taken alsonot to impose benchmarks that have been de-rived from circumstances greatly at variancewith those of the country under study. In gen-eral, the use of external benchmarks should beconsidered in the light of the general strategy ofthe assessment, and how their use might add(or detract) from its intended impact and cred-ibility.

Before considering the verification process of theresearch, aspects of the Assessment Frameworkin practice are briefly reviewed below. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1858

59

Using, and Troubleshooting, the Framework

As noted, the Communication Rights AssessmentFramework evolved during the course of the Pi-lot, with some significant changes and revisionsbased on early lessons learned. The initial ver-sion was criticised, for instance, for a weak gen-der perspective, insufficient concern for disabil-ity, and conceptual “fuzziness”. The final versionwas considered a significant improvement, bothconceptually and in terms of process of imple-mentation, by all those who used it.

Nevertheless, numerous difficulties and uncertain-ties were encountered along the way.

• Within the Framework, some attributes andquestions are very specific, while others aregeneral. This leads to difficulties in researchmethodologies, in presentation and inprioritisation.

• In some areas, a purely factual conclusion canbe reached; in others, a high degree of judg-ment must be exercised, sometimes based onlimited information. This was not just a mat-ter of quantitative versus qualitative analysis,though that is part if it. Some issues appear tobe purely objective in nature, while others de-mand a value judgment.

• There is some duplication of information im-plied between pillars, for instance on “uni-versal access to media and communication”.This leads to redundancy in conclusions.

• Some issues (attributes, questions) have barelyappeared on the social and political horizon,for instance, aspects of knowledge-sharing re-gimes in Kenya and Colombia (though theyloom large in Brazil and the EU). The devel-opment and rights trajectory has yet to en-counter them, and concerns are fixed on otherareas. Although they may in principle be validconcerns, in practice they do not significantlyimpinge on national reality, and their inclu-sion appears to be geared towards a compara-tive global context.

Some of these problems are unavoidable, and onlythe application of common sense can be suggested

as a partial remedy. For instance, a degree of du-plication will flow from the fact that a single fac-tor may influence several areas of communicationrights. A partial resolution is to assign the detailto one area or another, and cross-reference ap-propriately. Other problems are a matter of re-sources –qualitative research is particularly re-source-intensive. Some questions are simply un-answerable –there is no information available orit does not apply– and this can be stated. There isperhaps no harm in questioning issues that, al-though currently of little concern, may becomemore prominent in future (e.g. data privacy incountries with very basic computing and network-ing capacities).

Some problems stem from an attempt in theFramework to secure a minimal degree of inter-national comparability; others from a desire tosustain a comprehensive vision of communicationrights across the spectrum so that the coherenceof the issues becomes apparent, if not immedi-ately, then in the future. In both cases the inten-tion was to assist conceptual convergence inter-nationally in relation to communication rights andto enhance the potential for, and value of, col-laboration, both inside the context of the CRIScampaign and in international governance arenas.

But there are also areas in which the Frameworkitself is at fault, and there is no doubt that it canbe further improved.

Nevertheless, all five Teams found the process re-warding. Facing these difficulties, they rightly ex-ercised a significant degree of autonomy in theiruse of the Framework, in the research process,and in the layout and content of the final assess-ment reports. None felt that the difficulties en-countered significantly detracted from the benefitsthey felt accrued and continue to accrue from theprocess. And the final reports exhibit a good de-gree of conceptual coherence and comparabilityof content.

From this perspective, the Assessment Frameworkproved itself successful as a tool to enhance anassessment of communication rights. !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1859


The Verification Process

No matter which strategic approach is adopted,the research, based on a draft assessment report,requires verification. Verification is needed not justfrom the point of view of ensuring the accuracyand completeness of the work. It is likely to pro-vide a major impetus for, and means to support,the follow-up of the assessment, whether that is inthe form of gaining direct political credibility orof grass-roots advocacy and mobilisation.

In all cases, some form of verification workshopis likely to be a useful instrument. Depending onthe overall strategy of the assessment, the goalsof the Workshop might comprise some combina-tion of the following:

• To assess the accuracy of the research and ofthe draft report;

• To identify gaps and limitations that requireadditional work;

• To tease out areas of major disagreement anduncertainty;

• To obtain a consensus on the main conclusions;

• To identify and agree on the key concerns thatmerit urgent and significant attention;

• To generate interest in the issues;

• To propagate to targeted stakeholders a deeperunderstanding of the concept and issues;

• To identify and mobilise a process of follow-up.

A single Workshop, no matter how well prepared,is unlikely to achieve all of these (or indeed toseek to), and expectations should be pitched at arealistic level. Normal workshop good practicemust, of course, be observed, such as timely ad-vance circulation of the draft, expert facilitationand documentation, appropriate premises and fa-

COLOMBIA VERIFICATION WORKSHOP

The Verification Workshop was held in Bogota in September 2003. Two representativesof each of the regional nodes belonging to the Colombia CRIS Campaign were invited.It lasted two days, and was organised into three blocks.

In the first, presentations were made by experts in relevant fields, such as Free TradeAgreements and ALCA Culture, the Right to Communicate and the Agenda of Grass-Roots Sectors. The panel included people from AMARC (community radio), Free PressFoundation, the Indigenous Groups of Colombian Communication Media Association,and Colnodo which is a non-profit ISP and research organisation. Time was allowed fordiscussion.

Having set the scene, the three members of the research team presented the researchresults in the second block, followed by discussion and clarification.

The third block focused on participants' impressions regarding the different aspects ofthe research, and how it related to their own experience and the right to communicatein their local contexts and actions. The outcome was a general recognition that thegreatest obstacles to the exercise of communication rights in Colombia derives fromongoing social and armed conflict. This has created a political and social environmentin which the expression of these rights has become virtually impossible. This pointedto a set of advocacy tools that could highlight this issue in practical ways and point tosolutions.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1860

61

cilities, distribution of results for feedback, andso forth.

The assessment strategy will greatly influence theprecise organisation of the Workshop, and a fewissues should be carefully considered.

The Target Group: The selection of participantsfor the Workshop will flow from the strategy.They might range from exclusively representativesof key civil society organisations active in the area,to a high-level, multi-stakeholder approach. Re-gional representation, though more costly, mightalso be desirable. The depth and breadth of cred-ibility sought for the conclusions, the value at-tached to achieving a consensus on some issues,the desire to merge directly into a follow-up –allthese and many more factors will influence theselection.

The Structure: A three-part structure has beenfound to be useful. It might include:

1. A few key presentations from experts or prac-titioners in communication rights not directlyinvolved in the assessment process, to set thescene and perhaps highlight a few points andthe underlying reality of communicationrights. A short general introduction of theconcept might be included, but the focus hereis on empirical situations in communicationrights.

2. A succinct presentation of the key results ofthe assessment, followed by discussion. It willbe important to keep discussion focused, sinceexperience shows a tendency for participantsto concentrate on the implications for theirown narrow areas. It might be useful to takeit Pillar by Pillar, ensuring that discussion re-mains focused. The goal here is to raise con-cerns, reservations and gaps in the research,and ensure they are noted.

3. A session that focuses specifically on the Work-shop output. As noted, this could include, forinstance, agreement on key areas of concern,an attempt to identify agreed conclusions aswell as differences, or approaches to tacklingproblems and post-assessment action.

Two full days is usually the minimum needed toachieve a successful outcome. Gaining the maxi-mum from a workshop may also involve con-certed follow-up, with the outcome circulated forfurther comment and verification. The final As-sessment Report, revised on the basis of the Work-shop, should also go to all participants. !


libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1861


The Follow-up: From Output to Outcome

The strategic goal of the assessment will, as noted,always go beyond the mere production of a re-port. There is considerable value to be derivedfrom the process itself, generated through broadparticipation, consultation and the verificationprocess, but this is consolidated only with fur-ther follow-on activity.

Broadly, we suggested two scenarios above, whichcan also be pursued in combination.

Political Impact – the “political-influenceapproach”

One conceives the assessment as focused on po-litical impact via the public and media, perhapsfocusing on specific issues identified –the politi-cal-influence approach. Mainstream media, andperhaps public and private institutions, are en-couraged to highlight the issues, and in combi-nation with public opinion, influence mainstreampolitical actors. This puts a premium on a main-stream media strategy to ensure widespread cov-

erage. Components include a publication that iseasily accessible, a launch, and a promotionpackage.

Civil society engagement – the “mobilisationapproach”

The second scenario, looking to the impact andinfluence emerging from within civil society, mustlink into the various networks, struggles andgroups involved in the relevant issues.

To that end, all four national partners have be-gun the process of developing a set of advocacytools, localised to focus on identified issues of im-portance, and tailored to suit the appropriatemeans for dissemination and mobilisation. Thesewill complement the other two elements of thetoolkit, which support awareness-raising aboutCommunication rights, and the application of theCommunication rights assessment, research andverification process for groups wishing to under-take similar assessments. !

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1862

Annexes

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1863

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1864

65

Annex 1.An Assessment Framework on Communication Rights

Presented here is the Framework for the Assess-ment of Communication Rights.

The full range of communication rights is dividedinto Four Pillars, each described in brief below.Overleaf, they are summarised in a single matrix,each defined by a set of attributes. In the pagesfollowing, a series of questions are posed in rela-tion to each attribute. The “question” format isoffered as an aid to clarifying the kinds of issuescovered under each attribute.

Communication Rights Pillars:

Pillar A: Spaces for Democratic Participation:Communicating in the Public Sphere

This Pillar considers whether the media, from con-ventional newspapers through to television and ra-dio, and on to the Internet, are creating and sus-taining spaces for open debate and democratic in-teraction among all people, and providing the in-formation and tools needed to enable civil societyto participate in political process and deliberations.

It includes freedom of expression in general, ofpress and media freedom; the availability of infor-mation of relevance to the public interest frompublic and corporate sources; promoting pluralityand diversity of the media; and enabling all sec-tors of society to communicate critically and cre-atively using media technologies.

Pillar B: Communicating Knowledge for Equityand Creativity: Enriching the Public Domain

The Second Pillar considers the role of media andcommunication in the knowledge generation andsharing process within society. At the core of thisis the governance of knowledge production anddissemination in a manner that strikes a just andefficient balance between enabling widespread gen-eration of creative knowledge, and maximising theuse of such knowledge for the general social good.An important related principle is that publiclyfunded knowledge should go into the public do-

main. It addition, it means ensuring that the infor-mation needed by specific communities is gener-ated, and that accessing society's knowledge ispossible and affordable to all.

Pillar C: Civil Rights in Communication

The Third Pillar focuses on the civil rights neededto protect the integrity and security of interper-sonal and group communication within society,and on the uses to which personal information isput. These include the right to privacy of commu-nication, the right to be aware of, give consent toand correct personal information and data, andthe right to freedom from surveillance.

Pillar D: Cultural Rights in Communication

The Fourth Pillar focuses on cultural rights relat-ing to communication that contribute to preserv-ing and renewing cultural diversity and heritage,and are a key part of the constitution and evolu-tion of cultural identity, personally and collectively.These include the right to use one's mother tongue,the right to participate freely in the cultural life ofone's community, and respect in communicationwithin and across diverse cultures.

Each of these is examined across three axes.

The largest by far is the question of communica-tion rights at home –nationally– since nation statesstill represent the main juridical, social, economic,cultural and political boundary.

Second, interactions outside national boundariesof various kinds are examined. These include theimpact of cross-border media and communicationon communication rights nationally; the positionstaken by national governments in relation to com-munication rights externally; the impact of bilat-eral, regional and global governance institutions,treaties and agreements; and transborder interac-tions of civil society and others.

Third is the nature and extent of democracy andparticipation in governance structures, at both na-

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 15:3765


tional and international levels, in particular theopportunities for civil society to participate inthese structures, including in the design, imple-mentation, evaluation and revision of policies.

These are illustrated as a matrix below, in termsof the attributes of each Pillar and the three axes.The second and third axes share the same ques-tions across the Four Pillars.

FRAMEWORK ON COMMUNICATION RIGHTS: ATTRIBUTES AND AXES.

A7: The public sphere … B6: Knowledge sharing … C5: Civil rights … D4: Cultural rights …

… and the role of non-national, transnational and cross-border media and communication.

A8: B7: C6: D5:

The role and relevance of international agreements.

A9: B8: C7: D6:

Effective participation by civil society in governance nationally.

A10: B9: C8: D7:

Effective participation by civil society in governance transnationally.

A. COMMUNICATING

IN PUBLIC SPHERE

A1: Freedom ofexpression.

A2: Freedom of thepress and media,including electronic.

A3: Access to, andready availability of,public and governmentinformation.

A4: Access tocorporate information.

A5: Diversity andplurality of mediaand content.

A6: Universal accessto relevant media.

C. CIVIL RIGHTS INCOMMUNICATION

C1: Right to equalitybefore the law, tohonour and reputation.

C2: Informationprivacy and dataprotection.

C3: Privacy ofcommunication.

C4: Communicationsurveillance in publicand workplace.

B. COMMUNICATING

KNOWLEDGE

B1: A balancedknowledge-sharingregime, with practicalsupport measures.

B2: Publicly fundedknowledge enters thepublic domain.

B3: Affordable andequitable access to allmedia for knowledgesharing.

B4: The availability ofrelevant knowledge forall communities.

B5: Widespread skillsand capacities to usemedia, especially ICTs.

D. CULTURAL RIGHTS INCOMMUNICATION

D1: Communicatingin one's mothertongue.

D2: Participation inthe cultural life ofone's community.

D3: Stimulate thesharing of culture andcultural identity.

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N R

IGH

TS

AT H

OM

EIN

TER

NA

TIO

NA

L D

IMEN

SIO

N

OF

CO

MM

UN

ICA

TIO

N R

IGH

TS

DEM

OC

RA

CY A

ND P

AR

TIC

IPA

TIO

N

IN C

OM

MU

NIC

AT

ION

GO

VER

NA

NC

E

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1866

67

Questions on Each Pillar and Attribute:

Issues covered by the attributes of the Pillar canmost easily be explained as a series of questions.These contain a normative aspect, and an affir-mative answer to each represents a positive con-tribution to communication rights.

Each of the Pillars, and their attributes, are con-sidered in turn.

Pillar A: Creating Spaces for DemocraticDeliberation: The Public Sphere

Communication Rights at Home

Freedom of expression includes the right to holdand express dissenting views and to criticise thosein power. It is a fundamental human right, andan absolute requirement for democracy.

A1: Is freedom of expression available to allpeople, in law and in practice?

A1.1 Is freedom of expression guaranteed inthe constitution and in law, in line withinternational standards?

A1.2 Are guarantees of freedom of expressionreflected in government policy and en-forced effectively by government and ju-diciary?

A1.3 Is freedom of expression protectedagainst corporate and business or otherprivate interference?

A1.4 Is freedom of expression through leaf-lets, posters and other public meansoverly restricted?

A1.5 Are measures taken to ensure freedomfrom fear and an atmosphere of open-ness, including, for instance, how theseare differently experienced by men andby women?

A1.6 Does the educational system providecritical media education?

A2: Is there freedom of the press and media, in-cluding the electronic media?

A2.1 Is freedom of the press and media guar-anteed constitutionally and in law, inline with international standards, andtaking into account the public's rightor reply, right to privacy etc.?

A2.2 Are press and media, in practice, freefrom government interference, fromovert censorship to indirect financialor other pressures?

A2.3 Are press and media, in practice, freefrom commercial interference fromtheir owners, shareholders, advertisersor others, direct or indirect?

A2.4 Are press and media, in practice, freefrom non-media commercial interfer-ence or censorship, such as from com-mon carriers, cable operators, ISPs,search engines and wholesale band-width suppliers?

A2.5 Are there measures, including indus-try self-regulation, obliging media,publishing and dissemination compa-nies (ISPs, search engines, bandwidthretailers, etc.) to act as “common car-riers” in relation to all material that islegal under internationally acceptedlegal norms, including material criti-cal of government, industry or otherparties?

A2.6 Are human and civil rights of journal-ists adequately protected to enablethem to carry out their work, especiallyin areas of conflict?

A2.7 Do journalists have editorial and ma-terial freedom to carry out their work,including reasonable job security, tradeunion membership, protection againstgender discrimination, moral rights asauthors, absence of employer coercion,etc.?

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 15:4367


A3: Is there access to, and ready availability, ofpublic and government information?

A3.1 Is there robust freedom of informationlegislation , with minimum retention forgovernment and public bodies, andmaximum access by the public at large?

A3.2 Does the freedom of information legis-lation ensure that information is avail-able in a timely and affordable mannerto all?

A3.3 Does the public sector and governmentactively promote openness and transpar-ency, through such means as: structuresor offices to compile and release informa-tion in appropriate forms; publication ofgoals and plans for policies and public ser-vices; protection for public employees whodisclose information in the public interest(“whistleblowers”); broadcasting of de-liberations of elected representatives andpublic bodies; transparency of decision-making on matters of public interest?

A4: Is there access to corporate information,where relevant to issues of public interest?

A4.1 Are there effective legal requirements forcorporate disclosure legislation/regula-tion, beyond basic financial information,of all information available to corpora-tions that may have a bearing on publicpolicy and on the public interest?

A4.2 Is there access to corporate informationin practice, including voluntary action?

A5: Is there diversity of content in the media, andplurality of media sources?

A5.1 Are there effective means to regulate inthe public interest by preventing concen-tration of media ownership, includingconcentration of ownership of a particu-lar medium, cross-ownership betweenmedia, and cross-ownership of produc-tion, content dissemination, and/or in-frastructure?

A5.2 Does the legislative framework supportin practice the emergence of a pluralityof media types at national and, as ap-propriate, regional and local levels: pub-lic service, commercial and community/independent media, including the trans-parent and equitable allocation of radiospectrum and other public goods?

A5.3 Does public service media have adequateresources available to them, especially inrelation to news and current affairs?

A5.4 Are public service media fully indepen-dent of government, and free of arbitraryinterference and unnecessarily cumber-some regulation?

A5.5 Do community and non-profit mediahave adequate resources, including pub-lic resources such as spectrum, especiallyfor the media of disadvantaged andmarginalised communities?

A5.6 Are community and non-profit mediafree from arbitrary interference fromgovernment and others?

A5.7 Are community and non-profit mediatransparent, democratic and participa-tive?

A5.8 Are there enforceable regulatory obliga-tions on commercial media, includingbroadcasters, as appropriate, to ensurethey fulfil public service requirements?

A5.9 Are there mechanisms in place to dealwith gross misrepresentation, stereotyp-ing or other distortion within media con-tent of women, ethnic groups, poorerand other marginalised groups?

A5.10 Are different social groups, includingwomen, fairly represented among mediaemployees, at every level, and are mecha-nisms in place to ensure that they are?

A5.11 Are there measures to prevent advertis-ing from exerting undue influence on thepublic sphere, such as ensuring it is

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1868

69

readily identifiable as advertising, limit-ing the volume of advertising, and regu-lation of content in the public interest?

A6: Is there universal access to relevant media byall communities?

A6.1 Are there effective measures to ensureaffordability and accessibility of mediacontent (including newspapers, radio andtelevision) relevant to political discus-sion, especially for women and amongpoorer and marginalised groups, such aspreferential tax regimes, free-to-airbroadcasting or transport subsidy?

Media and Communication InteractionsExternally

A7: Is the role of non-national media and commu-nication a positive one for the public sphere?

A7.1 Are there effective measures nationallyto ensure that foreign ownership of na-tional media does not negatively affectthe extent and quality of coverage of lo-cal issues, the quality of general mediacoverage, and the media environmentgenerally?

A7.2 Are there effective measures nationallyto ensure that cross-border media flows,such as direct broadcast satellite, do notnegatively affect the extent and qualityof coverage of local issues, the qualityof general media coverage, and the me-dia environment generally as it relatesto the public sphere?

A7.3 Does Internet content from outside con-tribute to the availability of informationrelating to the public sphere?

A7.4 Does national civil society participate intransnational media, Internet or other-wise, that contributes to a transnationalpublic sphere?

A8: Do international agreements and develop-ments, and government positions in relationto them, support and enhance the role ofmedia and communication in the publicsphere?

A8.1 Do international agreements and multi-lateral institutions inside and outside theUN, in practice, support media and com-munication in relation to the publicsphere, for instance, through the protec-tion of, and support for free, diverse andopen media nationally, and the right todiscriminate in favour of such local me-dia, and to regulate content originatingoutside in the interests of supporting thepublic sphere?

A8.2 Does the government advocate and sup-port measures in relevant agreements andinstitutions that would support the roleof media and communication in the pub-lic sphere?

A8.3 Is there consistency between governmentpositions in relation to media and com-munication internationally and at home?

A8.4 Does the government maintain an inde-pendent position in relation to the ac-tions of powerful governments, prevent-ing undue external influence in relationto these issues?

Democracy and Participationin Communication Governance

A9: Nationally, is there effective civil societyparticipation in media and communicationgovernance, as it relates to the publicsphere?

A9.1 Are there adequate public consultationson, and opportunities to participation in,government media and communicationnational strategy and policy developmentthat affect the public sphere?

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1869


A9.2 Are there effective ongoing means forpublic concerns and complaints to beheard and acted upon with regard tomedia policy and practice, including re-medial actions, in this area?

A9.3 Are there adequate mechanisms for in-dependent direct public participation inongoing policy review and implemen-tation, in a decentralised manner as ap-propriate, in this area?

A9.4 Has civil society and other actors devel-oped and deployed governance mecha-nisms and instruments that support therole of media in the public sphere,recognised or not by government?

A9.5 Are there specific measures to ensurethat women can actively participate instructures of consultation, representa-tion and participation, and that gender-related issues are addressed?

A10: Internationally, is there effective civil soci-ety participation in media and communi-cation governance as it relates to the pub-lic sphere?

A10.1 Are there mechanisms to ensure open-ness and transparency of government ininternational negotiations and institu-tions relating to media and the publicsphere?

A10.2 Are there adequate opportunities forcivil society, including women, to par-ticipate in international governancestructures and environments in relationto the role of media and communica-tion in the public sphere, in both a na-tional and international context?

A10.3 Are civil society entities, such as NGOsand research centres, aware oftransnational governance issues, nation-ally, regionally or internationally, anddo they to participate to any significantextent at these levels?

Pillar B: Knowledge Creation and Sharingfor Equity and Creativeness: Enrichingthe public domain

Communication Rights at Home

B1: Do the governance and practice of knowl-edge generation, ownership and sharing strikean equitable and efficient balance betweensupporting widespread creativity and en-abling widespread use of knowledge?

B1.1 Is there a national strategic and policyorientation to knowledge creation, dis-semination and use (especially copyright,and including published and broadcasteducational materials and software) withthe explicit goal of enriching the publicdomain, satisfying the various needs forknowledge, and encouraging creativityfrom all sectors of society?

B.1.2 Are there public policies and actions toencourage and enable widespread gen-eration and communication of knowl-edge, which might include: support for“fair use” of copyrighted material; con-straints on digital rights management;recognition and protection for the“moral rights” of authors; or efforts totailor IPRs to national conditions?

B1.3 Do government and public bodies activelyinterpret and implement national and in-ternational laws and agreements in copy-right and relevant patents in favour of bal-anced knowledge sharing, such as: pro-moting new business and legal models re-inforcing knowledge sharing; incentivesfor necessary research and knowledge cre-ation; facilitating dissemination via themedia; support for open source and freesoftware, and for “development and com-munity-friendly” approaches to knowl-edge sharing, or efforts to protect folk-lore from exploitation?

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1870

71

B2: Do knowledge and works supported by publicfunds automatically enter the public domain?

B2.1 Is there a public policy, supported bypractical measures, to ensure that allknowledge generated through publicfunds immediately becomes part of thepublic domain?

B2.2 Is knowledge and information held bypublic bodies made available into thepublic domain?

B2.3 Do public service media, and other con-tent funded by public funds, place theirarchives in the public domain?

B3: Do all groups in society, including womenand marginalised groups, have affordable andequitable access to the various means of shar-ing knowledge?

B3.1 Do different social groups (includinggender, ethnic, linguistic, income) andgeographical areas have access to knowl-edge in an equitable manner, carried bymedia, mass media and ICTs, in termsof availability, affordability and access?

B3.2 Is there affordable access to scientific andeducational knowledge, disseminated bypublishers by conventional and digitalmeans?

B3.3 Are there effective measures to ensureaffordability and accessibility of knowl-edge sharing media, especially amongpoorer and marginalised groups, such aspreferential tax regimes, free-to-airbroadcasting, must-carry obligations oncable operators etc.?

B3.4 Does the political and regulatory frame-work actively favour the extension ofuniversal service/access as the priority forthe media sector, including in ICTs,broadcast services and others?

B3.5 Are policy measures pursued in ICTsconventional and innovative, to ensure

universal services and access to knowl-edge, for instance by providing subsidies?

B3.6 Is there active support for local indus-try development across ICT sectors,such as specific incentives, transitionperiods to build up local companies, andso forth?

B4: Do all social groups have reasonable opportu-nities to produce and disseminate knowledge?

B4.1 Are there measures to ensure that all so-cial groups, including women, have atleast a minimum of society's knowledgeavailable to them in appropriate form,via media and communication, includ-ing illiterate people?

B4.2 Are there measures to support knowl-edge production among all social groups,for dissemination via media?

B5: Are there widespread skills and capacities toenable people and communities to utilise me-dia and communication to achieve individualand collective goals?

B5.1 Are opportunities for ICT skills and ca-pacity development available to all com-munities, such as training, exchangeprogrammes, or formal curriculum mod-ules in public establishments such asschools, libraries or community centres?

B5.2 Are opportunities for media and com-munication training available to all com-munities, including formal, informal andcommunity-based?

B5.3 Is media education a standard part of theeducational curriculum?


B6: Is the role of non-national media and com-munication a positive one for knowledgesharing?

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1871


B6.1 Are there effective measures nationallyto ensure that foreign ownership of na-tional publishing companies, telecommu-nication and media, do not impact nega-tively on national knowledge generationand dissemination?

B6.2 Are there effective measures to counter-act any negative effect of cross-bordermedia-related knowledge flows, such asforeign-owned scientific and educationalpublishers, including in digital form?

B6.3: Is the Internet, or other media, used ex-tensively as a means to support the avail-ability and sharing of knowledge, andare there measures to support this fromgovernment or others?

B7: Do international agreements, and governmentpositions in relation to them, support and en-hance the role of media and communicationin knowledge generation and sharing?

B7.1 Do international agreements, Treatiesand conventions, and multilateral insti-tutions inside and outside the UN, inpractice, support media and communi-cation in knowledge generation and shar-ing, for instance through ensuring a faircopyright regime, and the protection of“fair use” in the move to electronic pub-lishing?

B7.2 Does the government advocate and sup-port measures in these agreements andinstitutions in support of a balancedknowledge generation and disseminationregime?

B7.3 Is there consistency between governmentpositions in these matters abroad and athome?

B7.4 Does the government maintain an inde-pendent position in relation to the ac-tions of powerful governments, prevent-ing undue external influence in relationto these issues?

Democracy and Participation in CommunicationGovernance

B8: Nationally, is there effective civil society par-ticipation in media and communication gov-ernance, as it relates to knowledge genera-tion and sharing?

B8.1 Are there adequate public consultationson, and opportunities for participationin, government knowledge productionand dissemination of national strategyand policy development, including incopyright and knowledge ownership,telecommunication infrastructure (fixed,wireless) and services (telephony, mobile,data and Internet), and content?

B8.2 Are there effective ongoing means forpublic concerns and complaints to beheard and acted upon with regard topolicy and practice, including remedialactions?

B8.3 Are there adequate mechanisms for di-rect public participation in ongoingpolicy review and implementation, in adecentralised manner as appropriate?

B8.4 Has civil society, and/or other actors, de-veloped and deployed governancemechanisms and instruments in relationto knowledge generation and sharing,recognised or not by government?

B8.5 Are there specific measures to ensure thatwomen can actively participate in struc-tures of consultation, representation andparticipation, and that gender-related is-sues are addressed?

B9: Internationally, is there effective civil societyparticipation in the governance of knowledgegeneration, ownership and sharing?

B9.1 Are there mechanisms to ensure open-ness and transparency of government ininternational negotiations and institu-tions relating to knowledge generation,ownership and sharing?

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1872

73

B9.2 Are there adequate opportunities for civilsociety, including women, to participatein international governance structuresand environments in relation to knowl-edge generation, ownership and sharing,in both a national and internationalcontext?

B9.3 Are civil society entities, such as NGOsand research centres, aware oftransnational governance issues, nation-ally, regionally or internationally, and dothey to participate to any significant ex-tent at these levels?

Pillar C: Civil Communication Rights

C1: Is there a right to equality before the law, andthe protection of one's honour and reputation?

C.1.1 Is there explicit legal protection againstincitement to discrimination, by mediaor other communication, in relation toall being equal before the law?

C.1.2 Is a right of reply available to the public,to protect against defamation, incitementto discrimination, and other related is-sues, in line with international standards?

C2: Is there a right to information privacy anddata protection?

C2.1 Is there legislation to ensure that personaldata are held for the minimum necessaryperiod and used only for purposesauthorised by the person to whom thedata refers?

C2.2. Are such laws actively enforced, and canthe public exercise this right in an afford-able, transparent and proactive manner,including securing remedial action?

C2.3 Is there a strong culture of self-regula-tion and codes of practice in privacy anddata protection, among civil society, gov-ernment and private sector actors?

C3: Is there a right to privacy of communication?

C3.1 Are there laws and regulations to ensure aright to privacy of communication and theabsence of surveillance, of Internet, tele-phony, postal or other means, with excep-tions only in clearly defined and extremecircumstances, and covering access in pri-vate, public and commercial environments?

C3.2 Are such laws enforced in a transparent,non-partisan and proactive manner, in-cluding against government violations,with the possibility of redress whererights have been violated?

C3.3 Are there effective measures to controlspam (unsolicited commercial e-mail), inorder to prevent it hindering the generalcapacity for Internet interaction?

C4: In public and in workplaces, is there protec-tion against excessive surveillance using com-munication technologies?

C4.1 Are there measures to protect against ex-cessive video surveillance and the “chill-ing effect” it may have on freedom ofassociation and movement?


C5: Do non-national media and communicationpromote civil rights?

C5.1 Is there protection against external sur-veillance and interference in nationalInternet use?

C6: Do international agreements, and govern-ment positions in relation to them, supportand enhance the role of media and commu-nication in civil rights?

C6.1 Do international agreements (regional,global) and multilateral institutions insideand outside the UN, in practice, supportcivil rights in media and communication?

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1873


C6.2 Does the government advocate and sup-port measures in these agreements andinstitutions in support of civil rights incommunication?

C6.3 Is there consistency between governmentpositions in these matters abroad and athome?

C6.4 Does the government maintain an inde-pendent position in relation to the ac-tions of powerful governments, prevent-ing undue external influence in relationto these issues?


C7: Nationally, is there effective civil society par-ticipation in media and communication gov-ernance as it relates to civil rights and cul-tural production?

C7.1 Are there adequate public consultationson, and opportunities to participate in,government approach to civil rights inrelation to communication?

C7.2 Are there effective ongoing means forpublic concerns and complaints to beheard and acted upon with regard topolicy and practice, including remedialactions?

C7.3 Are there adequate mechanisms for inde-pendent direct public participation in on-going policy review and implementation,in a decentralised manner as appropriate?

C7.4 Have civil society and other actors de-veloped and deployed governancemechanisms and instruments in relationto securing civil rights, recognised or notby government?

C7.5 Are there specific measures to ensure thatwomen can actively participate in struc-tures of consultation, representation and

participation, and that gender-related is-sues are addressed?

C8: Internationally, is there effective civil societyparticipation in the governance of civil rights?

C8.1 Are there mechanisms to ensure open-ness and transparency of government ininternational negotiations and institu-tions relating to civil rights relevant tocommunication?

C8.2 Does the government actively facilitate andsupport the participation of civil societyin international governance arenas, includ-ing national to local level consultation toensure that civil society views are takeninto account when developing positions?

C8.3 Are there adequate opportunities for civilsociety, including women, to participatein international governance structuresand environments in relation to commu-nication-related civil rights, in both a na-tional and international context?

Pillar D: Cultural Rights relating to Communication

D1: Are the rights of all linguistic communitiesin relation to the use of their languagerecognised and enforced?

D1.1 Are all linguistic groups treated equallyin terms of the right to use one's languagein public and private communication?

D1.2 Are there adequate measures to enablethe use of minority and endangered lan-guages, including sign language and sub-titling, in media and communication pro-duction and dissemination?

D1.3 Are there adequate measures to ensurethat all linguistic communities have ac-cess to a minimum of society's knowl-edge available to them in appropriatelanguage and form?

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1874

75

D1.4 Are there effective measures to ensurethat minority linguistic groups can in-tervene and participate in media forarelevant to general political and socialdiscussion?

D1.5 In relation to ICTs, are there technologiesavailable to ensure that minority linguis-tic groups can use software and hardware?

D1.6 Is education available to all in junior, sec-ondary and third level in native languages?

D2: Is everyone enabled to freely participate in cul-tural life and practices of their communities,as they relate to media and communication?

D2.1 Is there specific recognition in public policythat cultural production is distinct frommarket-driven production of commodities?

D2.2 Are all cultural traditions adequatelyrecognised in public funding and regu-lation of cultural practice in relation tothe media?

D2.3 Are adequate measures in place to en-sure that all cultures have affordable ac-cess to media-related cultural productsand activities of their cultures, such asfilm and television, including their pro-duction as well as consumption?

D2.4 Are media-related cultural products avail-able in the public domain for public use?

D2.5 Are media-related cultural productsgiven sufficient long-term protection, interms for instance of suitable archiving?

D3: Is the media and communications environ-ment supportive of individual, communityand societal identity formation and evolution,enhancing diversity and mutual respect?

D3.1 Are positive measures taken to developcultural diversity, for instance throughrecognition of the value of diverse na-tional and immigrant cultures, of ex-changes with external cultures etc.?

D3.2 Is there an awareness of, and action toprevent, an excessive influence of adver-tising and commercial pressures withinthe media in relation to culture and iden-tity issues?


D4: Does the influence of non-national media andcommunication promote cultural rights?

D4.1 Are there effective measures nationallyto ensure the foreign ownership and par-ticipation in cultural production and dis-semination do not have a negative im-pact on national and local culturalrights?

D4.2 Are there effective measures to counter-act any negative effects of cross-bordermedia-related cultural flows, such as for-eign-owned/produced television, film,music and other cultural endeavours,especially where they are commerciallymotivated, while at the same time en-hancing authentic cultural diversity andsharing?

D5: Do international agreements and governmentpositions in relation to them support and en-hance the role of media and communicationin cultural rights?

D5.1 Do international agreements (regional,global) and multilateral institutions in-side and outside the UN, in practice,strengthen cultural rights in media andcommunication, for instance throughrecognition of the special nature of cul-tural products and support for culturaldiversity?

D5.2 Do the government and public bodies ad-vocate and support measures in theseagreements and institutions in supportof cultural rights in communication?

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1875


D5.3 Is there consistency between governmentpositions in these matters abroad and athome?

D5.4 Does the government maintain an inde-pendent position in relation to the ac-tions of powerful governments, prevent-ing undue external influence in relationto these issues?


D6: Nationally, is there effective civil society par-ticipation in media and communication gov-ernance as it relates to cultural production?

D6.1 Are there adequate public consultationson, and opportunities for participationin, government cultural and linguisticstrategy and policy development?

D6.2 Are there effective ongoing means forpublic concerns and complaints to beheard and acted upon with regard topolicy and practice, including remedialactions?

D6.3 Are there adequate mechanisms for in-dependent direct public participationin ongoing policy review and imple-mentation, in a decentralised manneras appropriate?

D6.4 Have civil society and other actors de-veloped and deployed governancemechanisms and instruments in relationto cultural rights, recognised or not bygovernment?

D6.5 Are civil society entities, such as NGOs andresearch centres, aware of transnationalgovernance issues, nationally, regionally orinternationally, and do they to participateto any significant extent at these levels?

D6.6 Are there specific measures to ensurethat women can actively participate instructures of consultation, representa-tion and participation, and that gender-related issues are addressed?

D7: Internationally, is there effective civil societyparticipation in the governance of culturalrights?

D7.1 Are there mechanisms to ensure open-ness and transparency of government ininternational negotiations and institu-tions relating to cultural rights relevantto communication?

D7.2 Are there adequate opportunities forcivil society, including women, to par-ticipate in international governancestructures and environments in relationto communication-related culturalrights, in both a national and interna-tional context?

D7.3 Are civil society entities, such as NGOsand research centres, aware oftransnational governance issues, nation-ally, regionally or internationally, and dothey to participate to any significantextent at these levels?

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1876

77

The following contains references to the commu-nication rights in the three constituent elementsof the International Bill of Rights: the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, the InternationalCovenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights, and the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights. Many more internationalagreements and legal precedents refer to numer-ous aspects of communication, but there are notincluded here.13

Universal Declaration of Human Rights,Adopted 10th December 1948.

Article 7.

All are equal before the law and are entitled with-out any discrimination to equal protection of thelaw. All are entitled to equal protection against anydiscrimination in violation of this Declaration andagainst any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 12.

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interfer-ence with his privacy, family, home or correspon-dence, nor to attacks upon his honour and repu-tation. Everyone has the right to the protectionof the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought,conscience and religion; this right includes free-dom to change his religion or belief, and free-dom, either alone or in community with othersand in public or private, to manifest his religionor belief in teaching, practice, worship and ob-servance.

Article 19.

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion andexpression; this right includes freedom to holdopinions without interference and to seek, receiveand impart information and ideas through anymedia and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peacefulassembly and association.

Article 21.

(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the gov-ernment of his country, directly or through freelychosen representatives.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the rightto social security and is entitled to realization,through national effort and international co-op-eration and in accordance with the organizationand resources of each State, of the economic, so-cial and cultural rights indispensable for his dig-nity and the free development of his personality.

Article 26.

(1) Everyone has the right to education. Educationshall be free, at least in the elementary and funda-mental stages. Elementary education shall be com-pulsory. Technical and professional education shallbe made generally available and higher educationshall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Article 27.

(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate inthe cultural life of the community, to enjoy thearts and to share in scientific advancement andits benefits.

Annex 2.Communication Rights in the International Bill of Rights

13 For a review of some of them, see: Hamelink, Cees (2003) “HumanRights for the Information Society” in Bruce Girard, Seán Ó Siochrúeds. Communicating in the Information Society. UNRISD, Geneva.www.unrisd.org

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1877


(2) Everyone has the right to the protection ofthe moral and material interests resulting fromany scientific, literary or artistic production ofwhich he is the author.

International Covenant on Economic, Socialand Cultural Rights

Adopted on 16 December 1966, entry into force,on 3 January 1976

Article 13.

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant rec-ognize the right of everyone to education. Theyagree that education shall be directed to the fulldevelopment of the human personality and thesense of its dignity, and shall strengthen the re-spect for human rights and fundamental freedoms.They further agree that education shall enable allpersons to participate effectively in a free society,promote understanding, tolerance and friendshipamong all nations and all racial, ethnic or religiousgroups, and further the activities of the UnitedNations for the maintenance of peace.

2. The States Parties to the present Covenant rec-ognize that, with a view to achieving the full re-alization of this right:

(a) Primary education shall be compulsory andavailable free to all;

(b) Secondary education in its different forms,including technical and vocational secondaryeducation, shall be made generally availableand accessible to all by every appropriatemeans, and in particular by the progressiveintroduction of free education;

(c) Higher education shall be made equallyaccessible to all, on the basis of capacity, byevery appropriate means, and in particular bythe progressive introduction of free education;

(d) Fundamental education shall be encour-aged or intensified as far as possible for thosepersons who have not received or completedthe whole period of their primary education;

(e) The development of a system of schools atall levels shall be actively pursued, an adequatefellowship system shall be established, and thematerial conditions of teaching staff shall becontinuously improved.

Article 15.

1. The States Parties to the present Covenant rec-ognize the right of everyone:

(a) To take part in cultural life;

(b) To enjoy the benefits of scientific progressand its applications;

(c) To benefit from the protection of the moraland material interests resulting from any sci-entific, literary or artistic production of whichhe is the author.

2. The steps to be taken by the States Parties tothe present Covenant to achieve the full realiza-tion of this right shall include those necessary forthe conservation, the development and the diffu-sion of science and culture.

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant un-dertake to respect the freedom indispensable forscientific research and creative activity.

4. The States Parties to the present Covenant rec-ognize the benefits to be derived from the encour-agement and development of international contactsand co-operation in the scientific and cultural fields.

International Covenant on Civil and PoliticalRights

Adopted on 16 December 1966, entry into force23 March 1976

Article 1.

1. All peoples have the right of self-determina-tion. By virtue of that right they freely determinetheir political status and freely pursue their eco-nomic, social and cultural development.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1878

79

Article 10.

3. In the determination of any criminal chargeagainst him, everyone shall be entitled to the fol-lowing minimum guarantees, in full equality:

(a) To be informed promptly and in detailin a language which he understands of thenature and cause of the charge against him;

(b) To have adequate time and facilitiesfor the preparation of his defence and tocommunicate with counsel of his ownchoosing;

(d) To be tried in his presence, and to de-fend himself in person or through legal as-sistance of his own choosing; to be in-formed, if he does not have legal assistance,of this right; and to have legal assistanceassigned to him, in any case where the in-terests of justice so require, and withoutpayment by him in any such case if he doesnot have sufficient means to pay for it;

(e) To examine, or have examined, the wit-nesses against him and to obtain the at-tendance and examination of witnesses onhis behalf under the same conditions aswitnesses against him;

(f) To have the free assistance of an inter-preter if he cannot understand or speakthe language used in court;

Article 17.

1. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary or un-lawful interference with his privacy, family, homeor correspondence, nor to unlawful attacks onhis honour and reputation.

2. Everyone has the right to the protection of thelaw against such interference or attacks.

Article 18.

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom ofthought, conscience and religion. This right shall

include freedom to have or to adopt a religion orbelief of his choice, and freedom, either individu-ally or in community with others and in publicor private, to manifest his religion or belief in wor-ship, observance, practice and teaching.

2. No one shall be subject to coercion whichwould impair his freedom to have or to adopt areligion or belief of his choice.

3. Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefsmay be subject only to such limitations as are pre-scribed by law and are necessary to protect pub-lic safety, order, health, or morals or the funda-mental rights and freedoms of others.

Article 19.

1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinionswithout interference.

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom ofexpression; this right shall include freedom toseek, receive and impart information and ideasof all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally,in writing or in print, in the form of art, or throughany other media of his choice.

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in para-graph 2 of this article carries with it special du-ties and responsibilities. It may therefore be sub-ject to certain restrictions, but these shall only besuch as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputationsof others;

(b) For the protection of national securityor of public order (ordre public), or of pub-lic health or morals.

Article 20.

1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibitedby law.

2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious ha-tred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1879


Article 21.

The right of peaceful assembly shall be recognized.No restrictions may be placed on the exercise ofthis right other than those imposed in conformitywith the law and which are necessary in a demo-cratic society in the interests of national securityor public safety, public order (ordre public), theprotection of public health or morals or the pro-tection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Article 22.

1. Everyone shall have the right to freedom ofassociation with others, including the right toform and join trade unions for the protection ofhis interests.

2. No restrictions may be placed on the exerciseof this right other than those which are prescribedby law and which are necessary in a democraticsociety in the interests of national security or pub-lic safety, public order (ordre public), the protec-tion of public health or morals or the protectionof the rights and freedoms of others. This articleshall not prevent the imposition of lawful restric-tions on members of the armed forces and of thepolice in their exercise of this right.

Article 25.

Every citizen shall have the right and the oppor-tunity, without any of the distinctions mentionedin article 2 and without unreasonable restrictions:

(a) To take part in the conduct of publicaffairs, directly or through freely chosenrepresentatives;

Article 27.

In those States in which ethnic, religious or lin-guistic minorities exist, persons belonging to suchminorities shall not be denied the right, in com-munity with the other members of their group,to enjoy their own culture, to profess and prac-tise their own religion, or to use their own lan-guage.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1880

81

Annex 3.International Resources for Framework Implementation

The following comprise international resources that offer, for the most part, individual reports andinformation from specific countries. The amount of information readily available gets noticeablyless for each successive Pillar.

General Sources

UNDP: www.undp.org (English, French, Spanish)

The Human Development Report contains a table on which countries have ratified majorinternational human rights instruments, and is searchable by country and downloadable.http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2004/indicator/index.html

A. COMMUNICATING IN THE PUBLIC SPHERE

Amnesty International: www.amnesty.org (English, French, Spanish)The AI Annual Reports (latest covering 2004) can be searched by country and may refer to attackson journalists, freedom of expression, etc..http://web.amnesty.org/report2004/index-engTheir Library section can be searched back to 1996 by Country and Theme (Freedom ofExpression) http://web.amnesty.org/library/engindex

Human Rights Watch: http://www.hrw.org (English, French, Spanish, Russian, and others)Human Rights Watch website is searchable by country (all countries) and by subjectPress Freedom, Free Expression on the Internet) with numerous individual stories.http://www.hrw.org/countries.html

A1: Freedom of expression.

Article 19: www.article19.org (Mainly English, some French, Spanish, Portuguese)Their website contains a wealth of information, although there is no systematic or comparablecountry analysis. It has a search facility that can be used for the following:

Freedom of Expression Manual (1993), and updates on national and international case law relatingto freedom of information.

Bulletin on Latin America, part of the Regional Programmes, available in Spanish and Portuguese.

Freedom of Association and Assembly: unions, NGOs and political freedom in sub-Saharan Africa(March 2001)

Privacy International: www.privacyinternational.org (English only)To download September 2003 report on Censorship and control of the Internet (PrivacyInternational and GreenNet), see www.privacyinternational.org/survey/censorship. It containsnational sections on Brazil, Kenya and the Philippines.

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1881


A2: Freedom of the press and media, including electronic.

Reporters sans frontières: http://www.rsf.org (French, English, Spanish)Their Annual Report (2004 and back) can be searched by country from the map on the HomePage http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=416The have an Annual World Press Freedom Index, now in its third year.http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11715They also have a new Internet under Surveillance (2004) report, with similar coverage.http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=433

Global Press Freedom World Tour 2003 summarises the main attacks on journalists worldwide.http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=10184

Freedom House: http://www.freedomhouse.org (English only)The organisation's annual press freedom survey, covering most countries,can be downloaded: Press Freedom in the World 2003 and 2004 updates.http://www.freedomhouse.org/research/pressurvey.htm

A3: Access to, and ready availability of, public and government information.

Privacy International: www.privacyinternational.org (English only)Their report, Freedom of Information and Access to Government Record Laws Around The World(May 2004), covers more than 50 countries.http://www.freedominfo.org/survey.htm

FoI in the European Union and Elsewhere:http://www.rz.uni-frankfurt.de/~sobotta/FOI.htm (English only)This website provides some information of varied quality on freedom of information laws in manycountries, as well as the EU and UN. Last updated about 2000.

Freedom of Information Laws: home.online.no/~wkeim/foil.htm (English and German)This focuses on the legal situation in EU countries, regionally and in a selection of other countries.Updated recently.

Article 19: www.article19.orgFreedom of Information: a Comparative Legal Survey (2003), by Toby Mendel, Law ProgrammeDirector with ARTICLE 19, Global Campaign for Free Expression. Article 19 and UNESCO.Covers South Asia only.

A4: Access to Corporate Information.

Data and Information

Global Reporting Initiative (GRI): www.globalreporting.orgThe GRI is a framework for voluntary reporting guidelines of corporations associated with the UN'sGlobal Compact. Organisational return can be searched by country at:http://www.globalreporting.org/guidelines/companies.asp

Corporate Watch: www.corporate watch.orgThis website is searchable by theme, including countries.

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1882

83

International Norms:

UN Commission on Human Rights' Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of HumanRights: http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/links/norms-Aug2003.html (English, Spanish)

August 2003 Resolution on Human Rights Norms for Transnational Corporations, outlining a setof norms in conformance with international law. This would oblige transnational corporations to“adopt, disseminate and implement internal rules of operation in compliance with the Norms”. Itgoes on to say: “States should establish and reinforce the necessary legal and administrativeframework for ensuring that the Norms and other relevant national and international laws areimplemented by transnational corporations and other business enterprises.” Alsowww.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/64155e7e8141b38cc1256d63002c55e8?Opendocument

OECD: www.oecd.org (English, French, some Spanish)OECD has a section but no national information on Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises,accepted by 33 counties. Includes the statement: “Enterprises are encouraged to communicateadditional information that could include: a) Value statements or statements of business conductintended for public disclosure including information on the social, ethical and environmentalpolicies of the enterprise and other codes of conduct to which the company subscribes.”www.oecd.org/topic/0,2686,en_2649_34889_1_1_1_1_37461,00.html

A5: Diversity and plurality of media and content.

World Association of Newspapers (WAN): www.wan-press.org (English)WAN produces an annual report, World Press Trends (latest 2005), covering the following, andmore, for 204 countries: (http://www.wan-press.org/article567.html) number of titles; circulation,total annual sales and newspaper reach; readership per age group; advertising revenues and trends;macroeconomic data and demographic information, including a breakdown by age, gender andsocial class; taxes, subsidies, discounts and ownership; newspaper Internet editions and onlinereadership; format and cover price of daily newspapers; distribution, newsprint and salary costs;media consumption; number of journalists and total number of employees in the newspaperindustry. Only samples (out of date) are on line. See http://www.wan-press.org/article568.html

International Federation of Journalists (IFJ): www.ifj.org (English, Spanish, French)This is searchable by region country for numerous articles, but has no comparable data.

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1983


A6: Universal access to relevant media.

International Telecommunication Union: www.itu.org (Spanish, French, English)The ITU provides data online at http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/statistics/ which is up to date. It iscompiled from figures provided by national administrations, and covers telephone, Internet andmobile subscribers.They have developed a Digital Access Index http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/ict/dai/index.html. Thisaggregates data for each country from various sources (subscriber lines, mobiles and Internet usersper 100 inhabitants; Internet tariff as percentage of gross national income, adult literacy, schoolenrolment, international Internet bandwidth and broadband subscribers per 100 inhabitants) intofive indicators: Infrastructure, Affordability, Knowledge, Quality, Usage. An overall DAI is derived.There are Internet case studies available at http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/casestudies/index.html#cni

OECD: www.oecd.org (English, French)OECD holds ICT data on its 30 wealthy members:http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_2825_495656_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

UNESCO: www.unesco.org (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic)UNESCO hosts an Information Society Observatory, which can be searched by country andcontains some statistical reports. http://portal.unesco.org/ci/ev.php?URL_ID=7277&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201&reload=1048272936

B. COMMUNICATING KNOWLEDGE

B1: A balanced knowledge-sharing regime, with practical support measures.

World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO): www.wipo.orgThey has a comprehensive and searchable database called “CLEA”, but in English only. It coversintellectual property legislation from a wide range of countries and regions (EU, NAFTA etc.) aswell as treaties on intellectual property. http://www.wipo.int/clea/en/

WIPO undertook a Survey of 90 countries of National Protection of Audiovisual Performances(2003) See http://www.wipo.int/copyright/en/activities/audio_visual.htm. The detailed countryinformation is at http://www.wipo.int/documents/en/meetings/2003/avp_im/index.htm

General Resources

Media Trade Monitor: Focuses on international policy and developments in the trade of media andaudio-visual. Although there is little comparable country data, the sections the UNESCOConvention on Cultural Diversity and on development in WIPO (World Intellectual PropertyOrganisation) offer lots of information and links. www.mediatrademonitor.org

IP Justice: www.ipjustice.org/ (English)Contains a large number of reports on intellectual property issues, and is searchable by region.A programme on the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA):http://www.ipjustice.org/FTAA/resources.shtml#treaties

Consumer Project on Technology. It contains volumes of current material on copyrightand access to knowledge. http://www.cptech.org/

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1984

85

IPRs Online: http://www.iprsonline.org/index.htm

Creative Commons: www.creativecommons.org

Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, UK Commissionon IPRs, Final Report: Summer 2002http://www.iprcommission.org/graphic/documents/final_report.htm

IPRs: Implications for Development, ICTSD and UNCTAD: August 2003 for another goodsummary. http://www.ictsd.org/pubs/ictsd_series/iprs/PP.htm

TRIPS Agreement www.wto.intThe Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), including copyright,is covered here from the WTO perspective. http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

B2: Publicly funded knowledge enters the public domain.

B3: Affordable and equitable access to all media for knowledge sharing.

ITU www.itu.int (English, French, Spanish)Internet and other telecoms-related cost data.

B4: The availability of relevant knowledge for all communities.

UNDP: www.undp.org (English, French, Spanish)The Human Development Report contains a wide range of data on education and literacy, includinggender breakdowns, on income distribution, inequality and literacy, and is searchable by country anddownloadable. http://hdr.undp.org/reports/global/2003/indicator/index.html

B5: Widespread skills and capacities to use media, especially ICTs.

APC toolkit: www.apc.org (English, Spanish)While the Association for Progressive Communication contains little data on the capacity to use ICTs–there is a general difficulty around gathering and comparing such data– it doesoffer a number ofexamples from around the world of the strategic use of ICTs, as well as training material in relationto the use of ICTs.http://www.apc.org/english/capacity/strategy/examples_90s.shtml

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1985


C. CIVIL RIGHTS IN COMMUNICATION

C1: Right to equality before the law, to honour and reputation.

C2: Information privacy and data protection.

C3: Privacy of communication.

Privacy International & EPIC: www.privacyinternational.org (English)National survey of national privacy laws http://www.privacyinternational.org/survey/phr2003/

International Standards in Privacy

European Union Data Protection Directive: (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc.) http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=EN&numdoc=31995L0046&model=guichett

European Union “SPAM” Directive: (English, French, Spanish, Portuguese etc.)http://europa.eu.int/smartapi/cgi/sga_doc?smartapi!celexapi!prod!CELEXnumdoc&lg=en&numdoc=32002L0058&model=guichett

Greennet's code of practice http://www.gn.apc.org/codeofpractice.html

C4: Communication surveillance in public and workplace

General Resources:

Privacy International: http://www.privacyinternational.org/issues/cctv/index.html

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1986

87

D. CULTURAL RIGHTS IN COMMUNICATION

D1: Communicating in one's mother tongue.

D2: Participation in the cultural life of one's community.

D3: Stimulate the sharing of culture and cultural identity.

General Resources:

Media Trade Monitor: www.mediatrademonitor.org/ (English)

International Network for Cultural Diversity: www.incd.net (French, English, Spanish)

Coalition for Cultural Diversity: www.cdc-ccd.org (French, English, Spanish)

International Standards

UNESCO: www.unesco.org (English, French, Spanish, Russian, etc.)

Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity (2001)http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=2450&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html

A N N E X E S

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1987

libro ingles 21/10/05, 13:1988

Documents

CRIS - Assessing Communication Rights: A Handbook