http://www.search4dev.nlOnline library for Dutch development cooperationenwww.kit.nldpcmedewerkers-uba@uva.nldpcmedewerkers-uba@uva.nlSat, 18 May 2013 23:10:53 CEST/d/dprn/graphics/bbhead.gifhttp://www.search4dev.nlhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445148http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445148On Wednesday 14 September 2011 the Society for International Development (SID), in cooperation with Amnesty International, PwC, NCDO and the Worldconnectors, organized its annual conference in The Hague. It was the closing event of the 2010-2011 Lecture Series ‘Global Values in a Changing World: Challenging Universality’. This report provides a summary of the presentations and discussions.R. Muskenshttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445147http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445147Human rights activists argue that, with respect to rights and obligations at least, we are already global citizens. For them alleviating ‘distant suffering’ is not a matter of charity, but of justice. In terms of the principles underlying human rights, including socio-economic rights, individuals are the bearers of specific, detailed entitlements in international law. But this construction of global citizenship is complicated in practice by the fact that, while individuals are the bearers of human rights, it is principally states that are obliged to guarantee them. This has two consequences for universalising human rights: firstly, the value of human rights is almost invariably constructed in nationalist terms – of various different kinds; secondly, obligations to respect human rights are undertaken by states that are fundamentally unequal in terms of economic, social and political resources. Global citizenship is still a long way off, and requires fundamental transformations in international and national political structures and cultural meanings, just to meet existing human rights standards.K. Nashhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445144http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445144Since 2000, European governments and international development agencies have “discovered” the potential of migration and remittances to stimulate development in poor countries. However, migration and development is anything but a new topic. The debate about migration and development has swung back and forth like a pendulum, from optimism in the post-War period, to deep “brain drain” pessimism since the 1970s towards neo-optimistic “brain gain” views in recent years. While these shifts are rooted in deeper ideological shifts, a review of evidence yields a much more nuanced picture. Although migration often has considerable benefits for individuals and communities, migrants alone cannot remove more structural development constraints and can actually contribute to development stagnation. Despite their development potential, migrants and remittances can therefore neither be blamed for a lack of development nor be expected to trigger take-off development in generally unattractive investment environments. Recent views celebrating migration as self-help development "from below" are driven by neoliberal ideologies and shift the attention away from the vital role of states in shaping favourable conditions for positive development impacts of migration to occur.H. de Haashttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445141http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445141China has made significant progress in addressing global challenges and in abiding by universal norms. However, China can not be understood in all her remarkable complexity by looking only at these global signals. A myriad of other factors have impacted on China’s postures and policies, requiring an assessment based on her particular situation full of dilemmas. The present distance between the “universals” and the “particulars” relating to China is perhaps most noticeable in the security field, whether it be the issue of non-proliferation, anti-terrorism, or severe man-made humanitarian disasters such as genocide or ethnic cleansing. In his lecture, Shi Yinhong will elaborate further on China’s attitude and policy toward North Korea and its nuclear programme given that this is the most prominent example of the discrepancy between international norms and Chinese foreign policy.Y. Shihttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445135http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445135If it is societies (and people) themselves who should develop by their own authentic way and if, on the road to this process of self rescuing, foreign assistance is needed, than additional questions arise: where is external assistance facilitating, and eventually stimulating? What should be the primary task of the government itself, and where are the worst practices of external interventions of spoiling own initiatives of civil society, taking away responsibilities from governments? The actual debate about relevance and desirability of budget aid is a point in case; the – sometimes dominant and patriarchal – role of western foundations and intermediary institutions another one. Here lies one of the central questions in international cooperation.P. Collierhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445131http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445131It often seems that the world is caught in an ever denser web of global crises—climate change, energy insecurity, new and resurgent communicable diseases, excessive financial volatility, war and conflict, with migration, water and land scarcity and other challenges already looming on the horizon, set to grab the political spotlight in not too distant a future. Are policymakers losing control? Yes, national policymaking sovereignty has been squeezed is the answer that will be offered for debate in this lecture. But, the good news is: Policymakers are in the process of regaining control. Policymaking is gradually—too slowly, perhaps, but steadily—adjusting to today’s new policymaking realities, notably to the growing importance of global public goods.I. Kaulhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445115http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445115In our rapid changing societies social change and innovation are occurring in a rather autonomous way. At the end of the process, it is often the state that codifies what society has already developed and accepted. It seems that we will need a lot of innovation and social transformation in order to cope with the challenges of new scarcities, climate change, migration and demographic changes such as aging populations in Western world and population growth in developing countries. What role has the state, if any, in these processes of social change and innovation? And what kind of state? In other words, how should the state itself be the object, as well as the subject, of social change?H. Wainwrighthttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445114http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445114The state has until now been the main governing institution of modern society. However, in a globalising world the role of the state is experiencing some contradictory trends. On the one hand, the rise of multinationals (the so-called “footloose” capitals), the increase in international labour migration, and the proliferation of transnational civil networks have eroded the conventional boundary and jurisdiction of the state. On the other hand, the global financial crisis, widespread market failure, the global environmental challenge, and conflicts over natural resource exploitation have highlighted the relevance of the state in dealing with collective action problems. In these circumstances, what will be the future role of the state? Should the state be strengthened as a strong actor or should it be reduced to become a caretaker?T.-W. Ngohttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445112http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445112After World War II, multilateral organisations were the main channel for cooperation by their member states. Many of these international institutions have been unable to address new challenges and are having difficulty adjusting to geopolitical shifts, new forms of civil society organisation, expanding power of global corporations, and growing numbers of overlapping regional and sub-regional institutions. In this fluid multipolar setting, how can states, NGOs, corporations and citizens collaborate on issues that require global cooperation? Will states cede some of their authority to supranational organisations or will participation remain essentially voluntary? Are new forms of international cooperation emerging in which the role of the state may be secondary to other social actors? How might existing international organisations evolve to fill new roles?W. Savedoffhttp://www.search4dev.nl/record/445111http://www.search4dev.nl/record/445111The European Union is long seen as a masterpiece of regionalization and aligning national interests. In several regions of the world it is seen as an example how to realize better cooperation and stronger representation in the international arena. But Europe is in crisis since the financial crisis of 2008. What seemed a successful process appeared to be weak because the lack of supranational power to align economies and welfare arrangements. Is Europe at a crossroad either to speed up its economic integration with inevitably the handing over of more decision making to Brussels? What could that mean for the role of the national state in Europe?R. Cuperus