This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Political Philosophy / Liberalism — most prominently associated with John Rawls — to re-read the AprIGF 2025 Kathmandu conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.
Introduction: The Problem
In Rawls's framework, the basic structure of society should follow the two principles of justice chosen by contractors behind a veil of ignorance. As internet access becomes a primary good, AprIGF can be read as a site of its distribution.
This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of AprIGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.
Fair distribution of digital primary goods
Among the themes at 2025, セキュリティ represents a contemporary application of Rawls's second principle (the difference principle). Securing access for the worst-off in Nepal takes priority over aggregate efficiency.
The conference theme "The Future of Multistakeholder Digital Governance in Asia Pacific" carries implications beyond a mere policy slogan. It can be positioned as a contemporary reformulation, in digital-era vocabulary, of the kinds of questions John Rawls problematized.
The regional IGF (AprIGF) holds a philosophically distinct position as the intermediate category mediating global universality and national particularity.
Concern for the least advantaged
John Rawls's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2025 conference. We examine that application below.
1. Application to "セキュリティ"
Discussion of "セキュリティ" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, as a central problematic. In Nepal's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around セキュリティ are particularly at stake.
2. Application to "回復力"
Discussion of "回復力" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, as a derivative problematic. In Nepal's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 回復力 are particularly at stake.
3. Application to "イノベーション"
Discussion of "イノベーション" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nepal's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around イノベーション are particularly at stake.
4. Application to "持続可能性"
Discussion of "持続可能性" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nepal's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around 持続可能性 are particularly at stake.
5. Application to "アクセスと包摂"
Discussion of "アクセスと包摂" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Nepal's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around アクセスと包摂 are particularly at stake.
Implications for Executives and Practitioners
The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The John Rawls perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Nepal.
First, it raises the reflexive question of how the firm's business model connects to the logic of Veil of ignorance and the difference principle. Second, in dialogue with regulators and civil society, it suggests dimensions of consensus formation that purely technical arguments cannot reach. Third, it indicates that the long-term ground of business legitimacy lies not so much in technical advantage or market share as in participation in such philosophical-normative debates.
Academic Positioning and Future Research
The argument of this essay attempts to graft a philosophical perspective onto the mainstream political-science and legal approaches to internet governance research. Three future research questions follow.
- Verification of the applicability of John Rawls's framework to other IGF conferences
- Comparative contrast between Political Philosophy / Liberalism and other theoretical traditions
- Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Nepal
In particular, the third point has the potential to liberate IGF research from West-centric debate and open a more multi-layered discursive space.
Primary Sources
- IGF Secretariat. Annual Reports of AprIGF.
- AprIGF 2025 Kathmandu Conference Materials.
- Japan IGF Support Organization. https://japanigf.jp/
- Nakazawa Yuki Blog. https://nkzw.jp/category/igf/
Secondary Sources (Philosophy)
- Works of John Rawls (representative texts of Political Philosophy / Liberalism)
*This piece belongs to the academic essays (philosophy series). The author's views do not necessarily represent those of any institutional affiliation. Feedback and critique are welcome.*
更新履歴
第1稿投稿 2026年6月20日 18時27分（記事コンテンツアップ）
— 中澤祐樹
