{"id":10861,"date":"2013-06-20T21:00:00","date_gmt":"2013-06-20T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2013\/06\/20\/en-philo-ukraine-igf-2013-rawls-justice\/"},"modified":"2013-06-20T21:00:00","modified_gmt":"2013-06-20T12:00:00","slug":"en-philo-ukraine-igf-2013-rawls-justice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nkzw.jp\/igf\/2013\/06\/20\/en-philo-ukraine-igf-2013-rawls-justice\/","title":{"rendered":"Rawlsian Justice on Ukraine IGF 2013 Kyiv \u2014 Veil of ignorance and the difference principle"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Thumbnail\"<\/p>\n

\n

This essay applies the conceptual framework of the Political Philosophy \/ Liberalism<\/strong> \u2014 most prominently associated with John Rawls<\/strong> \u2014 to re-read the Ukraine IGF 2013 Kyiv conference. Target audience: researchers, doctoral students, policy analysts, and executives.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Introduction: The Problem<\/h2>\n

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, Ukraine IGF can be read as a site of its distribution.<\/p>\n

This essay argues that the multistakeholder process of Ukraine IGF becomes intelligible in its specificity only through the concept of Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, and that the concept itself undergoes transformation under the new material of digital space. Describing this mutual transformation is the task of this essay.<\/p>\n

\"Analytical<\/p>\n

Fair distribution of digital primary goods<\/h2>\n

Among the themes at 2013, \u63a5\u7d9a\u6027 represents a contemporary application of Rawls's second principle (the difference principle). Securing access for the worst-off in Ukraine takes priority over aggregate efficiency.<\/p>\n

Each session's agenda-setting can be read as a contemporary restaging of the John Rawls-type problematic.<\/p>\n

The national-level IGF (Ukraine IGF) is an attempt to redefine the modern category of the nation-state in the digital era.<\/p>\n

Concern for the least advantaged<\/h2>\n

John Rawls's concepts are not confined to abstract philosophical discussion; they apply to the concrete agenda items debated at the 2013 conference. We examine that application below.<\/p>\n

1. Application to "\u63a5\u7d9a\u6027"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u63a5\u7d9a\u6027" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, as a central problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u63a5\u7d9a\u6027 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

2. Application to "\u30d7\u30e9\u30a4\u30d0\u30b7\u30fc"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30d7\u30e9\u30a4\u30d0\u30b7\u30fc" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, as a derivative problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30d7\u30e9\u30a4\u30d0\u30b7\u30fc are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

3. Application to "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u30c7\u30b8\u30bf\u30eb\u7d4c\u6e08 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

4. Application to "\u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u56fd\u5185\u6cd5\u6574\u5099 are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

5. Application to "\u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd"<\/h3>\n

Discussion of "\u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd" can be positioned, from the perspective of John Rawls's Veil of ignorance and the difference principle<\/strong>, as a peripheral yet important problematic. In Ukraine's context, the three layers of regulatory design, social implementation, and citizen participation around \u653f\u5e9c\uff0b\u6c11\u9593\u5354\u50cd are particularly at stake.<\/p>\n

\"Philosophical<\/p>\n

Implications for Executives and Practitioners<\/h2>\n

The philosophical reflection of this essay is not merely academic. The John Rawls perspective carries three practical implications for executives operating in Ukraine.<\/p>\n

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<\/strong>. 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.<\/p>\n

Academic Positioning and Future Research<\/h2>\n

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.<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Verification of the applicability of John Rawls's framework to other IGF conferences<\/li>\n
  2. Comparative contrast between Political Philosophy \/ Liberalism<\/strong> and other theoretical traditions<\/li>\n
  3. Exploration of dialogue possibilities with the indigenous intellectual traditions of Ukraine<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In particular, the third point has the potential to liberate IGF research from West-centric debate and open a more multi-layered discursive space.<\/p>\n

    \n

    Primary Sources<\/strong><\/p>\n