Theme

“Towards a Just and Dialogical Human Community – An Exploration of Sustainability, Civility and Mutual Learning”

From its inception, the general themes of the IPOs have been a reflection of the major issues confronting society at the times that they were held. As such, the themes both reflect obvious change and remarkable continuity. This year’s theme tries to link two major concerns of our time: the need for a dialogue among civilizations, and the necessity to achieve a sustainable form of development.

In its 53rd session in the fall of 1998, the General Assembly of the United Nations, on the initiative of President Khatami of Iran, discussed for the first time the need for a sincere and worldwide dialogue between people coming from very different cultural (and religious), social, economic and political backgrounds to find solutions for the pressing problems facing humankind today. The horrendous events of 11 September 2001 and the actions that followed, as well as an analysis of the causes underlying them, have shown the need for sincere and true dialogue all the more clearly. At the same time, these events demonstrated the urgency of discussing more broadly the concepts of what is just and what is right.

The complexity and interdependence of our present-day world is also increasingly understood and accepted. The core problems of globalization, poverty, development and environment can only be solved by well-coordinated actions based on a sound understanding of their relatedness. The sustainability of our society, the future of humankind is directly at stake here – and will be at the centre of the discussions at the World Summit on Sustainable Development in Johannesburg in August/September 2002.

The following paragraphs will elaborate further on the main concepts relevant to the general theme, drawing on insights of scholars involved in the preparation of the IPO and external experts. This outline will be helpful to identify the specific topics for the essays to be written during the X. IPO.

Just

Justice is about rights. It is about ensuring that rights, among them individual rights, are respected and fulfilled to the extent possible. This applies to all levels of justice, including the national, international or global. Ensuring the respect and fulfillment of justice, or rights, at the global level is a far more complex task than it is at the national level. The reasons for this are the following: First, no general agreement has been reached so far at the international level as to the exact scope and contents of the rights of individuals and collective actors. In spite of much progress made over the past fifty years in terms of identifying core values forming a common ground on which to build a sense of common purpose and community, the differences remain significant.  This is exemplified by the discussions still surrounding the universal validity of the “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” Second, the mechanisms to enforce rights at the international level remain weak. The lack of agreement on what is right and on rights themselves renders it all the more difficult to allocate proper resources – institutional, financial and others– to ensure compliance. Third, global justice remains rather elusive and secondary to national interests as long as the international political arena is still largely defined by nation-state structures. A global constituency, for which the concept of global justice would be imperative, has not evolved yet.

Yet, during the past ten years, a number of events and tendencies have occurred that are favorable to the development of a sense of global justice. These events, often tragic ones, have also made the evolution of global justice more urgent. They have led, for instance, to the establishment of the ad hoc international criminal courts for Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the permanent International Criminal Court at The Hague. In addition, globalization and its ambiguous social and economic effects on societies have given rise to calls for a global perspective on justice. The internationalization of national societies under the effects of globalization and the diffusion of international norms on the one hand, and the shift in focus in the international realm towards social and ethical issues centered on the notion of universal human rights on the other hand have brought global justice to the forefront of the contemporary agenda. (Hans van Ginkel, Rector, United Nations University?

Dialogical

Dialogue is conversation between two or more persons with differing views, the primary purpose of which is for each participant to learn from the other so that he or she can change and grow—of course, in addition both partners will also want to share their understanding with their partners.  We enter into dialogue primarily so that we can learn, change and grow, not so that we can force change on the other.  In the past, when we encountered those who differed from us in the religious and ideological sphere, we did so usually either to defeat them as opponents, or to learn about them so as to deal with them more effectively.  In other words, we usually faced those who differed with us in a confrontation—sometimes more openly polemically, sometimes more subtly so, but usually with the ultimate goal of overcoming the other because we were convinced that we alone had the truth.  But that is not what dialogue is.  Dialogue is not debate.  In dialogue each partner must listen to the other as openly and sympathetically as possible in an attempt to understand the other’s position as precisely and, as it were, as much from within, as possible.  Such an attitude automatically assumes that at any point we might find the partner’s position so persuasive that, if we were to act with integrity, we ourselves would have to change. 
 (quoted from Leonard Swidler, “The Age of Global Dialogue,” 5-6)

Human Community

The integration of the international community has generated the need to deal with global issues that affect all nations.  That obviously includes addressing macroeconomic management of the world economy.  In the economic sphere in particular, it has become impossible for any one nation to operate alone, detached from the overall perspectives of global economic management.  However, the list of global issues goes much further than that.  It includes in addition such major issues as environmental problems, combating AIDS and other lethal diseases, and coping with transnational crimes like international terrorism and drug smuggling.  In all these sectors, interdependence among the nations of the world is growing stronger and deeper.  In this new environment, an attempt to replace the old bipolar order with a unipolar order, as claimed by some people, cannot solve the problems.  Nor can a multipolar world based on traditional balance-of-power relations.  The problems can be dealt with adequately only through a mechanism of management based on shared responsibility among the major players in the system that have the will and the capacity to play such roles.  This order, based on what might be called pax consortis,    might look ideal on paper, but in practice it will be the most difficult order to maintain.
(quoted from Hisashi Owada, "The Shaping of World Public Order and the Role of Japan," Japan Review of International Affairs, 14/1, Spring 2000, 14)

Sustainability

There is general agreement that we want a sustainable society, but there is much less agreement as to what that means.  At one end of the spectrum, there are those who want to keep our natural context as close to its present form as possible or to restore it to an earlier, better form.  For them, global warming indicates that our society is already unsustainable.  At the other extreme are those who believe that technology and capital investment will enable us to live well even when much of the nature with which we are familiar has disappeared as a result of human activity.  For them, global warming is to be taken in stride as the cost of the needed economic growth, while we adapt human life to new weather conditions.  Those of us who are closer to the first extreme believe that our generation should undertake to leave our descendents as many options as we have enjoyed, and that continuing to substitute artificial for natural systems reduces these options.  We also believe that human beings have a deep need for the presence of biodiversity in their environments and for the experience of wilderness.  Survival may be possible without these, but it would be an impoverished survival.  We want to sustain a possibility for healthy and enjoyable human life in rich interaction with the natural world rather than sheer human existence. 
(John B. Cobb, Jr., Claremont Graduate University)

Civility

When we stand back from any one cultural perspective and rise to a global perspective between worlds, we can see deeper patterns in the evolution of cultures.  Here we find that through the ages diverse teachers across cultures have sought to advance a deep and painful awakening process in human evolution.  From this perspective, we can see that humans are in the midst of an evolution from an egocentric way of life to a more deeply civilized dialogical being.  The world teachers have all seen that egocentric culture produces diverse forms of pathologies—alienation, the breakdown of relations and communication, fragmentation, and violence—in all aspects of life.  These profound teachers have sought to promote the awakening of life to the dialogical culture which fosters common ground, rational enlightenment, moral awareness and compassion, and more successful human relations across and between diverse worlds.  This dialogical awakening requires specific skills and patterns in opening our minds and our lives to very different perspectives and worlds.
(Quoted from Ashok Gangadean, address on “The Global Dialogue Institute”)

Mutual Learning

This is not a perfect society, but it is one that is stumbling in the right direction.  When you strip everything I said today down to one sentence, it basically comes down to this.  Ever since civilization began, people have fought with their own inner demons over whether what we have in common is the most important thing about life, or whether our differences are the most important thing about life.  That’s what all this comes down to.  I’m glad America is a lot more different than it was when I was your age.  This is a much, much more interesting country.  But what gives us the freedom to celebrate our differences is the certainty of our common humanity.
(Quoted from William Jefferson Clinton, “Remarks as delivered by President William Jefferson Clinton: Georgetown University, November 7, 2001” http://ecumene.org/clinton.htm)

Today there is an emphasis on difference among individuals and among communities.  We are to appreciate difference and to avoid making others over into persons or communities like ourselves.  Instead of emphasizing how we are all alike, we emphasize our differences and the great contribution that this diversity makes to the whole.  Too often, however, it seems that the whole is enriched without much contribution to the individual, diverse, people who make it up.  A better approach is to recognize how living in a diverse world enriches each of us.  A highly diverse environment offers all the stimulus to broaden the range of personal experience and to achieve higher integrations.  The experience and understanding of each one can include new features and new ideas.  In this way each includes elements of what others have achieved.  This can apply not only to individuals but also to religious traditions and cultures.  Christianity can be transformed as it includes some of the great achievements of Buddhism, and Buddhists can learn from, and be transformed by, including achievements of the Christian tradition.  The effect of mutual inclusion is not homogeneity but new forms of difference.  The whole that includes these mutually transforming individuals and communities is ever richer.
(John B. Cobb, Jr., Claremont Graduate University)

Programme
Accommodations
Organization
Theme