Contribución a la construcción de un desarrollo sustentable

Frost (1996), notes that the UN has a normative charter. Frost argued that actors in the realm of international relations are often faced with normative question; they are regularly called upon to decide what, given the specific situation, would be the right thing to do. The task of decision-making is not only placed on governments; not all actors in world politics are governments- citizens in any society can be actors in world politics in one capacity or another. Frost further noted that individuals, whether as ordinary citizens or as members of a private sector agency (such as the NGOs used as case study in this thesis) are often required to make critical normative decisions related to international relations. For example, citizens of a State being called upon by their government to fight in a war, are often faced with difficult choices regarding their obligations, or a voter in a democratic setting has to make decisions about foreign policy questions with a normative dimension in order to cast their vote intelligently in an election.

In describing SD as a normative approach, Sachs (2015:1), asserts that SD is a ‘central concept for our age’. Sachs notes that SD is a way of understanding the world and a method for solving global challenges and an academic pursuit, it tries to understand the interactions of three complex systems- world economy, global society, and earth’s physical environment. Sachs states that SD is a normative outlook on the world- it sets goals to which the world should

123

aspire. Accordingly, Sachs suggests, the adoption of the UN’s Development Goals by all countries to help guide the future course of economics and social development on the planet. According to Sachs, a normative-ethical logic of SD calls for a world in which economic progress is widespread, extreme poverty is eradicated, social trust is encouraged through policies that strengthen the community, and the protection of the environment from degradation caused by human factors.

The normative dimension of SD is also argued to envisage four primary objectives for a good society- economic prosperity; social inclusion; environmental sustainability; and good governance by major social actors, including governments and the private sector. In addition, the fundamental part of SD in a normative sense is that it urges us to get an all-inclusive imagination of what a good society should be. Hence, from a normative perspective, we can say that a good society is not only an economically prosperous society, it is also socially inclusive, environmentally sustainable, and well governed (Sachs. 2015). Sneddon. Et al. (2005) note that the normative basis of SD (such as ethical commitment and development as freedom), as well as the politics that accompanies it, have attracted some attention in the debates on SD. Similarly, Midgley and Pawar (2016), believe that normative and analytical assessments have direct repercussions for social development theory and practice, pointing to the need for new forms of practices as well as conceptual frameworks that can inform the activities of non-profits, community groups, governments, or international organisations concerned with the promotion of social development.

In the context of the environmental, it is argued that SD may be a methodology, as well as a normative goal, a model for planning, and a strategy that involves purposeful management of the environment. Furthermore, if the concept of SD

124

is described as a product of modernisation, it also would answer to the question of modernism in a variety of ways. In comparison with Marxism, SD invokes the idea of ‘need’- to meet problems of resource allocation in time and space. Consequently, the discussion of needs illustrates the essential debate surrounding sustainability. Issues of distribution in time- between the present and future generations are central to the discourse surrounding sustainability (Redclift 2005). The normative approach to SD, according to Peteers (2012), require that human-beings take responsible actions for the good of future generations. However, this research supports the argument that humanity will also need to take responsibility for the present, as we plan for the future, as Sachs (1996) notes, overstating the time dimension in relation to SD could result in us overlooking the present unequal distribution of life opportunities.

It is imperative to highlight two vital normative arguments in world politics in this thesis. They are two rival moral outlooks termed: ‘cosmopolitanism’ and ‘communitarianism’. Cosmopolitanism is said to mean two different things: ‘political cosmopolitanism’ advocates the removal of State borders with the aim of achieving a world government or a system of representation that goes beyond political divide; while ‘ethical cosmopolitanism’ prescribes a global equal moral standing (Jackson and Sørensen 2007:302); also see (Eskine 2010). Consequently, it is this ‘normative-cosmopolitan’ argument that allows for the UNDGs to be viewed in a normative theoretical sense, as it advocates for a variety of stakeholders on a global scale to partner towards achieving SD. On the other hand, communitarianism differs from cosmopolitanism, as it argues, firstly, for the right of individuals to belong to a community before thinking of being a global citizen, and secondly, that priority should first be given to fellow citizens. Nonetheless, these two concepts are competing ideologies which helps us think about our moral identity, the origin of our moral values, the extent of

125

our obligations to others, and what motivates our actions (Erskine: 2010:43). This thesis aligns with the ‘normative-cosmopolitan’ approach vis-à-vis the advocacy for global citizen participation, which is part of what the SDG 17 proposes for achieving the Global Goals.