La Educación para el Desarrollo en el ámbito universitario

There are times when particular focusing events or opportunities produce an environment which allows for the promotion of new ideas and alternatives (Birkland, 1998; Haas, 1992; Howlett & Ramesh, 2003; Hudson & Lowe, 2009; Joachim, 2003; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Kingdon, 2003; Peters, 1991; Pralle, 2006; Princen, 2009, 2011; Theodolou & Kofinis, 2004). Kingdon (2003) describes these moments as windows of opportunity that may open either because of political changes or because of the nature of an issue. Open windows, however, are only available for a short period of time due to political, institutional or resource constraints (Dearing & Rogers, 1996; Howlett, 1998). Even if an idea is able to be pushed through an open window, agenda success is not guaranteed but an idea is more likely to be considered by decision-makers (Kingdon, 2003). Four window types have been specified by Kingdon (2003) and each of these will be briefly considered in respect of SHRAs in the Pacific.

A random problem window refers to an unexpected event, crisis or change in the national, or in this case, sub-regional mood. The Fiji coup in 2006 was an example of this type of policy window. Although the concept of SHRAs in the Pacific preceded the latest coup, its occurrence stimulated further debate. Five years on, however, and a sub- regional mechanism has not been actioned by Pacific leaders thus indicating the idea of SHRAs was not successfully pushed through this policy window. SHRAs, therefore, were not seen by decision-makers as a priority response or solution to this crisis. Kingdon (2003) emphasises the importance of policy actors being ready with their solutions when a window of opportunity presents itself. It appears that apart from some background work being undertaken by Jalal and Madraiwiwi prior to 2006 the idea of SHRAs as a potential institutional solution was insufficiently developed and ready for pushing onto the PIF leaders’ pre-decision agenda at that time.

Routine political windows - for instance, electoral or budgetary cycles - are more difficult to identify in the sub-regional context. This is in contrast to a national political system wherein routine windows are predictable and regular, thus enabling policy

179 advocates to be prepared for opportune moments to present their proposals (Kingdon, 2003). The annual review cycles operating within the PIF are the primary routine opportunity for policy actors seeking to access the PIF agenda. In particular, during the Pacific Plan annual review process, officials and political leaders assess what action has been taken over the previous year and what, if any, attention will be given in the following time period. Prior to 2008, minimal attention was paid to the Strategic Objective 12 in the Pacific Plan that referred to a (sub-) regional human rights mechanism, with other goals receiving greater priority. From that time forward this goal was moved into a new category which required it to receive further analysis. In 2011, the annual review of the Pacific Plan is likely to include the results of the scoping exercise on SHRAs in the Pacific. Therefore, at the time of the leaders’ meeting there will be a brief opportunity for advocates of SHRAs to further stimulate public and political attention to the idea, particularly through media releases and the lobbying of individual politicians and officials. Increasing the knowledge of these policy actors on potential functions and advantages of SHRAs may affect the decisions made by the Pacific leaders at that time.

Discretionary political windows are opened by the behaviour of individual policy actors. In particular, this type of window can open if new personnel are receptive to an idea and have the ability within the organisational constraints to advance this (Kingdon, 2003). Therefore, if a political leader or member of the PIF Secretariat supports the idea of SHRAs then increased attention to the idea is more likely to eventuate. The staff of the PIF Secretariat are pivotal as they have opportunities to present concept papers and other documents directly to the Pacific leaders. Furthermore, the appointment of Filipo Masaurua, senior Human Rights Advisor in the PIF Secretariat, indicates an endorsement from the Pacific leaders’ to further advance the promotion and protection of human rights at the sub-regional level. Masaurua, tasked with working with SPC/RRRT on the scoping exercise, is in a central position to influence the execution of the exercise, the information that is included or excluded, and the recommendations that will be made to the Pacific leaders.

Finally, spillover problem windows occur when a change in one issue area allows for developments in a related field (Birkland, 1998; Howlett, 1998; Kingdon, 2003; Lindquist, 2001; Pralle, 2006). A potential spillover window that has now closed was the scoping exercise on a sub-regional ombudsman, undertaken by an Australian

180 consultant in 2008. If this exercise had recommended the establishment of a sub- regional hub of ombudsman-type services, then advocates of SHRAs could have used this event as leverage to push their own, similar, proposals. Instead, the consultant recommended strengthening ombudsman services in individual Pacific countries and enhancing the links between these national arrangements. This recommendation, endorsed by the Pacific leaders, prevented a window of opportunity for advocates of SHRAs at that time. There are currently no apparent spillover problem windows open for campaigners of SHRAs in the Pacific to push their ideas through.

The notion that it is the ‘right’ time for advancement of the idea of SHRAs is also perceptible throughout the empirical materials, thus endorsing the view that, at times, policy ideas or solutions wait or search for a window of opportunity. (Kingdon, 2003; Ladley & Gill, 2008; Pralle, 2006; Theodoulou & Kofinis, 2004). In addition to the policy windows described above, two more opportunities were identified. Firstly, the institutional and political aspirations of the PIF offer an opportunity for SHRAs to be advanced. As already noted, the Pacific Plan endorses sub-regional cooperation and integration, and contains strategic objectives for the promotion and protection of human rights. The current scoping exercise, mandated by the PIF, provides a significant opportunity for advocates to push their ideas on SHRAs forward so that they may be heard by the Pacific leaders.

Secondly, there is an expectation from the UN and other donors that individual countries as well as the Pacific sub-region more generally, should be adhering to international human rights standards and good governance practices. Moreover, the PIF member states are obligated to the UN to fulfill accountability, monitoring and reporting requirements in respect of human rights. Advocates of a commission have argued that the PIF states may benefit from a pooled approach to meeting the requirements of the compulsory UPR process, as well as reporting on ratified international treaties. These international requirements and obligations may, therefore, present a window of opportunity through which supporters of a commission, in particular, can push their proposals.

The ongoing political unrest in some Pacific countries, international requirements and obligations, and the scoping exercise on SHRAs, provide opportunities for advocates to promote their ideas to Pacific leaders. Conversely, there is tension around the concepts

181 of human rights, culture and law in the Pacific that requires further debate, and Pacific leaders have not taken previous opportunities, such as the Fiji coup, to explore the utility of SHRAs for assisting with addressing human rights issues. There is, therefore, a tension for policy advocates as they seek to balance pushing their proposals through the policy windows and also framing these in a way that is congruent with the sub-regional goals and aspirations of the Pacific leaders. Moreover, there are political and institutional pressures for Pacific leaders as they receive the findings from the scoping exercise and consider whether SHRAs offer appropriate ways in which to address the future promotion and protection of human rights in the Pacific.