Analysis

In July 2023, Prof Okafor presented a revised version of a document which has formed a key part of the mandate’s work since its establishment in 2005, namely the Draft Declaration on the Right to International Solidarity. This document defines international solidarity as ‘an expression of unity by which peoples and individuals enjoy the benefits of a peaceful, just and equitable international order, secure their human rights and ensure sustainable development’ (draft art 1(1)). It goes on to specify that both individuals and peoples have a right to international solidarity, meaning ‘a right of individuals and peoples to participate meaningfully in, contribute to and enjoy a social and international order in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be realized’ (draft art 4(1)). The Declaration outlines a number of corresponding duties, one of which is the state obligation to ‘to take steps within their respective capacities to facilitate the protection of actual and virtual spaces of communication, including access to the Internet and infrastructure, in order to enable individuals and peoples to share solidarity ideas’ (draft art 8(3)). In this post concluding the Special Symposium ‘You’re Not Alone: Normative Debates on (Digital) Solidarity in International Law and Policy’, we hear Prof Okafor’s reflections on a variety of themes concerning the intersection between the digital sphere, human rights and international solidarity in light of the above work and beyond.

International criminal practice reflects biases toward high-resource languages, affluent states, and prestigious institutions. Along with its many benefits, digitalization of international criminal evidence has begun to further entrench some of the distance between differentially situated individuals. This post seeks to address the role that digital solidarity should play in the collection and analysis of international criminal evidence. Incorporating aspects of digital solidarity into the field of international criminal law would help address asymmetries in public international law and the digital realm through anchoring digital spaces and connectivity to such spaces in universal human rights and combatting the so-called “digital divide.” Through integrating aspects of digital solidarity into the field of international criminal law, legal practitioners can work to prevent the systematic relegation of already marginalized voices

Digital solidarity and the sharing economy may seem like natural companions. To be sure, the sharing economy with its melding of community and commerce has the potential to be a key contributor to digital solidarity in developing economies. Both concepts revolve around the idea of collaboration, sharing resources and funds, community-building, the network effect, increasing trust between strangers, and the leveraging of digital technologies for the greater good. In this blog post, we consider how the sharing economy can contribute to digital solidarity in a developing economy; the barriers to the sharing economy doing so; and if unchecked how it can distort an economy. On that basis, we seek to propose a tentative legal policy for developing economies.

One of the sites where the legacies of colonialism continue to be perpetuated in the Global South is the law classroom. In the teaching and research of international law, ‘mainstream’ narratives of international law are privileged as the Subject, and critical international law scholarship is treated as the Other.

Having attended two-thirds of the WTO’s ministerial conferences, I have been reflecting on why they have failed. In most cases it comes down to an abuse of process and bullying by more powerful Members, sometimes with collusion from the chair and the secretariat, leaving developing countries with two choices: capitulation or denial of consensus.

This post seeks to unravel the intricate dimensions of digital solidarity in the face of crises, with an explicit concentration on the predicaments associated with sovereign debt. It argues that digital platforms have great potential to encourage shared responsibility and facilitate collective action to resolve sovereign debt crises. Through the employment of technology to close gaps, smoothen communication, and facilitate collaborative problem-solving, digital solidarity might lay the groundwork for creating internationally endorsed solutions to sovereign debt crises, thus fostering a more robust and inclusive global economic environment. In addition, the post will examine the challenges of digital solidarity in addressing sovereign debt crises. It will examine the underpinnings of international law and policy, exploring how they may influence or shape the notion of digital solidarity and aims to conceptualise effective strategies to mobilise digital solidarity in crisis response and debt resolution. By shedding light on the transformative power of digital solidarity as a practical tool for global economic reform, this post aspires to contribute to a more balanced and resilient global economy. This post argues that harnessing digital solidarity can lead to more equitable solutions to sovereign debt crises.

The growth in the popularity of the internet around the world, as evidenced by growing user numbers, particularly in Africa, has enabled citizens to harness its power as a tool of agency, creating new global and transnational spaces for civic participation, advocacy, and social change. Digital technologies have become crucial tools for African citizens to highlight concerns, claim rights, and demand social justice. At the centre of this digital transformation are two key and interconnected concepts: (i) digital citizenship to claim rights; and (ii) digital solidarity to act collectively to secure social change. These twin concepts highlight that citizens exercise their rights and collectively support each other in the digital realm. This post reflects on how these two concepts manifest in the African context and how they are shaping the continent’s socio-political landscape.

Across the world, public attention has increasingly turned towards two challenges of global proportions: the catastrophic and unequal impacts of climate change and the kinetic development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Driven by an extractivist growth-oriented economic system with roots traceable to the colonial encounter, climate change has left the world teetering on the edge of ‘irreversible’ breakdown, with marginalised communities particularly impacted by its inequitably distributed and existentially destructive effects. At the same time, fuelled by the extraction of vast amounts of raw materials and data, AI technologies have ushered in intensified forms of surveillance, control, and discrimination dominated by a small number of large technology companies, which have accumulated forms of ‘structural power’ that enable them to influence and circumscribe how communities, corporations and States interact and relate with one another. Despite the intersecting nature of climate change and AI technologies, policymaking has tended to remain remarkably compartmentalised. The EU’s Digital Services package, for example, is notable for neglecting to expressly confront the environmental and sustainability concerns of digital platforms. Where intersections are acknowledged, the relationship is often perceived to be harmonious – with AI invoked as a technological saviour for society’s ecological challenges. While amendments to the EU’s proposed AI Act signal some movement towards confronting the environmental concerns of AI technologies, tensions between the two tend to be defined in narrow technical terms focused on energy costs.

“You want to tell us you don’t want to sow, you want to reap” asked the Nigerian appointed arbitrator, Chief Bayo OJO, during oral argument in the arbitration proceedings, to which Nigerian counsel, Chief Ayorinde, responded: “You cannot reap where you do not sow. That is a very Nigerian saying.” (Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Development, para. 360). The Chair of the Tribunal, Lord Hoffmann, then intervened with his own cultural reference and said: “There is a passage in I think it is Shakespeare’s Henry VI where one of the rebels says: ‘Isn’t it terrible that people should be able to get into such trouble just by signing a document? Let’s kill all the lawyers.’” (Nigeria v. Process & Industrial Development, para. 360). Perhaps, underneath all the arbitral extravagance and incalculable network of disturbing corruption lurks a least appreciated cultural milieu worth $11 billion dollars.

Across the world, public attention has increasingly turned towards two challenges of global proportions: the catastrophic and unequal impacts of climate change and the kinetic development and deployment of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies. Driven by an extractivist growth-oriented economic system with roots traceable to the colonial encounter, climate change has left the world teetering on the edge of ‘irreversible’ breakdown, with marginalised communities particularly impacted by its inequitably distributed and existentially destructive effects. At the same time, fuelled by the extraction of vast amounts of raw materials and data, AI technologies have ushered in intensified forms of surveillance, control, and discrimination dominated by a small number of large technology companies, which have accumulated forms of ‘structural power’ that enable them to influence and circumscribe how communities, corporations and States interact and relate with one another. Despite the intersecting nature of climate change and AI technologies, policymaking has tended to remain remarkably compartmentalised. The EU’s Digital Services package, for example, is notable for neglecting to expressly confront the environmental and sustainability concerns of digital platforms. Where intersections are acknowledged, the relationship is often perceived to be harmonious – with AI invoked as a technological saviour for society’s ecological challenges. While amendments to the EU’s proposed AI Act signal some movement towards confronting the environmental concerns of AI technologies, tensions between the two tend to be defined in narrow technical terms focused on energy costs.