The digital era has come as we know it to be revolutionary, whereby ways in which individuals relate to each other have been changed; the information, too, is now shared digitally, and expression itself has become digitized. This digital revolution has brought in its train a new order that has deepened more awareness and has posed some dilemmas for human rights in the virtual realm, prompting a new discourse on how conventional international legal instruments are adapted to respond to the virtual context. Here, we set out on an extensive journey to dwell on the estimated degree to which the norms of international law, which were predominantly designed for the pre-digital age, can adequately protect human personal rights in cyberspace. It is set to be discovered under the close study of the most critical international precedents and cases regarding online human rights—its successes, failures, and the complexity of it all will be elaborated below.
The internet evolution is indeed a significant step forward in describing the world in which places across the globe are one as far as connectivity is concerned; space has become compact and exists only as geographical expressions, while virtual interactions link people in the same way as they were within the same place. This universal digital world, which is a product of the feature to cross over geographical borders and cultural gaps, has thus developed a spectacular village that is one in the whole world.[1]. Living within the boundaries of the digital village, people of different cultural backgrounds can engage in online communication, exchange information resources, and participate in global conversation, strengthening previously unknown levels of social interaction and connectivity.
On the one hand, the Internet provides endless possibilities for information dissemination and has played a role in advancing many spheres of life. On the other hand, the same attributes are a platform for new and emerging threats. To be enumerated among them are concerns of privacy infringement, cyberbullying, hate speech, and the spread of misinformation—phenomena that have turned bigger and feed faster than ever before. The risks are an assessment of society’s ability to be robust and flexible and impose a substantial danger to the human rights concept.
The principle of human rights, which encompasses fundamental rights such as the right to privacy, freedom of expression, and access to information, is becoming uncertain in the digital arena. However, the virtual world presents a new landscape with its distinctions and anonymity, which makes applying these rights more complicated. The very thing that used to enjoy solitude and privacy too often is lost now due to several reasons, especially unauthorized data collection, surveillance, and digital tracking. The Internet, although a gateway for free expression, is often a playground for hate speech and cyberbullying, with perhaps these outcomes being particularly painful for the victims. Additionally, the circulation of wrong information on digital platforms among these audiences can increase the prospects of informed public discourse and democracy.
Consequently, The international community faces one of the most challenging tasks of expanding human rights jurisdiction into cyberspace. The means lies in a proper and deserved grasp of the existing law policy’s availability and limitation. The digital age brought advances in the field of human rights for which a pre-digital era framework and conventional notions have to be reviewed and remodeled to bear with the complexities it brings into this sphere. Lifting those weights is a challenging task. It entails the deliberation of jurisdiction matters as a global nature of the Internet and the diverse degree of regulatory systems across the different nations. Implementing human rights in the digital field also entails empirical problems, as since anonymity is involved in such areas, the perpetrators can escape accountability. However, the time lag between the speed of technological development and the ability of legal systems to catch up is usually a source of this type of gap we see today, where such protected rights and enforcement are often stifled.
For humans to be protected effectively in the digital age, it is necessary to collaborate with states, the international community, civil society, and the tech sector. The alliance, which should be designed to achieve this, should encompass a uniform structure consistent with global internet standards while simultaneously challenging national sovereignty and the primacy of domestic legal systems. Such architecture has to remain flexible and responsive to the rapidly changing features of the virtual context. One of the most valuable areas to start with in this process is the recognition of Internet connections as a fundamental human right, which aligns with the idea that international human rights organizations are popularizing.[2]. The Internet’s elevated status in enabling other rights, like the rights to education, expression, and participation in the public sphere, only accentuates its role. Proceeding with this realization, the policymakers need to give special attention and make evident efforts to enhance these fundamental human rights principles in Internet governance models.
Moreover, privacy protection in the digital era must be the agenda of the laws on data processing, which secures personal details from unlawful disclosure and use. These legislations must also empower individuals about their data by providing options such as information rights to data processes and the right to erasure. While it is essential to defend freedom of speech, it should be equally important to ensure that the Internet is not safe for those who intentionally inflict harm on others. There are directives. These directives indicate what is considered to be hate speech and cyberbullying towards other people. This is completed by developing a culture where digital understanding, respect, and empathy are involved. In addition, an effective reporting mechanism is applied to detect and resolve violation cases.
Placing a stop-labeling act on the elements of misinformation includes the credibility of information sources and media literacy promotion, thereby allowing people to engage with the information sources critically. The dissemination platforms contribute to reinforcing policies and algorithms that address the sharing of inaccurate news and deter the propagation of false content.
The emergence of the digital era imposed the principle of universality of human rights on the unambiguous, vast, and overflowing arena of cyber, reshaping it and presenting it with new challenges. The first and most significant breakthrough was Yahoo’s case. Mr. Instruction Inc. v. La Ligue Contre le Racisme et antisemitism Case is a very interesting one that illustrates the clash between the national legal system and the international nature of the internet. As a crucial case for understanding those challenges, it raises the question: Does the national legal system approach solve them or not? The cause was in France, and its basic argument was that the Nazi memorabilia that appeared on the Yahoo platform was legal in the USA but illegal in France. As a result, the French court passed a ruling representing an order to comply with it. Which was addressed to Yahoo! The decree to bar French users from accessing such content exemplified the coolness of jurisdiction and led to the urgency of weighing the pros and cons when dealing with human rights online.[3]. This incident illustrates a legal conundrum and a profound ethical dilemma: how human rights are to be upheld when virtual borders do not necessarily correlate with the sovereignty of countries’ legal systems in the unconstrained digital world.
The legal challenges of covering Yahoo! the area is a significant role-player. These 2 cases bring up deeper questions on the applicability and effectiveness of going after websites inside the net that transcend national borders. This dual subject of the territoriality of law and the global character of the web makes it a crucial problem whether the conventional legal mechanism could sustain the online environments. This case sheds light on the difficulty of the legal system concerning imposing such an international norm on platforms that work around the globe since it reveals the limitations of the application of the national jurisdictions due to the process of globalization.[4]. Also, it stresses the possibility of collisions between the international human rights principle regarding freedom of expression (according to international human rights treaties) and national laws, which severely limit the forms of expression. This contradiction calls for thinking again of how broadly accepted universal human rights principles can be realized regarding a scenario that violates the traditional legal bounds.
This response argues for reconceptualizing the concept of universality in the context of human rights law, considering the unquestionable and multisided existence of the Internet. Therefore, the remodeling of the geographic scope of legal jurisdiction should be shifted from a rigidly territorial to an international mooting arrangement, where state cooperation is the central aspect to achieve consensus on some legal issues. It means creating an entirely new international law dedicated to the digital era and creating facilities (mechanisms) to provide a basis for international cooperation and enforcement capability.[5]. We will be reaching out to establish a functioning and integrated system that places the sovereignty of each nation as a top priority, as well as the Internet, which enables universal human rights to be upheld and established. With this goal in mind, a web space that is friendly, prosperous, and wide open for constructive dialogue and exchange of opinions and thoughts from all over the world can be achieved.
Consequently, the shared global response to online protection of human rights resembles the need to involve stakeholders with multiple variants, such as the government, the tech world, humanitarian groups, and internet users. Such a multifarious approach, aside from its being the one that helps to create the system of comprehensive and context-specific legal rules, also ensures that the rules formulated are up-to-date and can be accepted by any culture or legal system of the world.[6]. Such a role is recognized by tech companies in regulating content shi, empowering users’ rights, and proposing transparency, accountability, and respect for human rights principles in their operations. Finally, there has to be the global community’s participation when formulating legal frameworks that can adapt to the new realities in the digital world, remembering the implementation of novel solutions to clear jurisdiction problems that exist now.[7]. This is not only a legal responsibility but also a moral one, as the wide diffusion of freedom, equality, and respect for online users’ rights constitutes an international effort to maintain an information society based on Internet and rights awareness.
Balancing privacy with security has become a constant challenge in the digital era because users’ privacy is permanently at risk. The rise of such developed techniques has made this area most applicable to anyone from state entities to the most significant international corporations where there is a possibility of the breach of individual privacy. Implementing the EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) by lawmakers around the EU indicates a step forward in providing privacy and data security through the laws.[8]. Issued in May 2018, GDPR’s regulations became the catalysts for a new wave of data privacy, whereby individual rights had more significant implications than the data itself. This regulation comprises several vital requirements, such as the importance of consent and the right to access the information, the right to rectification and erasure, and the obligation to protect” of both design and default.” The main aim of this is to give an individual an ultimate say over their data and make the privacy standards in the whole world much stricter.
The GDPR’s extraterritorial scope exhibits a new facet that is undeniably among the most far-reaching features of the regulation, going beyond the limits of the EU borders. This provision ensures that any business complies with the laws of GDPR regardless of its geographical location and whether it handles data with EU residents. This global nature of data flows permits the application of both the EU’s jurisdiction and personal data standards universally, as these regulations shall be conveyed and adopted by all data controllers and processors worldwide.[9]. This international nature of regulation manifests itself as a sign of good faith from the EU towards its citizens on the part of global organizations, thus compelling them to elevate their Data Protection Act practices. Nevertheless, the cross-border enforcement brings about some complications since the non-EU countries need to align with the “intricate” GDPR necessities, which sometimes involve an “overhaul” in their operational and data managing processes.
The innovative approach and the significant role of GDPR in setting a new privacy and data protection standard are posed as solid points. However, implementation and enforcement procedures are very complicated. These rules implement the highest level of enforcement, which often creates financial and workforce issues for many small and medium-sized organizations. The different law-enforcement practices among EU member states (and the varieties in compliance and regulatory procedures that follow this) add another dimension to the problem of uniform application of the GDPR, thus affecting disparities in compliance and the proportion of penal action taken.[10]. Furthermore, GDPR confers substantial powers upon national data protection authorities; however, the non-equivalency of those agencies in different states poses the question of the principles of uniformity and legal equality of regulations.[11]. The abovementioned problems put the practicality and desirability of EU-level and international regulation into perspective so that GDPR can be adopted and applied uniformly and without violations and abuses.
The broader international context reveals joint activities to solve privacy and data protection issues, which can be illustrated by instruments such as the Council of Europe’s Convention 108. As the 108 Convention is the first internationally legally binding document on data protection, it and its new version, which plays the vital role of complementing the EU GDPR, are practical instruments for privacy and protection of personal data that rarely come up together. Whether through AI facial recognition or extensive data analysis, they serve as a vivid illustration for creating global standards and joint policies for privacy protection in the digital environment. The acclimatization of Convention 108+ to align with modern data protection quandaries, including transparency of data processing, data subject rights, and the cross-border data flow, is a testimony to the global acknowledgment of privacy as the most fundamental human right. Harmonization and widespread application of the abovementioned standards suggest the coming global norm on the ability of nations to stand their ground within the private “international arena”. To successfully establish legal harmonization, it is not only the legal frameworks that should be crafted but also the states and the international bodies should cooperate, share best practices with each other, and encourage a privacy culture that transcends all national barriers.
The issue of privacy and data protection increasingly becomes a matter of great concern in the digital age. The EU’s GDPR is regarded as the epitome of change that has sparked the implementation of protective measures on a gigantic level when protecting individuals’ privacy rights. Nevertheless, the accomplishments of privacy protection, enforcement, and compliance at national levels worldwide confirm the details and complexities in safeguarding individual freedom in a digitally connected/automated world. A combined mode through GDPR and Convention 198+ signifies a path abroad interaction, thereby calling for a united move towards a single regulation framework. With tech moving beyond just computers to become an integral part of our lives, the conversation on privacy must be able to adjust, allowing for legislation to be fluid in keeping with the altering terrain and resolute in the battle to safeguard the rights of individuals.[12].
With its role as a world’s agora in which the freedom of expression is flourishing at previously unknown scales, the Internet is the architect of this phenomenon in the digital era. Nevertheless, this digital freedom faces the danger of hostile governance encroaching on the rights to expression and access to information through censorship, controversial moderation by the platforms, and laws that curtail dissent. The case of Delfi AS v. Estonia, a court battle that came before the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), highlights the many legal conflicts that exist at the point where free speech regulation in the online sphere meets the protection of human rights. This decision constituted a milestone, the court considered the responsibility of a news website in connection with injurious comments, and it proved to be a challenging task to balance the aspect of view with the protection of freedom of speech.[13]. Such a decision not only matters for content providers but also is a matter of Internet governance that should strive to keep ever-present interests in balance. As digital platforms become de facto public squares, the decision underscores a pivotal question: owning these spaces is how to encourage them to be safe havens for constructive discussion without being one-sided and embracing various outlooks.
The Delfi AS v. Estonia case is evidence of the complex tasks content moderation has required. In its judgment rulings, the ECHR has been playing with the difficulty of maintaining the harmony of the Convention on Human Rights (Article 10, freedom of expression) and the restrictions that the regulation of harmful speech may bring with it. This judgment was a remarkable precedent in legal jurisprudence as it propounded that platforms may shoulder the burden for the conjectured content on their platforms, which would thus have to be more carefully moderated. It may be considered a way to restrain cyber hunt, but its connection with over-censorship and chilling effects on free speech sounds alarming, too. As platforms have to ensure they do not get into any legal issues, they use rudimentary or automated moderation practices to try to remove improper content.[14]. However, these practices may also result in inadvertently removing legitimate discourse. Consequently, content regulation policies need to be taken with great care. At the same time, they should be stipulated in a way that is transparent, accountable, and supports users’ rights to freedom of expression.
On the one hand, the Delfi judgment reaffirms the crisis of current international legislation regarding the intricacies of online expression. However, simultaneously, it outlines the future avenues through which today’s laws can be modified to protect individuals from online cyberbullying. The Internet, which is accessible worldwide, goes beyond the boundaries and limits of national jurisdictions; therefore, it is a challenge for traditional law processes to work adequately in such a virtual environment. The intercontinental nature of the digital sphere provokes an elementary demand, supplying legal systems to secure freedom of expression and responsibility for misuse. The existing international legal system needs more versatility and precision to deal with the digital setting, which changes quickly.[15]. The imminent legal employment of new means and international agreements that set forth procedures and responsibilities of governments and private organizations to fulfill human rights principles is an urgent issue in the digital sphere. Such activities in this direction should endeavor to create a setting where freedom of expression is secured while mitigating abuse and hateful content. At the same time, these should not be done by democratic values infringement.
Although in line with the affirmation of the principles of freedom of expression, such balance is called for—the goal is to consider both the affordances of digital technology and the continued safety of its users. This role includes bringing forth legal standards and best practices encompassing the relevant responsibilities of digital platforms in content regulation; however, it also ensures that the funder’s right to free speech is maintained. Cooperation among the significant players in this game (governments, civil society, tech companies, and the international society) is substantial in building regulations.[16]. Furthermore, the development of digital literacy and critical skills for Internet users can enable them to surf the Internet wisely and critically.[17]. The aim is to promote a virtual culture that celebrates diversity and freedom of speech while respecting the “dn4” latest news trends.
The discursive way of meaning internet freedom of expression and censorship online situations, as in the Delfi AS v. Estonia case, points to the delicate connection that must be respected while regulating cyberspace. With the part that the Internet played in the establishment of the current era, sooner or later, lawyers and ethics should also develop laws and ethics that govern it. By showing support for a fair balance solution that rejects viewpoint suppression and censorship while advocating for a safer Internet for society, society will be striving to have a digital environment that embodies democracy and rights to humans in its purest form.
The employment of international legal instrumentation in the digital world has nothing else but to wrestle with serious issues, which are just the Internet’s inherent features. Qualification disputes lie among other vital competencies. With the rise of the Internet in the global village, the laws of national governments are ineffective, in some cases even inapplicable, leaving such offenses unpunished just because they exist within the legal vacuum. As a result, it renders a layer of enforcement of international human rights laws intricate because violators can work from jurisdictions witnessing lax regulations or bodies to enforce such. Also, digital technologies are evolving very fast, which goes at a speed that lawmakers cannot catch up with. It is an outdated process of creating international laws and ensuring they are not relevant to newer cases compared to old ones.
The internet management procedure has its complications of being borderless and relies on many chained, technical juices that state governments, private corporations, and particular individuals govern. The interwoven architecture of the Internet is not traditionally geared at law enforcement, making it even more complex to carry out any law enforcement activity wherein new mechanisms need to be in place that can balance different jurisdictional and legal systems.[18]. Also, the private bodies that hold control over Internet platforms and services have much power toward regulating the Internet’s content; the user behaviors are being affected by the entities, which asks questions about the responsibilities and accountability of the entities under international human rights law.
Several ways should be proposed to eliminate the threats and reach a higher level of digital dictation. It has become vital to conclude suitable agreements that deal with blackmail explicitly tailored to the contemporary digital age. These treaties should elaborate multifaceted regulations of data protection, freedom of speech, and access to information, with fitting instructions for the implementation and control throughout different geographical and legislative environments. The negotiations should lead to the establishment of schemes of collaboration and coordination within the international community to oversee and redress online human rights abuses and exchange information and best practices between governments and other actors.
Harmonizing international efforts is of the essence to ensure successful human rights compliance in the digital age. Coming together in an endeavor should take a consistent stance on legislative standards and enforcement practices by working through the borders, which will have a unifying effect and become a strong defense against online human rights violations.[19]. This could be the onset of an international arm or network enacted to watch for online human rights abuses and enhance cooperation between national task forces, ISPs, and other relevant players.
Combining tech in human rights enforcement promises a solution to jurisdiction and enforcement issues. Technological tools, namely blockchain and artificial intelligence, can be used as the building blocks for a fair, open, and smooth means of reporting and addressing human rights violations that take place in digital spaces. Application of these technologies can make the evidence of violations easier to identify and surrounded by the collected and analyzed documents, as well as support the implementation of international legal standards across different digital platforms and services.
The digital world is unfolding as a testament to the importance of human rights online today, in addition to realizing how much the development of international legal instruments is needed. This paper demonstrates that technology is changing moral rights and human rights and thus calls on the existing legal system to face the challenges of the digital era. Conflicts of jurisdiction, enforcement, and the rapid evolution of technology prompt inventive and unified solutions to international law. It is evident that safeguarding people’s rights has become a problem for the international community, requiring one to develop international legal documents and include the newest technologies for enforcement. The international community should be dedicated and committed as the Internet keeps evolving to ensure that this emergent digital ecosystem remains an environment where individuals can speak their minds and attain human dignity. The upcoming battle is not only a judicial one but a moral awakening that calls for rebirth and rejuvenation in the Human Rights discipline in the digitization age.
Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan. International human rights. Routledge, 2020.
Jørgensen, Rikke Frank, and Lumi Zuleta. “Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards.” Nordicom Review 41, no. 1 (2020): 51-67.
Raymond, Mark. “Social practices of rule-making for international law in the cyber domain.” Journal of Global Security Studies 6, no. 2 2021: ogz065.
Ryngaert, Cedric, and Mistale Taylor. “The GDPR as global data protection regulation?.” (2020): 5–9.
Sartor, Giovanni, and Francesca Lagioia. “The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence.” (2020): 1-84.
Shrivastava, Pooja. “Challenges in cyber terrorism and cybercrime in India.” 2020.
Solmone, S. A. R. A. “The respect for freedom of expression and the exercise of state jurisdiction online in international human rights law.” PhD diss., University of East London, 2021.
Susi, Mart. “Delfi AS v. Estonia.” American Journal of International Law 108, no. 2 (2014): 295–302.
Upadhyay, Prakash. “Information warfare and digitalization of politics in a globalized world.” Journal of Political Science (2023): 1–30.
Voorhoof, Dirk. “Delfi AS v. Estonia: Grand Chamber confirms liability of online news portal for offensive comments posted by its readers.” 2015.
[1] Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan. International human rights. Routledge, 2020.
[2] Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan. International human rights. Routledge, 2020.
[3] Solmone, S. A. R. A. “The respect for freedom of expression and the exercise of state jurisdiction online in international human rights law.” PhD diss., University of East London, 2021.
[4] Shrivastava, Pooja. “Challenges in cyber terrorism and cybercrime in India.” 2020.
[5] Solmone, S. A. R. A. “The respect for freedom of expression and the exercise of state jurisdiction online in international human rights law.” PhD diss., University of East London, 2021.
[6] Shrivastava, Pooja. “Challenges in cyber terrorism ancybercrimeme iIndiaia.” (2020).
[7] Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan. International human rights. Routledge, 2020.
[8] Ryngaert, Cedric, and Mistale Taylor. “The GDPR as global data protection regulation?.” (2020): 5–9.
[9] Sartor, Giovanni, and Francesca Lagioia. “The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence.” (2020): 1-84.
[10] Donnelly, Jack, and Daniel J. Whelan. International human rights. Routledge, 2020.
[11] Ryngaert, Cedric, and Mistale Taylor. “The GDPR as global data protection regulation?.” (2020): 5–9.
[12] Raymond, Mark. “Social practices of rule-making for international law in the cyber domain.” Journal of Global Security Studies 6, no. 2 2021: ogz065.
[13] Sartor, Giovanni, and Francesca Lagioia. “The impact of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) on artificial intelligence.” (2020): 1-84.
[14] Voorhoof, Dirk. “Delfi AS v. Estonia: Grand Chamber confirms liability of online news portal for offensive comments posted by its readers.” 2015.
[15] Susi, Mart. “Delfi AS v. Estonia.” American Journal of International Law 108, no. 2 (2014): 295–302.
[16] Voorhoof, Dirk. “Delfi AS v. Estonia: Grand Chamber confirms liability of online news portal for offensive comments posted by its readers.” 2015.
[17] Jørgensen, Rikke Frank, and Lumi Zuleta. “Private Governance of Freedom of Expression on Social Media Platforms: EU content regulation through the lens of human rights standards.” Nordicom Review 41, no. 1 (2020): 51-67.
[18] Upadhyay, Prakash. “Information warfare and digitalization of politics in a globalized world.” Journal of Political Science (2023): 1–30.
[19] Upadhyay, Prakash. “Information warfare and digitalization of politics in a globalized world.” Journal of Political Science (2023): 1–30.