Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 185 entities
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 35
- Paragraph text
- Second, information about the selection and election process for all categories of committees and monitoring bodies, whether involving Member States, experts or others, should be subject to disclosure. Generally, intergovernmental organizations should be making greater efforts to disclose specific kinds of governance decision-making. For instance, one of the most basic public functions of organizations, elections, whether of State delegations to serve on committees or individuals to serve in expert roles such as special rapporteurs, remain largely closed to public scrutiny. Organizations should devote clearly identifiable space on their websites for information about candidates to elective or selective positions, and they should provide information about State compliance with the organization’s norms in the context of elections to bodies held by State delegations. Those making appointments or selections to expert bodies should make public the reasons for their choices. Timely and interactive access to such processes would enhance their credibility as well as the accountability of those making the selections. As noted below, some kinds of information may be subject to non-disclosure, for instance, if necessary to protect the personal data of individual candidates for positions. Generally, however, there is legitimate dissatisfaction among civil society organizations about their limited ability to learn about such processes as they are happening. In turn, the lack of information leads to misunderstandings about the nature of elective or appointment processes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 39
- Paragraph text
- The policies of intergovernmental organizations must clarify what kinds of information may not be disclosed; in their actual withholding of information, they should be held to a high standard in identifying their reasons. At a minimum, intergovernmental organizations should specify what kinds of information they consider to be sensitive and subject to non-disclosure. In doing so, they should not overstate what is subject to non-disclosure but adhere strictly to notions of public interest.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 41
- Paragraph text
- Not every organization with an access-to-information policy deals with exceptions in the same way, but a fundamental problem with many is that they do not provide a basis for disclosure in the public interest (which UNDP does provide). For instance, while the policy of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) largely follows along the lines of UNDP, it fails to include a public interest test to provide for disclosure, even in situations where non-disclosure may be permitted. UNESCO has recently adopted a policy that, while noting a commitment to transparency (and despite its role in the United Nations system in promoting access to information), includes similar restrictions as UNDP. However, like UNFPA, it does not provide a public interest override, such that material normally subject to non-disclosure could be released. If an organization does not provide a public interest test, its exceptions appear rigid and likely to result in barriers to transparency. As part of any public interest test, organizations should include a strong presumption that information about threats to the environment, health or human rights and information revealing corruption should be released because of heightened public interest in such information. This would be consistent with emerging norms governing State access to information policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- On this latter point, I note that the Ethics Office relies in part on the 2013 International Civil Service Commission’s standards of conduct for the international civil service, which, while generally valuable, provide that: “It would not be proper for international civil servants to air personal grievances or criticize their organizations in public. International civil servants should endeavour at all times to promote a positive image of the international civil service, in conformity with their oath of loyalty”. This standard, and the tone it sets, counteracts the notion that staff should report misconduct that may, in some serious cases, fail to promote a positive organizational image.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 57
- Paragraph text
- Intergovernmental organizations should make efforts now to create openness and to establish policies and infrastructure that not only provide information of all kinds but also promote such requests. Intergovernmental organizations should welcome the opportunities to provide transparency because, although transparency can cause embarrassment and, occasionally, give rise to scandal, it also sends a broader message of understanding that public knowledge is critical, especially so since these institutions serve critical public functions. Opacity, by contrast, sends the opposite message: we are distant; our work does not concern you; your support is unnecessary.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 61c
- Paragraph text
- [The political bodies of the United Nations, especially the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, and other intergovernmental organizations should:] Provide comprehensive information concerning organizational governance mechanisms, including election and selection or appointment processes, and broader and simpler accreditation of organizations to participate in and monitor organizational activities;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Access to information in international organizations 2017, para. 62a
- Paragraph text
- [Member States should:] Encourage intergovernmental organizations to adopt access-to-information policies that meet the standards identified in the present report;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2017
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Once an individual has shown the existence of a restriction on freedom of expression, the burden falls on the State to demonstrate that it complies with the requirements of human rights law (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 27). Essential to meeting that burden is a demonstration that the restriction does "not put in jeopardy the right itself" (ibid., para. 21). In keeping with this requirement, in each of the mandate holder's communications States are requested to provide the underlying rationale for an alleged restriction on expression. Communications thus provide the State with an opportunity to show compliance with legal norms, while at the same time giving the mandate holder and other Special Rapporteurs a tool to seek protection of the right and understand the trends concerning exercise of the right.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- State assertions that national security or public order justifies interference with personal security and privacy are common in cases of surveillance of personal communications, encryption and anonymity, subjects addressed in my report to the Human Rights Council in 2015 (A/HRC/29/32), in my predecessor's report in 2013 (see A/HRC/23/40) and in the report of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights on the right to privacy in the digital age (A/HRC/27/37). Surveillance, including both bulk collection of data and targeted attacks on specific individuals or communities, interferes directly with the privacy and security necessary for freedom of opinion and expression, and always requires evaluation under article 19. I am concerned that practice often fails to meet such standards. A law recently adopted in the Russian Federation imposes a duty on Internet providers to decrypt communications, apparently requiring the establishment of encryption back doors that will likely disproportionately undermine all users' security. Both the United Kingdom and France have proposed to provide their law enforcement and intelligence officials with the authority to require companies to grant them access to encrypted communications of their users (see A/HRC/29/32, para. 45). Brazil prohibits anonymity entirely as a matter of constitutional law online and offline (ibid., para. 49). I understand that some of these efforts involve genuine commitments to preventing terrorism or guaranteeing public order, but the Governments have not demonstrated that interference with Internet security is a necessary or proportionate measure in the light of the specific threats caused to privacy and freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- Some States impose restrictions in pursuit of objectives not permitted by article 19 (3). In particular, alarm bells ring when States restrict expression relating to matters in the public interest. Article 19 precludes invoking a justification for the muzzling of any advocacy of multiparty democracy, democratic tenets and human rights (see Human Rights Committee, general comment No. 34, para. 23). Both the Inter-American and the European Courts of Human Rights have noted serious concern at such restrictions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Courts at the national and regional levels regularly engage in careful analysis and attention to freedom of expression norms (although my mention of them in the present report goes towards the rule-of-law element and does not necessarily indicate my agreement on the merits). In 2015, for instance, the Supreme Court of India struck down a 2009 amendment to the Information Technology Act on the grounds that it risked restricting legitimate expression and clarified the scope of intermediary liability under another provision of law. The Supreme Court of Canada upheld the privacy rights of Internet users in a landmark case in 2014. The East African Court of Justice held that a series of rules in Burundi's press law violated norms of the rule of law and freedom of expression. In Rodriguez v. Google (2014), the Supreme Court of Argentina held that search engines are under no duty to monitor the legality of third-party content to which they link, noting that only in exceptional cases involving "gross and manifest harm" could intermediaries be required to disable access. The Inter-American Court of Human Rights held that the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela could not suspend the licence of a broadcaster on the ground that it was seeking to silence government critics. The European Court of Justice has addressed major issues at the intersection of freedom of expression and privacy, while the European Court of Human Rights has clarified the limited nature of liability of intermediaries for third-party content.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 53
- Paragraph text
- Some Governments have adopted strong policies and regulations to promote freedom of expression. In 2016, Norway launched an effort to place freedom of expression at the centre of its human rights policy. In 2015, the United States Federal Communications Commission adopted a policy of network neutrality following the adoption of similar policies by Governments, such as those of the Netherlands, Chile and Brazil. Several States have made an effort to expand infrastructure to improve Internet access. In Myanmar, the Government has taken significant steps to develop its Internet infrastructure: in June 2013, for example, it awarded operating licences to two foreign telecommunications companies as part of a broader push to deregulate the telecommunications industry. The United Republic of Tanzania, Rwanda and Mauritius were early adopters of digital broadcasting, thus providing "more opportunities to increase Internet access by freeing up unused spectrum". Of critical importance are the international statements of support for multi-stakeholder governance of the Internet that privileges security and openness and recognizes the value the Internet offers for freedom of expression. Several Governments have coordinated their efforts to expand Internet freedom through the Freedom Online Coalition and promote access to information through the Open Government Partnership. Several countries have adopted strong laws on the right to information and whistle-blower protection (see A/70/361).
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 54
- Paragraph text
- Civil society organizations and initiatives also remain vibrant and critical to expanding or strengthening freedom of expression norms, particularly in situations of significant flux, such as contemporary digital technologies or the law at the intersection of expression and religion, such as the Rabat Plan of Action. Restrictions on civic space raise particular concerns, not only with regard to freedom of expression (see Human Rights Council resolution 32/31). Independent media, in the face of growing concentrations of ownership in many markets, remain critical as watchdogs of public authorities around the world, particularly in digital space.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57a
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Review and, where necessary, revise national laws. National legislation increasingly adopts overly broad definitions of key terms, such as terrorism, national security, extremism and hate speech, that fail to limit the discretion of executive authorities. Legislation often limits the role of judicial or independent and public oversight. Proponents often give limited demonstration of how new legal rules are necessary to protect legitimate interests and proportionately address specific threats, and the legislative process often limits public engagement and debate. I would urge all States considering new legislation to ensure that their laws meet these requirements, and I encourage States to implement regular public oversight of laws that implicate freedom of expression to ensure that they meet the tests of legality, legitimacy and necessity. Where possible, States should not only adopt legal frameworks but also implement training, particularly among independent oversight bodies, of the principles of freedom of expression;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57b
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Engage with special procedures of the Human Rights Council. As has been shown in the present report, while the response rate to communications is quite low, several States engage with the mandate holder in good faith. Engagement with communications and invitations to conduct country missions add significant value to the work of the mandate holder, since they allow us to seek an understanding of why States pursue certain policies (and, where those policies are adverse to freedom of expression, a possibility of encouraging officials to adopt other measures);
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57d
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] Support independent media and civic space. In the face of State repression of reporting, it is critical that States make an extra effort to support independent voices in the media and civil society at large. At a minimum, I encourage States to avoid imposing restrictions on reporting and research that may be seen to criticize the Government and its policies or to share information about sensitive subjects, including terrorism. States should especially avoid imposing obstacles, such as accreditation procedures or penalties through defamation lawsuits or intermediary liability, that undermine independent media. At the same time, those with the means - such as private donors and foundations - should make a special effort to support independent media and to foster strong scrutiny of media conglomerations that squeeze out the less well-financed outlets;
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Contemporary challenges to freedom of expression 2016, para. 57e
- Paragraph text
- [Among steps that I would encourage are the following:] State leadership. One of the most disappointing aspects of the current situation for freedom of expression is that many States with strong histories of support for freedom of expression - in law and in their societies - have considered measures liable to abuse in their own countries or to misuse when applied elsewhere. In particular, Governments pursuing new policies to enhance surveillance or to limit Internet security should reconsider those efforts, as they often fail to meet the tests of necessity and proportionality. I strongly urge all States to consider that attacks on security on the Internet pose long-term threats not only to freedom of expression but also to national security and public order itself.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- This mapping report rests on a basic question: to what extent should the information and communications technology sector be responsible for the promotion and protection of freedom of opinion and expression? Addressing this question requires beginning with a summary of the international human rights law according to which States are obligated to promote and protect freedom of expression and principles addressing private-sector human rights responsibilities.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 9
- Paragraph text
- Human rights law does not as a general matter directly govern the activities or responsibilities of private business. A variety of initiatives provide guidance to enterprises to ensure compliance with fundamental rights. The Human Rights Council endorsed the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations "Protect, Respect and Remedy" Framework (see A/HRC/17/4 and A/HRC/17/31). Reflecting existing human rights law, the Guiding Principles reaffirm that States must ensure that not only State organs but also businesses under their jurisdiction respect human rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles provide a framework for the consideration of private business responsibilities in the information and communications technology sector worldwide, independent of State obligations or implementation of those obligations. For instance, the Guiding Principles assert a global responsibility for businesses to avoid causing or contributing to adverse human rights impacts through their own activities, and to address such impacts when they occur and seek to prevent or mitigate adverse human rights impacts that are directly linked to their operations, products or services by their business relationships, even if they have not contributed to those impacts.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 11
- Paragraph text
- Due diligence, according to the Guiding Principles, enables businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their adverse human rights impacts. In the digital environment, human rights impacts may arise in internal decisions on how to respond to government requests to restrict content or access customer information, the adoption of terms of service, design and engineering choices that implicate security and privacy, and decisions to provide or terminate services in a particular market.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- As a matter of transparency, the Guiding Principles state that businesses should be prepared to communicate how they address their human rights impacts externally, particularly when concerns are raised by or on behalf of affected stakeholders. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has also urged information and communications companies to disclose risks and government demands transparently (see A/HRC/27/37). Meaningful disclosures shed light on, among other things, the volume and context of government requests for content removals and customer data, the processes for handling such requests, and interpretations of relevant laws, policies and regulations. Corporate transparency obligations may also include a duty to disclose processes and reporting relating to terms of service enforcement and private requests for content regulation and user data.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- The Guiding Principles provide a useful starting point for identifying private information and communications responsibilities, but several other projects have also proposed principles for the sector. The Global Network Initiative's Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy draw on the experience and expertise of the investor, civil society and academic communities. The European Commission published the ICT Sector Guide on Implementing the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Relevant civil society initiatives include the Manila Principles of Intermediary Liability, which establish baseline protection for intermediaries in accordance with freedom of expression standards; the African Declaration on Internet Rights and Freedoms, which promotes human rights standards and principles of openness in Internet policy formulation and implementation on the continent; and the Ranking Digital Rights Corporate Accountability Index, which evaluates a set of major private actors in the digital space on the basis of their adherence to freedom of expression and privacy norms. Civil society also acts to check and balance other actors engaged in Internet governance: the Code of Good Practice on Information, Participation and Transparency in Internet Governance, for example, seeks to ensure that relevant processes are meaningfully communicated to the public, accountable to all stakeholders, and emphasize democratic participation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- The range of private sector roles in organizing, accessing, populating and regulating the Internet is vast and often includes overlapping categories.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Web-hosting services enable users to upload and deliver files and other materials to their readers' or customers' browsers. These companies typically also provide data storage, e-mail and other services associated with the websites their customers have purchased.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- Search engines supply the vital connection between users who search for information, and those who create, aggregate and publish it. Indeed, search engine algorithms dictate what users see and in what priority, and they may be manipulated to restrict or prioritize content. Information searches, however, are not unique to search engines. Content aggregators, specialized research services, social media platforms and professional networks also enable users to search for content.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Companies that create or purchase content produced on their platforms often hold the copyright to such content, enabling them to monetize and manage access to it. Some of the most influential copyright holders are media and entertainment companies, including news media, publishing houses, music labels, and film and television studios.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 23
- Paragraph text
- Companies also provide a variety of services that connect users across multiple platforms, including e-mail, web chats, discussion threads, and social and professional networking. The most prominent actors in this area include e-mail providers, social media and other networking platforms, and online bulletin boards. In addition to such platforms, news websites, e-commerce platforms and application stores provide opportunities for the sharing of information and ideas through reviews, comments and discussions. Internet payment systems also integrate a social networking functionality.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- While technical standards have profound implications for freedom of expression, the Commission on Science and Technology for Development of the United Nations has observed that standards development often lacks sufficient consideration of human rights concerns. To be sure, interested stakeholders and members of the public are permitted to participate in or observe the work of most of these standard-setting bodies. However, because meaningful participation requires a generally high level of technical expertise, human rights perspectives are not always included in discussions, even though technical and design choices can have a substantial impact on freedom of expression.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph
Freedom of expression, States and the private sector in the digital age 2016, para. 30
- Paragraph text
- International legal instruments do not explicitly address how States and other actors should maintain a free and open Internet, nor may regulation by law always be an appropriate approach. Indeed, Internet governance is not the sole province of specialized bodies or Governments. Most recently, the World Summit on the Information Society emphasized the continuing importance of a governance approach that integrates government, corporate and civil society, academic and technical stakeholders and expertise (see General Assembly resolution 70/125). In the context of global trade, non-discrimination principles established under international agreements administered by the World Trade Organization may require States to restrict or otherwise regulate non-neutral services. The World Intellectual Property Organization has also faced growing demands from member States for advice on legislative frameworks that enable them to implement treaty obligations in digital environments. Regional bodies, such as the African Union, the European Commission and the Organization of American States seek to ensure that global Internet policy is formulated and implemented in a manner that takes into account the laws, particularities and concerns of their respective regions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Person(s) affected
- N.A.
- Year
- 2016
Paragraph