The following are the outputs of the captioning taken during an IGF intervention. Although it is largely accurate, in some cases it may be incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or transcription errors. It is posted as an aid, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
***
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Hi. Good afternoon.
Welcome to the workshop applying international law principles in digital space. My name is Sanhawan Srisod. I'm going to moderate the session today.
Let me begin with the proposal of today's sessions. The title is applying international law principles in the digital space. And what we can discuss today is we're going to explore how international law provide framework to protect from human right abuse in the digital space. And we're also going to discuss about how different body of law interact in this increasingly complex theatre.
Touch upon corporate responsibility and (?) both state and corporate actors and discuss about development and remaining gaps as well. This discussion is also part of broader project called (?) our copartner today. Under the digital democracy initiatives.
Under this initiative as with a group of experts who several of them from part of the panelists today. We draft a set of principles we seek to clarify how international law should be progressively interpreted. And to address some am ambiguity and contradiction, if that exists.
As far as the format of the sessions, I think we'll spend the first 25‑50 minutes for presentation by panelists. And then another 25 minute for Q&A, comments, interactive dialogue with participants. And we'll conclude with brief wrap‑up remarks from panelists.
So let me begin with a brief introductions of the panelists today. Before introducing all the panelists, I would like to acknowledge that indeed we originally have panelist with us. Nadim Nashif. He was originally on the list of panelists but unfortunately unable or the here today. However we have our his colleague with it. Tesia McCrewfy..
And next is Nieves Molina. Chief advisor of Danish Institute for Human Rights. And last is Mikiko Otani. Former (?).
So let me begin the discussions. For the first issues, I would like to begin with Chantal. If you talk about the topic we're discussing today, international law in the digital space. This topic begins with international law apply online. This is a certain consensus. In the reality people ask are we talk about international human right law or humanitarian law or everything. Probably you can help set the scene how this framework interacts. Are they even interact with each other?
Any between the international law, patch work or international law or not. If there are any gaps that exist or remain. The floor is yours.
>> Thank you. (Unknown speaker).
What the that means is practise is still very much subject to discussion and to controversial discussions. For example, to what extent cyber conduct might constitute an illegal use of force or violation of the principle of non intervention. And these questions are being discussed within different initiatives under international humanitarian law. For example, the ICRC has been working extensively on how understanding the norms that have been established, particular binding rooms that have been established. Many decades ago. How these norms can still be interpreted in manner they continue to be relevant in cyber space. I would say international human rights law has probably the most.
There are extensive reports, for example, by mandate holders. By the human rights committee. To explain what it means, for example, to be able to enjoy freedom of expression online. The role of online platforms and so on. And international criminal law is also catching up to the realities of how cyber conduct can contribute or even constitute atrocity crimes.
Tomorrow for those who will be here, there will be another session discussing the initiative of the international criminal courts office of the prosecutor. To establish a policy on how cyber enabled crimes might fall under the scope of the Rome statute.
Of course there is also well known, the lien manual. Oxford statement.
So lot of issues recognising it is important for international law to remain relevant. That we also understand how it applies in cyber space. And certain questions I would say are anyway controversial questions on international law and also Mavs in cyber space. One example being for extraterritorial application of human rights. Information, operations by a certain state. Whether they target the home population or the population in a foreign country. Does that shape the obligations that they have? Does it mean there could be a protection gap when it comes to the rights holders that might be impacted by certain operations?
So what I would say is that those initiatives are very relevant. But I think there could be more effort probably to avoid the fragmentation of the responses to how international law applies to cyber space. And to make it more ‑‑ to harmonise it more. To avoid a protection gap.
For example coming back to potential, say, disinformation campaign that is inciting and dehumanising and targets people in another country. Potentially you could have the prohibition of propaganda for war that applies. Or the prohibition of hate speech and article 20 paragraph 2 of ICPCR. Certain operations could also be prohibited under international humanitarian law. Could potentially be a violation of the proxy of direct and public incitement to genocide.
So we have all these different frameworks that have something to say about this type of content, this type of state conduct if that is what we want to focus on. But how they interrelate is not always so established. And from the perspective of the impacted communities and the rights holders who might be harmed by those types of information operations, it doesn't ‑‑ it is not that relevant whether it is humanitarian law or human rights law. And which one is (?). And those can make for interesting leading discussions. But I think it is important that we find the way to, again, operationalise it, clarify it, and make clear what each actor's obligations are. And again what the rights of the impacted communities really are with respect to all these legal frameworks.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much. You point out very important issues. And very important, one of the most concerning issues about the fragmentations is law. In example we talk about incitement and propaganda of war. It is there. ICL, IHL, as well as under the human rights framework. But it has been discussed or interpret separately.
We talk panel of actions which we try to interpret these sections. But having, I see it all.
So yeah, I want to link to our next speaker. Tesia. Because you have been working in the context in three of these law has been collided. I understand last year published a report about digital rights, genocide and (?) in. There is a targeting Palestine. Probably you can explain about these a little bit. And probably you can provide firsthand observation on how this law operate in practise.
And if you see gaps when it comes to fragmentation of the law.
>> TESIA MCCREWFY: Thank you so much. (Low volume).
These principles businesses to identify, prevent, mitigate and account for how they address their impacts on human rights. The right to access the internet, freedom of expression, freedom of opinion. And privacy, are all essential for individuals to share their experiences seek justice and advocate for their rights.
Violations of these rights during such critical times such as what's happening in the Gaza strip right now. Not only silence marginalized voices but also hinders efforts to address and prevent atrocities.
Tech companies and online platforms play a real critical role in documenting human rights abuse, sharing information and mobilising support as well. Systematic censorship and discriminatory content moderation policies by these platforms, as seen in the expression of Palestine voices undermines these digital rights. And disproportionate moderation leads to restrictions at international level.
In some cases it can completely suspend users, Palestinians and international news outlets, as well as journalists have all experienced content takedowns and account restrictions on Instagram and Facebook specifically.
Another contributing factor to censorship is obviously government requests for content takedowns on social media platforms. Which complicates the issue of transparency and bias in content moderation. The United Nations committee on the elimination of racial discrimination already expressed serious concern about the sharp increase in racist hate speech and dehumanisation directed at Palestinians since October 7th. Particularly on the internet and in social media.
And the ICG order on the plausibility of genocide highlights the gravity of the situation. As they are considering in this case the documented use of online platforms to insight genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Including by the highest levels of the Israeli leadership.
Hence, all companies providing technology, telecommunication or social media services in Israel and Palestine need to prioritise comprehensive approach that really mainstreams and safeguards human rights and addresses root causes of (?). In full transparency.
And to finish, because there is an interaction of digital rights and genocide in Gaza, we should highlight the urgent need for protections and accountability to ensure digital spaces remain open and equitable for all.
Thank you.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much Tesia. In the context of Gaza, there is, a lot of study on use of platform to committee some prohibited (?) international law. Including genocide and also protection gaps as well. Which is now (?)
So we touched upon another line. In situation of Gaza now. Issue about accountability as well. If you talk about the possibility of crime to be committed.
So I would like to move to the next speak tore touch upon the issue of accountability when it comes to human rights violation or abuse that committed in the digital space. Including those may amount to crime under international law.
Probably Nieves, you can talk about, you know, the accountability framework as well. And in assessing to just and remedy for those who are victims. Legal framework as well.
>> NIEVES MOLINA: Thank you. Wow, this is a quite impressive room. Yes, building on what my colleagues here have been talking about, I would like to talk about the growing gap in the accountability and as a consequence. Of course growing gap on victims access to remedies.
Although international law has well‑established framework of obligations in relation to access to preparations, access to justice, prevention of impunity. Procedural remedies, compensation, rehabilitation, and what includes like taking all possible measures so that violations don't occur again.
We see crimes enabled by digital technology are treated with a level of exceptionalism. So there is this paradox. While most legalist scholars think that international law has most of the principles that could help us to provide remedies, or to provide regulation.
Regulation.
There are certain exception on producing new legislation and attempting to create new laws that take timing to create. But at the same time create a danger of fragmentation of the law.
So from my point of view, there are two or three things that appear ‑‑ there are more. But I want to talk only about two or three things in these five minutes that appear as a barrier.
And one of them is the idea of the fragmentation of the law. The idea that a specialist in environmental law, a specialist on IHL, on ISL, on cyber law. Seem to be operating separately. And not coordinated. Not knowing what the other specialty are doing.
And then that creates a situation where it creates lack of certainty. It enables shopping where different actors seek the most favorable regulation for their conduct. And it creates also difficulties for cooperation. And ultimately the result is avenues for impunity.
Human rights is coherent where all human rights are related we say. But there has been an attempt to try to analyse right by right, which from my point of view, there is no right that is not affected by digital and cyber and new technologies as we advance in a quite fast pace.
Finally, the issue of the close relationship between a state and corporations has created a blurred reality in which is very ‑‑ it is difficult to know or to define what the levels of responsibility that different actors have in a given situation. A number of situations have also cast a question, when international crimes have been committed with the help, assistance of cyber or digital technologies. There are some scholars that are starting to call for the international criminal responsibility of companies as well. And there are a number of initiatives to whether it would be possible to expand the ICC treaty to include also illegal personalities.
Eventually for us there are two ideas that I would like to put forward. One is, do we have all the tools in international law that will require? Eventually law is by definition is a reaction to a social changes.
And human rights are the safeguard we put for that term. And second question I would like to put to you is that in the middle of all this information. Questioning in international law and their usefulness. Creating space where is there is some gaps of accountability and gaps of regulation eventually.
I want to stop there. So that my ‑‑ we can have time for an interaction.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much Nieves. You put on very important point of the fact that now still blurred line between state and corporate when it comes to who should be held accountable for certain action. And seems like a current international law framework still not caught up to the challenge but there is still ongoing effort to address them.
So most to Francisco who could probably fill in the gaps of the corporate accountability side as well.
Francisco, on the international law, corporate required to conduct due diligence, they have obligations and also expect to having strength, they expect to be held accountable as well. When there is certain kind of conduct that committed on their platform, for example.
But in reality, most of the time it is, we haven't seen a lot of examples where the platform may be held accountable when there is a suspect of involvement in certain kind of actions. So probably you can shed light on this issue. What is the status of international law now when it comes to platform accountability. And at the same time, under international law what we could do, we have to avoid disproportionate line. How can we straddle lines between accountability and protection of the right? And probably you can give examples of recent rulings in Brazil as well. The floor is yours.
>> FRANCISCO BRITO CRUZ: Thank you. I hope you are able to hear me. I am from Sao Paulo. I wanted to be with all of you in Norway. I'm happy my colleagues laid the ground first in terms of international law and discussions. Just disclosure, I'm not acting director of internet lab anymore. I'm now executive professor within the office of the high commissioner for human rights at United Nations. So in this 5 minutes I will deal with three questions.
First one is, it seems when we entered this and as our moderator was questioning me, that we have some tensions within the international human rights law. We have proxy, a number of different discourses of incitement, for example. But also protections from freedom of expression and the need to strike a balance.
And we also have tools like the United Nations guiding principles and (?) and human rights.
First question is how to see this? There are tensions. These are layers. I think that it is interesting to see how the United Nations guiding principles on human rights can act as a more operative layer on that. And maybe a good to depart this discussion is the assertion that the inaction can produce violations, but also action can produce violations.
Also, the statement that corporate can participate from violations and corporate power. And also state actor can participate on violations. And this makes it difficult for navigating. But I think the guiding principles can provide us at least more of a toolbox on different approaches how we see corporate responsibility.
So the second question, can we turn corporate responsibility into platform accountability?
I think it is the main challenge when we see the United Nations Guiding Principles on Human Rights. Why do we make this is to not only assert that principles and human rights are very important. But as guiding principles show us, we need to build method to that.
And thinking about what it means human rights due diligence, as not any form of due diligence, but as specific one that we need to embolden method. We need to embody transparency. And we need to raise the bar. And to that I would like to mention the resources that the big tech project has. Big tech project is a project within the Office of High Commissioner that is trying to make this translation.
So what does it mean to take all of these in different documents and tools for international human rights law and how we can give method to bring companies to this kind of compliance. So in terms of AI, for example we have a different set of tools that we need to apply to that that combine not only transparency tools but also building expertise on (?) for example. That need to build on content regulation, for example.
And that put us in a position that we need to not only point out to methods but also to think on ways to monitor how they are being deployed and what are the results that we are having during time.
And to end my first contribution here, lending the discussion in context is very difficult. So in Brazil, for example, we're seeing the judiciary trying to build a platform accountability field. It is important to say that, as a Brazilian I don't like to share this. We have a judiciary with many number of peculiarities that can be very proactive. But the judiciary is trying to play an important role after an attempted coup and also of challenge from tech sector leadership defining rule of law.
And on that we are seeing how much it is difficult to get this field and build an idea of platform accountability and even human rights due diligence without, for example, state capacities or without a regulator.
But of course we are, as I'm saying on the beginning of my contribution here, not only inaction can produce violations, but action can produce violations as well. So making those are very difficult. And I want to share one thing to make us think on how much the discussion about incitement is very important as my colleagues were commenting before me.
We have an interesting episode, the blocking of the platform X in Brazil. And we saw how much this was spoken about. In the international stage. And how much disinformation was thought to be the key motive for the Supreme Court to block this platform in Brazil. And this is not true. Like the core case that make the Supreme Court made that was an incitement case against a law enforcement officer.
So advancing on kind of this translation, it is really, really the important for not only setting up standards for different contexts. But also on grounding on this context the capacity that we need to prevent violations, not only from the state power but also violations that can be facilitated by the private sector. So this ‑‑ I will leave it here. And I'm anxious to hear all of you in our interactions.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much Francisco.
So we have the last panelist with us and (?) is on the disproportionate impact of online on specific groups. Especially children whose life increasingly shaped by the environment.
Mikiko, under international law, human rights online. Protection of childrens in the online space. So probably you can share with us about those applications. And, you know, probably share how the protection of this group would be strengthened as well. Floor yours.
>> MIKIKO OTANI: Thank you very much. In the 5 minutes I have I'd like to bring in prospect child rights. Many other group of persons who need special attention. But in my case children.
So in 2017, report said worldwide 1 in 3 internet users is a child. So reality we learned in 2017. And when I joined in the community we started learning more and more how the digital environment is important to children.
So what we learned, the reality is that digital is really part of childrens daily lives. Of course still there is digital divide. However children are living with digital. And children's rights are impacted. I have to say I have to emphasise positively and negatively. We very often emphasise negative impact of digital on the children's rights. However children's rights are also promoted or enhanced by digital. So this is a reality.
So when so in 2019, the committee on rights of child decided we need to work on the children's rights and digital regulation. Convention on rights of child adopted in general assembly in 1989. So we were convinced by the reality that commission on the rights of the child need to be read, understood, applied and implemented in relation to the digital environment. Because this is the life the children nowadays are living. So we cannot ignore this reality. And we have to show how the conventional rights of the child is (?) the childrens rights.
I also want to emphasise something which I learned through the process of the committee's work to develop comment on children's rights in relation to digital environment. We took, it took two years. Drafting. Because we had a wide public consultation. Including consultation with the children. What I'm going to share, what I learned from the children.
So children living in digital world, space, however. Offline and online is seamless. It is not so easy to differentiate.
And secondly, almost all the children's rights under the conventions are impacted by the children. Of course the freedom of expression and privacy. However other things. Like right to play. Education, health. Mental health in relation to digital.
And also how to develop the relationship. Personal relationship with others. Starting from the childrens and parents relationship. So all the things are actually impacted by the childrens rights.
And also I have to emphasise the important role of the parents. If the parents are not aware, how they are actually imposing the children to the risk online, so the childrens rights are not protected. So those are what I learned. But what is most important message from the children are they want to use the digital. So they claim to us, the committee, that they don't want to be totally protected or excluded from the digital space. But they want to use the online space safely. So this is the very strong message from the children.
So what other committees said in this general comment adopted in 2021 after a 3‑year consultation. I'd like to bring up three issues. So one, we said T committee said that the states (?). And particularly I'd like to emphasise one things. So the committee said privacy and safety in relation to the design (?), development, operation, distribution and marketing of their products and services is very, very important. To protect the childrens. Safety and privacy in digital world. Second what I want to share today is that it is very important to understand the childrens rights comprehensively if we want to address childrens rights in digital space.
In particular, children are all the persons under 18 years old. So you can imagine how digital space will impact in younger age of children or adolescents. So evolving capacities is very important concept.
Thirdly remedies. What does it mean to access justice and remedies on online harm. So we need to integrate those perspectives and do that we need to hear from the children their lens and their experiences. What they think how to protect themselves is very key.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much Mikiko. Next I would likes to invite questions and shared perspectives. I know after five speakers most of what we share were challenge, which due to fragmentation of international law and protections and accountabilities. There are still gaps but yeah, there is still effort globally to address them.
So yeah, if anyone would like to share or ask any questions? Please.
>> Hello. My name is Olivia. I am from the London story.
So we recently published a report which is called ""escalate "which we describe how India/Pakistan tensions in April, May, 2025, platforms like X and Meta amplified violent and hateful content.
While the Indian government pushed for takedowns of critical voices. Like journalists and human rights defenders. So around 8,000 accounts have been taken down. Which verbalised alternative narratives.
And for us this raises a serious issue when states use the content moderation to silence dissent but don't stop harmful content that can fuel the violence. And in this situation, population is left more vulnerable online, especially during the conflict. So my question would be when it is the state itself contributing to the erosion of online civic space, who is responsible for protecting civilians in this digital spaces and how should international law respond to double standards where both the states and the platform fail to act in the public interest?
So I would like just to hear your perspective on this. Because we also work on this issue.
Thank you so much.
>> Are you taking questions in turn?
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Actually probably can take one more questions. And then we answer.
>> Yeah. Sounds good.
I think my question kind of relates to what was just mentioned about kind of the role of the state. We've heard from the panel the idea of international law placing kind of duties and responsibilities in terms of due diligence on corporations. And I think it is kind of the language or the idea that we are seeing increasingly more, also in domestic legislations. Platform regulation. Also kind of requires companies to have some kind of due diligence, assess risk, risk mitigation, identification or the UK (?) act embody this is question. And my question is how do you see the children fitting together or not? Is kind of international law and domestic efforts to hold platforms to account. Friends and foes, how can we make them friends and foes? Because we also hear from some voices and I think some of the previous comment was in that direction. That states can also violate rights law. So how can regulation both international and domestic kind of be driving change and accountability in same direction and not be kind of conflicting. Yeah. That's my question.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much. I think we'll take the first round probably four questions.
>> My audio device isn't working as well so I'm not sure if I'm being heard right now. Okay great. I'm Monica Latai. I represent UC Berkeley. I work in research and ‑‑. I want to say thank you first of all for this overview of international law and (?) but during our time here at the focus largely appearing to be how current international law, human right, criminal, could be applied or amended to better intersect with rights needing to be protected with digital spheres but nuances are far more complex given how intertwined and interdisciplinary our digital selves journey truly. Is complex domains such as political infrastructure, behavioural psychology, academic power, tech design. These all purposely interwoven to converse within like a digital users daily rhythms. Were.
Are there any efforts for separation for our digital selves. To protect cognition and mind and our thoughts. There are new technology deployed day by day at exponential rate. Is attempting to (?) by any means possible to better build our digital profile and (?). Just wondering if there are any other efforts (?).
Thank you.
>> Can I proceed?
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Yes please.
>> Thank you. My nape is Christian Fazili from democratic republic of Congress go and work at lecturer and researcher at university. I'm a city magistrate.
Thank you for the wonderful presentation. I have few question related to this topic. Beyond voluntary commitment, what binding framework would ensure equitable digital governance such as a global treaty on tech accountability?
Another one relates to due diligence. To what extent are states obligated to prevent malicious cyber activity, organising from the territory?
And last one, how can this be enforced without infringing sovereignty?
Thank you very much.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much for all the questions. I think for we have the questions that on vendor state self‑contribute to online (?) protect civilians. Probably want to respond Chantal. I can give second question to Francisco as well. And...
>> CHANTAL JORIS: I think one of the challenges we see the ‑‑ we see there are massive challenges as to the conduct in the digital space. Digital harms. How can we keep up and we know advancements often much quicker than the ability of certain international bodies but parliaments as well to come up with good rules. So I think one of the problems that we have right now is perhaps it is, I don't think we're exactly in the golden age of treaty making. So that also means that we will often try to rely on existing international law rules and see how can we operate with them? How can we interpret them for them to remain relevant. Because it seems reasonably unlikely that there will be a new Geneva convention adopted, ratified and widely implemented any time soon I think.
The second challenge is also I think, I understand the quest for wanting to regulate some of these issues but I think the detail Francisco and other panelists said. It is very complex face. And again as has been mentioned in action can be problematic and action can also be problematic. So what sort of rules that has been a question about a global treaty on digital accountability I think or again law making to address some of these technologies. Some of the legislations we see are very reactive not based on human rights. So you have this disconnect between the international law obligations of state, particularly human rights obligations and what they do domestically. They don't bring domestic in line with human rights. They also base on proper expertise. So not necessarily good law making. Again you might need to bring a psychologist and want to hear from childrens rights groups when you regulate those issues. So I think sometimes. Again, the response can be almost as problematic as the lack of response.
Perhaps also one point on the role of online platforms, also that we've seen in armed conflicts, India, Pakistan. I think one of the things also to mention and Nieves mentioned as well, often platforms operate or respond to government demands as well. So it is not states do one thing and platforms another. More and more depending on the government, depending on the power of the governments there is very close cooperation and engages both states obligations and companies obligations.
And I think there is also a big responsibilities for us to understand whether the right measures has been taken. I'll wrap up.
The devil is in the details with these measures. Be it as Francisco mentioned, a blocking of X in Brazil or an arrest of the telegram CEO in Paris. We need really the details. Understand why exactly it has been, need to be transparency to real reason so we can also really scrutinize and assess whether measures are inline with international law. I tried to sort of connect a few.
>> There are couple of interesting points. The issue of a state actors behaviour in platforms is one that needs to be addressed. And I'm not sure I agree with Chantal. I'm not sure is the golden age of new legislation.
>> It is not.
>> It is not.
>> That's what I said.
>> Agreed. Yeah, yeah. No it is not the golden age. Because we have seen international level but also at national level. We have couple of projects where we try to compare national legislation with international obligations. And every single time that we face this reaction of legitimating more, and every time that we get it, then it is more repressive kind of legislation. So that's one thing.
The other thing is that there are ‑‑ the legislation in relation to incitement. In relation to justification of war, justification of crimes. Is old. We have examples of that. We have the (?).
So the concepts of law might exist. The way we implement them and the willingness for enforcing them is where I feel that we are lacking behind.
And I want to address the issue that I think the second question brought up. On the issue of how technologies advancing so much. That there is ‑‑ there are some, what a friend of mine wrote about is the issue of freedom of thought now takes a different connotation. Because technology actually might advance to that point that what you think can be reachable even if you don't announce it.
As technology will advance and we have to take decisions on whether the legislation that we have covers. But what I would warn against is whether we do have a real vacuum or what we have is unwillingness to enforce international obligation that exist. Yeah. I think I'll leave it there.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Probably also on second question, Francisco, you want to help answer as well. On domestic legislation on platform regulations and also probably you can help answer on (?)
>> FRANCISCO BRITO CRUZ: Yeah. I'll make some comments. Are you all listening?
Great. So the question is if platform regulation for accountability and international human rights law if they are friends or foes. I think they can be both depending on the situation actually. Like as Chantal was saying. Action and inaction are both pervasive and then there is no rest for this.
But maybe a few points should be made. With or without legislation. With our without regulatory framework. I believe that human rights due diligence, coming and looking to the United Nations guiding principles in business and human rights. They can be fruitful in terms of at least laying the ground for some kind of intervention. That can help us to know more of what's happening. Helping us to know more what is working or not.
And helping us evolve on which is the right way to intervene or to demand corporate responsibility in very concrete way.
But I be I know all of that is baby steps. Right? It is not something you can catch up from one day to another.
And also all of that should happen with involving stakeholder engagement, involving participation, involving transparency tools for civil society. This is the kind of part of a human rights due diligence process that can also ensure that everyone is participating and everyone is in the same page.
But also, with legislation, when we're seeing regulatory frameworks, I think it is also key on monitoring how this legislation is performing. So seeing out what are the checks and balances for state action and state power. And thinking about that there is no endline. There is intervention and testing and more intervention and testing.
And some things can go wrong. And we need to acknowledge that some things can go wrong. Some innovations of legislation can go wrong as well. And I don't think ‑‑ I don't see this as a way of paralysis. I see this as a way of learning what's working or not.
And to end, remedies are also key. Right? Not only remedies around corporate power and corporate decisions. But also remedies on state decisions.
And to really end, just a question here and I will would love to exchange more on that. We are talking a lot about sovereignty. And how important for ensuring corporate responsibility this can be as well.
But I think an important question should be made. Like sovereignty. It can be a path for many things. Rule of law can be a path for many things.
And it is I think we as human rights defenders and people that believe on human rights international law as well, we can ‑‑ we should see sovereignty and rule of law in all of this complexities and to understand why are the ways that can serve as a path for protection also of human rights.
So, but this is more a question than an answer. And I thank you for.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much Francisco.
Probably q last question. I think we're running out of time probably. Last Mikiko then. Questions about judging from talking about today. Any efforts on situations try to holistically address the issues?
Especially when technology day by day has been question probably you can tell probably from (?) update little bit on the (?)
>> MIKIKO OTANI: Thank you so much. I heard on the first question panel. We started talking about the international law international criminal law international human rights law, international humanitarian law. And then I brought in child rights perspective. As I emphasised childrens not only the one group which requires specific attention. And I heard from talking about risk of fragmentation. How we want to approach all the issues.
I don't to mean by sharing the childrens perspective to again go into the silo or fragmented approach. So I think we really need to bring various perspective and divorce voices when we talk about the big question international law. And should law in the digital space. So there is no answer however the consultation process and hearing from various voices not only groups but also regionally because a lot of different initiatives and challenges.
So it is not so much answer. However I think this is a way we should go.
Thank you.
>> SANHAWAN SRISON: Thank you so much. I think we already times up. So thank you for all of your time and I hope today's session was helpful for you. I think it is just beginning of talking more of this topic. And we hope to engage more with all of you on this topic in the coming years as well.
Thank you so much.
