Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development Holds Three Thematic Discussions on the Impact of Public Participation, Trade Tariffs and Artificial Intelligence in the Context of the Right to Development
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development today held the second day of its twelfth session in Geneva, the theme of which is addressing current challenges in realising the right to development, nearly 40 years after the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development.
The Expert Mechanism held the second of the five thematic discussions scheduled for the session, which addressed public participation: a tool for development. Members of the Mechanism, as well as State and civil society representatives, gave statements, addressing topics such as how public participation acted as a cornerstone for States’ development planning, the importance of the human rights system in ensuring participation, and the necessity for creating a middle-space which enabled participation between Governments and local communities. Speakers also emphasised the importance of public participation for achieving the right to development and including the most vulnerable.
Speaking in the discussion were Venezuela and Lesotho, as well as the Indian Council of South America, Geneva for Human Rights, South Centre, Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII, and the Shaanxi Patriotic Volunteer Association.
The Mechanism held the third of the five thematic discussions scheduled for the session, which addressed impacts of trade tariffs on the realisation of the right to development. Members of the Mechanism, as well as State and civil society representatives, gave statements, addressing the multifaceted impacts of tariffs on the economic, social and cultural dimensions of the right to development, with a focus on developing countries; the impact of the high tariffs imposed by the United States on certain States; and ways for developing countries facing high tariffs to mitigate this situation. In the discussion, speakers highlighted the importance of building a robust, international trade order in guaranteeing the right to development, and how the international community must work together to uphold the multilateral trading system.
Speaking in the discussion were China, Cuba and Venezuela, as well as the Associazione Comunita Papa Giovanni XXIII.
The Mechanism held the fourth of the five thematic discussions scheduled for the session, which addressed the impact of artificial intelligence on creative industries, cultural rights, and the right to development. Members of the Mechanism, as well as State and civil society representatives, gave statements, addressing how the integration of artificial intelligence into creative industries was rapidly reshaping the ways in which art was created, disseminated and consumed; risks posed by artificial intelligence to creativity; and how artificial intelligence could be used positively, in areas such as cultural preservation. Speakers in the discussion outlined both positive and negative impacts of artificial intelligence, and steps being taken to regulate and champion this technology within their own countries
Speaking in the discussion were Jordan, Venezuela, China, Ecuador, Nigeria and Pakistan. Humanity First, Rencontre Africaine pour la defense des droits de l'homme, Centre Europe-Tiers-Monde, and International Observatory for Peace, Democracy and Human Rights also made statements.
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development is a subsidiary body of the Human Rights Council established in 2019 under resolution 42/23. It provides the Council with thematic expertise on the right to development in searching for, identifying and sharing best practices with Member States and promotes the implementation of the right to development worldwide.
The twelfth session of the Expert Mechanism is being held in Geneva from 27 to 29 October. Summaries of the public meetings can be found here, while webcasts of the public meetings can be found here. The programme of work of the Expert Mechanism’s twelfth session and other documents related to the session can be found here.
The Expert Mechanism on the Right to the Development will reconvene at 10 a.m. on Wednesday, 29 October, for the third and final day of the session.
Second Thematic Discussion: Public Participation: A Tool for Development
Opening Statements
ISABELLE DURANT, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said the participation of the inhabitants of all territories was vital for the principle of the right to development and in the consideration of issues related to land use and infrastructure development and others. When people were truly committed and involved from the outset of the process, this was a guarantee that land issues were more likely to be addressed and results and outcomes were more likely to be properly monitored. A framework for participation that ensured the participation of all in an inclusive manner was needed, and all parties needed to be made aware of processes for participation. Ms. Durant said that the present thematic discussion would focus on how to organise consultations and dialogue between groups of inhabitants that did not share the same viewpoint, and how to manage potential disputes and conflicts between groups.
ACHSANUL HABIB, Deputy Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Indonesia’s commitment to public participation in the development process was unequivocal. It was not treated as a box-ticking exercise, but as a lifeblood of human rights. Indonesia placed people at the centre, as primary stakeholders rather than passive recipients. Development in Indonesia was by and for the people, highlighted in the participatory development planning system, which ran through neighbourhoods, districts and provinces through to the national level. It channelled public inspiration into policy proposals and linked them to the development budget. The system ensured public policy reflected the actual needs of the people.
Public participation in Indonesia was guided by inclusivity, early engagement, and transparency and accountability. To overcome practical challenges and reach citizens across the country, Indonesia invested in digital platforms and capacity building. Promoting gender-responsive budgeting and planning was also carried out to ensure the views of people in vulnerable situations were represented. This had led to success, including sustained political will, inclusive processes and robust data, and participatory monitoring and evaluation. However, there were ongoing challenges, including the differing levels of participation across regions, due to different access and capacity. Indonesia’s development planning system was dynamic and highlighted that when delivery was monitored by the people, development became more just, effective and trusted.
KELENI TIKOMAISUVA-SERUVATU, Deputy Permanent Representative of Fiji to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said public participation was a cornerstone of sustainable development, transforming how communities engaged with policies that affected their future. Fiji saw public participation as a crucial part of consultations on budgets, proposed development policies, and legislation. Fiji was comprised of more than 300 islands, including more than 150 occupied islands. Facilitating the participation of communities in the outer islands was a challenge. The State was using digital platforms to support these communities’ participation. Officials visited these communities and provided information in local languages through as many channels as possible, so that they were included in development efforts. The State was constantly looking to improve its efforts in this regard. Ms. Tikomaisuva-Seruvatu said that the current discussion should consider how local communities could benefit from development.
AHMED BADR, Danish Institute for Human Rights, said public participation was not a decorative principle or a technical add-on to development planning, but a human right and a structural pillar of the right to development. The legal foundation of participation was deeply rooted in international human rights law. The Declaration on the Right to Development, and article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the participation as a central principle of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, showed that participation was not a matter of good will or policy choice; it was a legal right and commitment. Participation gave substance to three core principles: empowerment, equality, and non-discrimination and self-determination.
However, legal principles alone were not enough; what turned rights into reality was the institutional architecture through which they were operationalised. This was where national human rights systems played a decisive role. National human rights institutions acted as independent oversight bodies, receiving complaints, monitoring implementation, and facilitating dialogue between a State and society. Another actor was the national mechanisms for follow-up, as well as line ministries and authorities that worked together to form the human rights system. When this system functioned effectively and with participation at its core, it created an enabling environment by embedding participatory rights into laws, policies, consultation frameworks, and planning processes.
ANTHONY ZACHARZEWSKI, The Democratic Society, said participation was still a very rapidly developing area of work. The work that happened in participation had started on a very experimental base in the 70s, 80s and 90s, and had now become more mainstream. This should be celebrated, but it brought its own stresses and strains. A technocratic or top-down solution was not going to work; it would not fail in the same way everywhere, but it would fail in different places depending on the local conditions. To create things which were bottom up and top down, there needed to be an effective middle space, where those involved in the process could come together with the Government on an even footing. The participatory infrastructure should strengthen the participatory capacity of the people on the ground as well as those inside the institution. It was important to overcommunicate how results were influenced by people’s participation.
The Democratic Society had worked on a project with the Belgian Government which had trained certain groups in the participatory process to create spaces where people could be heard. It was important to create opportunities for people to come together, to be themselves and speak freely and fluently in their own language. In designing multilingual processes, it was important to hold monolingual spaces for the fluidity of discussion and reconverge in a multilingual environment with translation. It was a three-level system: the Government, local networks, and middle networks, like civil society, that needed to enable a two-way flow of information.
Comments by Members of the Expert Mechanism
KLENTIANA MAHMUTAJ, Vice Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, asked if there was value in legislating public participation at a national and international level. Newer development projects required social and environmental impact studies, but did not require social licences, which were granted by affected communities, to operate. Social licences could be a means of ensuring efficient and proper consultations with affected communities.
JUANA MARÍA IBAÑEZ RIVAS, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said International Labour Organization Convention 179 included recognition of free, prior and informed consent, which needed to take place in an environment of trust. Free, prior and informed consent was required for large-scale projects to prevent interference in the livelihoods of communities. Consultations needed to consider indigenous cultures and the languages of local communities.
MIHIR KANADE, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said public participation was a core principle of the right to development. Rights holders needed to determine development priorities, and States and private entities needed to respect these. This required strengthening people’s participatory capacity. Digital spaces were one way of doing this, facilitating methods such as multilingual surveys. The right to development entitled all persons and peoples to contribute to and enjoy development. Mr. Kanade raised concerns that investment projects often did not support local employment. He said participation was a means of allowing peoples to contribute to their own development.
Discussion
In the discussion, several speakers said, among other things, that sustainable development could not be achieved without meaningful participation of persons in issues that affected their lives. Public participation needed to include the most marginalised peoples and groups, and communities needed access to information and genuine opportunities to influence decisions that affected their lives. Development imposed without consent violated human dignity and undermined trust.
Some speakers said the Expert Mechanism’s work was vital in guiding States to translate this principle into practice. Legal frameworks needed to be strengthened to ensure the protection of human rights defenders and civil society organizations that facilitated participation. One speaker called for public participation to be designed to actively counter corporate capture and lobbying. They also said there was a need to breach digital divides by empowering communities with the technology needed to engage with States and support them to monitor implementation and outcomes of development projects. The speaker asked how to ensure that international fora on the right to development were not influenced by narrow private interests.
Some speakers also raised concerns that the participation of indigenous peoples in developing public economic, social and cultural policies was limited in many countries. States and private entities needed to cooperate with indigenous peoples and obtain their free, prior and informed consent before carrying out any development projects.
Several speakers presented development projects and legislative and policy measures supporting the democratic participation of local communities in discussions on such projects. One speaker reported that they had held over 20,000 consultations related to education, housing, public services, and infrastructure. Another speaker presented efforts to support the participation of non-governmental organizations in international discussions on the right to development.
One speaker raised concerns about the lack of resources for facilitating public participation in least developed countries, and called for increased support from the international community in this regard. Another speaker called on the Expert Mechanism to establish a mechanism to address violations of the Declaration on the Right to Development judicially. They also raised concerns about measures blocking the participation of non-governmental organizations in the procedures of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Closing Remarks
ACHSANUL HABIB, Deputy Permanent Representative of Indonesia to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the concept of free, prior and informed consent was embedded into Indonesia’s institutions. The State had a cascading process, engaging more provinces, villages and cities, as well as universities and civil society organizations. Every village had one actor who represented the community in this regard. Indonesia was a vast country with a large population which presented challenges. However, the Government was still determined to pursue the interests of all people through development planning and its evaluation and monitoring. Public participation and the interest of the local communities was the key to ensure fairness and transparency.
KELENI TIKOMAISUVA-SERUVATU, Deputy Permanent Representative of Fiji to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said one of the key issues gauged from the responses was the importance of political will to keep the participatory process going, and consistency in empowering populations to participate in these processes, as well as a robust framework to ensure effectiveness. These were three critical pathways which needed to be in place to ensure the right to development could be realised. The Expert Mechanism had a role to assist Governments and stakeholders to live up to these responsibilities.
AHMED BADR, Danish Institute for Human Rights, said it was important that public participation became a common practice, rather than necessitating national legislation for public participation. It should be viewed as a human right, with all actors of the human rights system working cohesively together. Consultation was not a box-ticking exercise. It was important to ensure how rights holders could be part of the consultation process. There was a wealth of jurisprudence and judgements, but it needed to be determined how could these be brought together to translate the rights of communities into reality.
ANTHONY ZACHARZEWSKI, The Democratic Society, said it was essential to build local structures, as well as structures at higher levels. Participation should not just affect decisions; it should affect people. It should also affect civil servants and help them make better decisions. Social license to operate was an interesting concept; it was an aversion of traditional power structures. This could be a productive system which worked effectively for the needs of communities and made them feel more listened to. For Governments, it was important to strengthen collaboration capacity within the whole institution, and take a long-term approach on funding, support and civil society strengthening.
ISABELLE DURANT, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, thanked everyone for the valuable and interesting points raised by all speakers, which had spanned a wide range of topics pertaining to participation. Ms. Durant encouraged the increase of discussions to determine how to best organise the ecosystem of participation.
Third Thematic Discussion: Impacts of Trade Tariffs on the Realisation of the Right to Development
Opening Statements
MIHIR KANADE, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said the realisation of the right to development, sustainable development, and a universal, rules-based, and equitable multilateral trading system went together. The multilateral trading system was built on the principles of non-discrimination and special and differential treatment for developing and least-developed countries. Recent global trade tensions and escalating and differential tariffs had, however, challenged the very fundamental principles on which the multilateral trading system was founded. This had resulted in disruptions of global value chains, inefficiencies, and adverse economic impacts that disproportionately affected developing and least-developed countries.
Sudden enhancements in tariffs could amplify economic inequality, impair access to markets, increase production costs, and slow down poverty reduction efforts, thereby obstructing the realisation of the right to development. Mainstreaming a right to development lens reinforced the imperative that trade needed to be inclusive, rights-enhancing, and environmentally sustainable to be effective.
The main purposes of this discussion were to analyse the multifaceted impacts of tariffs on the economic, social and cultural dimensions of the right to development, with a focus on developing countries. They would discuss the role of various parties in international cooperation mechanisms and policy solutions that could mitigate the negative impact of tariff inequalities and uphold the right to development.
TŠIU KHATHIBE, Permanent Representative of Lesotho to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said that Lesotho had built a significant textile and apparel export industry, largely directed at the United States market under preferential access granted by the United States’ African Growth and Opportunity Act. The imposition of a 50 per cent reciprocal tariff on exports from Lesotho to the United States, though later revised downward, had threatened a sizeable decline in textile orders, translating into millions of United States dollars in lost export earnings. Export contractions would significantly push Lesotho’s gross domestic product downwards and therefore severely reduce its capacity to invest in infrastructure, education, health, and the realisation of the right to development.
The textile and apparel sector in Lesotho was one of the largest private-sector employers and many of these workers were women. Tariff increases risked large-scale job losses and increased unemployment, which could push women into informal work, lower incomes, and reduced bargaining power. Thus, tariff increases risked exacerbating existing inequalities. Trade shocks also forced rural populations to migrate, disrupting local industries and communities.
Strengthening the multilateral trading system was essential for building resilient and predicable supply chains. Multilateral trading systems encouraged innovation and enhanced countries’ capacity to absorb and adapt to external shocks, protecting livelihoods and advancing sustainable development. Some mechanisms for mitigating the negative impacts of tariffs included transit corridor agreements with neighbouring States, harmonisation and rationalisation of customs processes, and reduction of non-tariff barriers and informal costs. The international community needed to ensure that tariffs and trade policies were calibrated in a manner compatible with human rights and the right to development.
NAHIDA SOBHAN, Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said it was often forgotten that measures taken in the global trade regime affected human rights, particularly the right to development. The 1986 United Nations Declaration on the Right to Development guaranteed all persons the right to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social and cultural development. If governed fairly, trade was a vital enabler of development. However, if distorted through unilateral measures, it became a barrier. The escalation of tariffs disproportionately affected countries, particularly least developed countries. Tariffs imposed on recent global markets had tripled in recent months. This raised serious questions of development justice and equity. In Bangladesh, over 11 million workers were employed in tariff affected export sectors, such as textiles, with more than half of them women. These sectors had been essential to poverty reduction and women’s empowerment. However, the current scenario was set to have negative impacts.
For least developed countries like Bangladesh, aspiring to graduate from this category in 2026, this situation was more precarious. Ms. Sobhan was worried this could reverse hard earning development gains. To sustain development momentum, Ms. Sobhan called for fairness in Government support measures before, during and after graduation. Bangladesh proposed a graduating support package for least developed countries during the transition, to prevent tariff shocks which undermined export industries. There needed to be the restoration of a fully functioning dispute system which protected weaker economies. Trade needed to be aligned with human rights by exercising fair trade, with trade policies subject to human rights impact assessments. Trade must not become a tool which divided nations into winners and losers. Tariffs must not be leveraged against the most vulnerable economies. The right to development could not be achieved without the international economic situation which worked as an enabler.
CARLOS RAZO, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said tariffs affected trade, restricted market access, and reduced export revenues. The higher tariffs introduced by the United States in January 2025 did include some exceptions, but had raised taxes for many countries and sectors, significantly harming the competitiveness of least-developed countries in the United States market. Since 2011, least-developed countries had been working to double their share of global exports from one to two per cent. They still only accounted for 1.1 per cent of such exports, but tariffs on these countries had increased three-fold in just a few months. This was an unfair situation.
One sector that had been particularly affected by the tariffs was manufacturing of goods such as textiles and apparels. Some exports of apparels had already been put on hold, which led to losses that could not be recovered. The United States’ Africa Growth and Opportunity Act expired in September, leading to the application of significantly increased tariffs on many countries in Africa. These increases particularly affected women, who were employed in the hardest-hit sectors. This showed that tariff hikes had the most severe impact on the most vulnerable.
YUEFEN LI, South Centre, said she had just returned from the Banking Fund’s annual meeting, where the Managing Director of the International Monetary Fund had said the effective real tariff rate of the United States was nine per cent, and had advised no action as the rate was not that high. However, Ms. Li said the rate was high and the tariff rates did not consider the absorbing power or the vulnerabilities of countries at all. Least developed countries had been affected tremendously. She believed the international community should fight against this kind of action which was a complete attack on multilateralism.
Trade hikes had negative impacts on the progress made on the right to development, while trade liberalisation led to increased industrial production, trade volume, employment and investments. Protectionist measures worked to the opposite of trade liberalisation and affected the realisation of the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly poverty alleviation and economic growth. Tariff hikes affected the economy on the demand and supply side. It was a negative supply shock for tariff-imposing countries, as well as the countries targeted by tariffs, on both the trade and financial side, and had already injected volatility in the financial markets. Vulnerable countries and populations would be most affected.
Due to increased tariffs, countries had been increasingly relying on South-South and regional cooperation, as the heavy reliance on the Global North market highlighted weaknesses. South-South cooperation was an important diversification tool for the tariff-hit countries and could act as a buffer for tariff hikes and impacts. Countries should unite and work with international institutions, like the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, South Centre and the Expert Mechanism, to solidify their positions and enhance their collective negotiation power.
AKMAL SAIDOV, Director, National Human Rights Centre of the Republic of Uzbekistan, said that as the world faced growing challenges, the right to development needed to remain as a cornerstone of international solidarity. Trade and human rights had an intertwined relationship - over 75 per cent of the world’s governments had trade agreements that included human rights provisions. Fair trade systems were vital for ensuring that globalisation served humanity. Mr. Saidov presented an agreement between Uzbekistan and the European Union that promoted increased Uzbek exports to Europe, which had led to the creation of new jobs and increased investment and diversity in the State’s economy. The agreement established a legal framework for deeper cooperation in trade, investment, sustainable development, and green technologies.
Uzbekistan supported a legally binding international instrument on the right to development, which would strengthen global accountability frameworks for trade. It called on the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to develop an e-learning course on trade tariffs and human rights for civil servants and national human rights institutions. It also encouraged the creation of fora for sharing best practices on trade and developing fair trade mechanisms. Global security could not be achieved without development, which relied on fair trade.
Discussion
In the discussion, speakers said, among other things, that the right to development was inalienable and fundamental, and required commitment based on solidarity among States as well as global cooperation. Building a robust, international trade order was a crucial guarantee for realising this right. Under specific conditions and in compliance with international rules, tariffs could play a constructive role. It should be acknowledged, a speaker said, that tariffs could also serve as a source of fiscal revenue for developing countries and could be invested in critical areas such as education and healthcare, therefore contributing to the right to development.
However, using tariffs as a tool of maximum pressure represented a form of economic bullying, harming developing and least developed countries and limiting their path to development. The Government of the United States was using trade tariffs as blackmail, which hampered the right to development, one speaker said. The high level of uncertainty in international trade caused by these actions had become a systemic tariff which hampered investment and deepened gaps between countries. Developing countries suffered disproportionately in this context, and were additionally impacted by the rise in the external debt burden and inequalities in the international architecture. The excessive imposition of tariff measures on developing countries restricted access to international markets and affected access to foodstuffs and medicines. These actions violated the United Nations Charter and inhabited the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals.
A speaker called for the Human Rights Council to raise the profile of and denounce the impact of trade tariffs on the right to development. All countries should exercise caution restraint in employing trade remedies in accordance with World Trade Organization rules. The international community must work together to uphold the multilateral trading system. Urgent and effective measures should be adopted to eliminate tariffs and fair-trade measures. Global trade governance should align with and prioritise human rights frameworks.
Speakers posed questions to the Experts including: could they provide recommendations which could be carried out in the Human Rights Council to tackle and reverse this situation? Could tariff measures be seen as a type of unliteral coercive measure?
Closing Statements
TŠIU KHATHIBE, Permanent Representative of Lesotho to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said Lesotho reaffirmed its commitment to deepening regional integration and broadening its industrial base. It called on the international community to ensure that tariffs and trade policies were used as a tool for promoting sustainable development rather than inequality.
NAHIDA SOBHAN, Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said nations needed to work more closely on issues related to trade in the face of geopolitical fragmentation, and strengthen multilateral institutions to ensure that no one was left behind. The impact of trade regimes on all peoples of the world needed to be analysed in such fora. The work of international trade organizations had many connections with that of organizations working on human rights. Solutions were needed to ensure the use of trade as a tool for supporting sustainable development and access to human rights, rather than for hindering access to those rights.
CARLOS RAZO, United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, said that although least developed countries’ contribution to the United States’ trade deficit was only 0.3 per cent, the increased United States tariffs had had large impacts on those countries. The international community needed to promote trade diversification and regional integration for these countries, which would help them to develop the resilience they needed to face trade shocks.
YUEFEN LI, South Centre, said vulnerable countries and populations had been disproportionately impacted by tariffs and protectionist measures. The world should not be subjected to anarchy. All States needed to work together and fight against aggressive tariffs and protectionism, including in multilateral fora.
MIHIR KANADE, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said the discussion highlighted how higher tariffs had negative impacts, even when applied equally to all countries, and how different tariffs for different countries created trade diversion. Trade deficits, though a normal part of trade relations, were the questionable basis of current trade wars. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, the predecessor of the World Trade Organization, was established in 1947 to prevent protectionist policies. Mr. Kanade expressed hope that the world would not have to relearn the lessons of the Second World War and would return to fair trade practices.
Fourth Thematic Discussion: The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on Creative Industries, Cultural Rights, and the Right to Development
Opening Statements
KLENTIANA MAHMUTAJ, Member of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said creativity, cultural rights and development were deeply interlinked. From the early beginnings of existence, stories had been told through art, music and language, promoting shared experiences, life legacies and lessons for future generations. The right to create was enshrined in the International Covenant on Economic, Cultural and Social Rights. Today, sophisticated creative industries such as publishing, film, fashion, design and the arts served as powerful vehicles for self-expression and a means of preserving cultural heritage. When creative industries flourished, they could enhance access to culture, and make cultural rights, which were fundamental to development, sustainable and accessible. This was particularly important for indigenous peoples, minority groups, and women, among other groups.
The integration of artificial intelligence into creative industries was rapidly reshaping the ways in which art was created, disseminated and consumed. It could amplify creativity by assisting creators and promoting their work. However, it could also undermine their work, for example using their output to generate copies for public consumption. The regulatory landscape was currently fragmented, with non-binding pledges appearing toothless in the growing power of the artificial intelligence industry. The discussion today would seek to explore the risks and opportunities posed by artificial intelligence in cultural and creative sectors, and identify specific impacts by artists and creators, and on cultural rights and the right to development. Some of the key questions included: how was artificial intelligence currently shaping creative industries? Did these systems currently pose a threat to these industries; if so, how? What risks did artificial intelligence pose to diversity? Were creators in the Global South more at risk than those in the Global North? Were the current regulatory tools adequate? If not, what else could be done?
ANDREA DETMER LATORRE, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said that the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization had addressed the impact of artificial intelligence on education, science and culture in various reports and meetings. Its studies had shown that creative industries, education, climate and sustainability, freedom, and cultural sovereignty were changing in many ways due to the introduction of artificial intelligence. The Organization was calling for a united vision on artificial intelligence to address the huge risks associated with it.
There was a governance lag regarding artificial intelligence, which was developing faster than legislation. The world needed to act fast and learn from initial experiences in introducing the technology. There was a lack of transparency regarding artificial intelligence technology, but it was difficult to set standards for it. There was a North-South divide regarding access to artificial intelligence, and it also posed the risk of eroding creative, cognitive, emotional and social skills and cultural economies, and could marginalise minority voices. However, it also had benefits – it could enhance creativity and forms of artistic expression, reduce market barriers for small businesses, help connect knowledge systems, improve efficiency, and aid efforts to combat crimes such as trafficking.
Culture was not currently included in the Sustainable Development Goals. To ensure ethical governance, policies on artificial intelligence needed to address cultural rights and accountability, encourage eco-responsible practices and reduce the environmental impact of artificial intelligence, and ensure equal and fair distribution of the value generated by artificial intelligence and cultural data. There needed to be consideration of how companies could pay for usage of cultural data. Due to the speed of development of this technology, frameworks that worked across countries and sectors were needed.
JENNIFER GOSETTI-FERENCEI, Johns Hopkins University, said while artificial intelligence had enabled opportunities for the production and preservation of culture, recent studies highlighted how its technologies risked ‘reinforcing algorithmic bias, obscuring cultural distinctiveness’, and accelerating ‘cultural homogenisation’. Artificial intelligence also threatened to displace humans as sources of cultural production, to dismantle creative authorship, and to colonise and distort the fruits of human thought and making. In assessing this risk, there was a need to consider the impact of artificial intelligence on human creativity itself and the role of creativity in human culture. Creativity was an ancient feature of human culture, seen across history, including the paintings on the cave walls of Lascaux, the Nazca lines of Peru, and Van Gogh’s Starry Night, among others.
Creativity allowed for the making of worlds that could differ from what was familiar, or it could enable the familiar to be seen in new ways, to be newly inspired by the past. Without creativity, humans could not progress beyond a given state of things, to conceive and strive for future goals, and realise or negotiate the possibilities to come. Artificial intelligence itself was a product of creativity, which had long been associated with human striving to surpass limitations, emphasised in the ancient Greek myth of Icarus, which warned against hubris, and also illustrated the human creative drive to surpass limitations.
Artificial intelligence was a material process carried by the burning of fossil fuels and use of water and other resources already under strain, and it needed to be fed on the languages, texts, images, art, music, and knowledge of humanity’s preserved cultural histories. If artificial intelligence untethered creative production from human curiosity and agency, it was also abstracted from the human experience on which it drew, and from the culture its products may come to saturate. If it was the human imperative to set limits for artificial intelligence, it was crucial to recognise the central role in creativity in what made us human, to nurture original human creativity, and to protect human creative works as the basis of cultural development.
PAULA WESTENBERGER, Brunel University of London, said artificial intelligence used data protected by intellectual property, such as text, images and sound, so it was often considered in the framework of copyright law. However, copyright law was not sufficient to address all the risks posed by artificial intelligence, many of which needed to be addressed using human rights concepts. Ms. Westenberger noted that many materials used to train artificial intelligence were not protected by copyright but fit into categories such as traditional or indigenous knowledge. She also noted the need to consider the role of contracts, as many heritage organizations partnered with commercial entities developing artificial intelligence.
The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights provided the basis in international human rights law for copyright claims in the context of the right to take part in cultural life. This provision had been expanded by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights’ general comment 17, which addressed the distinction between protections provided by human rights compared with intellectual property rights. This general comment showed that it was important to consider human rights dimensions and social property in the regulation of intellectual property. Meaningful consultation with a wide range of stakeholders was needed to develop inclusive policies on intellectual property and participation in cultural life. Indigenous groups’ resources and cultural practices were being threatened by resource-heavy artificial intelligence technologies; this also needed to be addressed through regulation.
GIORGOS SAMOUEL, Deputy Permanent Representative of Cyprus to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said for Cyprus, a small State with rich cultural heritage, artificial intelligence was a profound cultural development which challenged reflection on how innovation could respect, protect and promote shared humanity. Cyprus was exploring how artificial intelligence could support creative protection and cultural preservation. The use of new technologies in heritage digitisation programmes was being promoted. The State had supported research projects aimed at developing artificial intelligence tools for the protection of cultural heritage, in particular, for combatting the illicit trafficking of antiquities. Cyprus was also advancing national frameworks on artificial intelligence governance, in line with the European Union’s broader efforts.
Technological progress must not come at the price of human dignity or the rights of creators. If deployed without care, artificial intelligence could overshadow human creativity and erode the recognition of individual and cultural knowledge. Respect for cultural rights needed to guide how artificial intelligence was designed, ensuring it complemented, rather than overrode human creativity. Cyprus believed three key areas were essential to achieving the balance between technological innovation and the protection of cultural rights: inter-governance of cultural materials, effective safeguards for creators’ moral and economic rights, and enhanced capacity, inclusion and cooperation.
Looking ahead, the Human Rights Council had an increasingly important role in addressing how technological changes affected cultural rights and heritage. The human rights mechanism had demonstrated that it was well equipped to meet this challenge. It needed to be ensured that this transformation remained human centred and rights based. There needed to be strong engagement with United Nations bodies, as well as civil society. The Council’s work needed to safeguard cultural diversity and the right of every person to participate freely in cultural life, both online and offline.
Discussion
In the discussion, some speakers, among other things, commended the Expert Mechanism for addressing the issue of new technologies in the context of the right to development. One speaker encouraged the Mechanism to promote the inclusive governance of artificial intelligence. It was important that technology served humanity and did not replace it. Artificial intelligence should expand imagination and strengthen cultural expression. It was a tool which could empower creators and innovators, if it kept transparency at the centre. Applied ethnically and responsibility, artificial intelligence could lead to collective good, strengthening health care and education systems. It could generate economic growth and contribute to the right to development, while helping to preserve local languages, expand the global reach for young creators, and lower barriers to participation for cultural production.
However, the misuse of artificial intelligence could lead to disinformation, racial discrimination and hate speech, one speaker said. Algorithm biases could lead to an erosion of cultural diversity and digital gaps remained, which limited the full participation of vulnerable persons, including the poorest population groups, persons with disabilities, and indigenous peoples, among others. Another speaker highlighted that artificial systems were already replicating the voices of musicians and recreating art, sometimes without permission, which raised concerns on how creators could continue to earn a living. The violation of the right to a private life, including surveillance or automated decision-making, were other challenges imposed by artificial intelligence which impacted fundamental rights.
Speakers underscored that it was important to build upon cooperation and research, increase exchanges among companies and on talent, and revitalise the development of artificial intelligence. There needed to be the development of governance of artificial intelligence, based on a broad consensus. It was vital that the adoption of emerging technologies like artificial intelligence focused on protecting cultural diversity. For developing countries, artificial intelligence could help digitise archives, and enable translation of indigenous knowledge. However, these remained out of reach for many in the Global South. Unaddressed digital divides would deepen inequalities and endanger cultural diversity. One speaker recommended the development of a United Nations centralised human rights based artificial governance framework, which ensured equal access to multilingual platforms and safeguarded cultural diversity.
Speakers spoke about how they were addressing the use of artificial intelligence in their own countries, including through artificial intelligence codes of ethics; legislation in personal data protection; artificial intelligence education and ethics being integrated into schools and university curriculum; holding artificial intelligence “hackathons” which allowed young innovators to responsibly use artificial intelligence; responsible artificial intelligence policies and plans; standards on artificial intelligence rooted in human rights; the construction of a centre for regional cooperation; offering capacity building to countries of the South in artificial intelligence; the creation of a national centre for artificial intelligence, which trained young people in digital skills; industry supported programmes for young artists; and vocational training centres for youth and women, among other measures.
Closing Remarks
ANDREA DETMER LATORRE, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, said the discussion had mapped challenges and opportunities in terms of artificial intelligence and culture. There was a need now to accelerate collective action and advance mutual learning. The international community needed to advance the “ethics of care” – care for the planet, culture and “human uniqueness” – when determining how to engage with artificial intelligence.
JENNIFER GOSETTI-FERENCEI, Johns Hopkins University, said the discussions had presented the advantages, opportunities and challenges posed by artificial intelligence. Human dignity and cultural pluralism came from human beings’ ability to creatively participate in their world. This cultural pluralism needed to be protected and valued.
PAULA WESTENBERGER, Brunel University of London, said artificial intelligence should be discussed in a broader sense, and not be conflated with commercial generative artificial intelligence. Legal issues beyond copyright also needed to be addressed, and more stakeholders, including marginalised creators, communities, and researchers, needed to be included in conversations on artificial intelligence policies. Regulation was also needed to protect indigenous cultural rights; for example, adding local context labels to artificially generated content on indigenous knowledge needed to be considered.
GIORGOS SAMOUEL, Deputy Permanent Representative of Cyprus to the United Nations Office at Geneva, said the important reflections on artificial intelligence in the discussion needed to be translated into tangible results. Underrepresented communities needed to be included in conversations on artificial intelligence and cultural heritage needed to remain a part of human rights in the digital age.
KLENTIANA MAHMUTAJ, Vice Chair of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, said discussions had shown that philosophy, law, economic research, and policy were all needed to tackle the problems posed by artificial intelligence. Above all, goodwill was needed, as without it, the international community could not embrace the opportunities provided by artificial intelligence or address the threats it posed.
_______________
Ce document produit par le Service de l’information des Nations Unies à Genève est destiné à l'information ; il ne constitue pas un document officiel.
Les versions anglaise et française de nos communiqués sont différentes car elles sont le produit de deux équipes de couverture distinctes qui travaillent indépendamment.
HRC25.015E