Access to Internet: Limitations vs human rights
Access to the internet is widely regarded as an essential tool for communication, education, and economic participation. There is also an argument to give it a status of human right. However, in the context of psychological warfare, there is a growing debate about whether limiting internet access is necessary for national security or whether it undermines fundamental human rights.
Firstly, it is pertinent to explain that is a new form of conflict that is characterized by the use of technology, misinformation, and psychological operations to achieve political objectives. This type of warfare is asymmetrical and non-linear, and it challenges traditional notions of warfare and national security. One of the key features of warfare is the use of the internet and social media to spread propaganda and disinformation, and the ultimate target is the uneducated young generation, who has a little knowledge regarding the use and misuse of modern social media technology. They just use it.
However, proponents of limiting access to internet in the context of warfare argue that it is necessary to prevent the spread of harmful information and propaganda that can be used to incite violence and promote extremist ideologies. They argue that by limiting internet access, governments can better control the flow of information and prevent the spread of harmful content. Furthermore, the internet limitations can be implemented in a way that minimizes the impact on individual freedoms and that it is necessary to protect national security in the face of new technological and information-based threats.
On the other hand, opponents of limiting access to internet in the context of fifth-generation warfare argue that it undermines fundamental human rights, including freedom of speech, access to information, and privacy. They argue that internet access is a basic human right that should not be restricted except in cases of clear and present danger. They further argue that internet limitations are often implemented in a way that disproportionately affects marginalized communities and that it can lead to the suppression of dissent and political opposition.
Notwithstanding, from a legal perspective, the question of whether internet access is a fundamental human right is complex and has not been fully resolved. While some argue that access to the internet is essential for exercising basic human rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, privacy, and the right to participate in cultural and political life, others argue that it is not a fundamental right in the same sense as, for example, the right to life, liberty, and security of person. Moreover, some countries have recognized access to internet as a fundamental right, while others have not. For example, in 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution recognizing the importance of internet access for the exercise of human rights and calling on states to promote and facilitate universal access to the internet. In 2021, the European Union recognized access to affordable high-quality internet as a fundamental right.
Additionally, proponents argue that access to the internet is necessary for individuals to exercise other fundamental human rights, such as the right to education, the right to work, and the right to health. In today’s digital age, many essential services are delivered online, and without access to the internet, individuals may be unable to access these services or pursue educational and employment opportunities.
Besides, it also promotes equality and social inclusion. In many parts of the world, access to the internet is limited to certain segments of the population, creating a digital divide that can exacerbate social and economic inequalities. Recognizing access to the internet as a fundamental human right would help to ensure that everyone has equal access to this essential tool, regardless of their background or socio-economic status.
However, there are also compelling arguments against such recognition. One argument against recognizing internet access as a fundamental human right is that it is not an essential tool for exercising basic human rights. While the internet may facilitate the exercise of certain rights, such as freedom of expression and access to information, these rights can still be exercised without access to the internet. Recognition of internet access as a fundamental human right would be impractical and unenforceable. Unlike other fundamental human rights, such as the right to life and liberty, access to the internet could not be considered an absolute right, and there are practical and legal limitations to providing universal access to the internet. Such recognition could place an undue burden on governments and private entities, who would be responsible for providing and maintaining access to the internet.
Despite that there are several international agreements that recognize the importance of internet access and the right to freedom of expression, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the UN Human Rights Council have all recognized the importance of freedom of expression and access to information, yet it could not be given a status of absolute right in the context of warfare.
The use of technology and social media in warfare raises questions about the ethical use of technology and the responsibility of governments to protect individual rights. In this context what is necessary is to balance the need for national security with the protection of human rights, including the right to access information and internet.
—The writer is advocate high court and works as Assistant District Public Prosecutor in the Punjab Public Prosecution Department.
Email: [email protected]
