Nyheter
Workshop on Law and Disinformation
On 24 October 2024, the FAKENEWS project at UiT, in cooperation with the Constitutional Law Research Group at the UiT Faculty of Law, hosted a workshop on Law and Disinformation.
The workshop began with an address by the leader of the FAKENEWS project and the Grey Zone Research Group, Professor Gunhild Hoogensen Gjørv. Gjørv highlighted the importance of the topic by referring to two major disinformation events in Nordic countries, the 2015 refugee crisis and the 2020 COVID-19 outbreak, and discussed how disinformation is still a part of the debate on climate change even though the underlying scientific facts are not in doubt.
The workshop continued with a keynote speech by Professor Marko Milanovic of the University of Reading on the topic ‘State Lies as Violations of Human Rights’. Milanovic examined which human rights and in what circumstances may be violated when a State lies. Milanovic defined the ‘State’ as individuals whose statements can be attributed to the State under the international law of State responsibility. Moreover he distinguished between a State lying to its own people and to people in other States, both of which may human rights instruments such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Examples of rights that may be involved include the right to freedom of opinion and expression, right to respect for private life, the right to health, and the prohibition of propaganda for war. Possible scenarios include a State lying about political opponents as punishment for exercising their human rights, States systematically feeding a population lies, lying about information in the State’s possession, and lying during the investigation of crimes that violate the victim’s human rights. Milanovic also drew historical lines, back to Hugo Grotius, who argued that State could lie in order to achieve a common good, such as saving human lives or defeating an enemy. Whether lying can be justified and if so in which circumstances is also a major topic in moral philosophy. Milonavic made the point that some types of State lies are clearly allowed under international law, such as the use of undercover agents in law enforcement.
Research presentations during the workshop were organised into four panels touching on various aspects of law and disinformation.
The first panel was dedicated to international law and disinformation. Agata Kleczkowska from Polish Academy of Sciences, in a presentation entitled ‘Does disinformation violate international law?’, discussed disinformation from the perspective of such rules and principles of international law as State sovereignty, the prohibition of intervention, and self-determination. Cristina Lloyd from Martin Luther University Halle-Wittenberg, presented on ‘Due Diligence and Platform Regulation: do obligations of due diligence in international law compel states to regulate social media platforms?’, concluding that States do have an obligation to regulate such platforms and to perform due diligence. Ricardo Vasquez Dazarola from the University of Copenhagen spoke about ‘Regulating Disinformation in the XXI Century: Is the remedy worse than the disease?’, and discussed and compared domestic regulation in various States.
The second panel was titled ‘Disinformation in conflict and post-conflict context’. Onur Dur from the Social Sciences University of Ankara spoke about ‘Tackling Disinformation in Occupied Territories: Interplay Between International Humanitarian Law, Human Rights and Counter-terrorism’. He noted that both international humanitarian law and human rights law apply in occupied territories, and that disinformation may come from the occupier as well from the local population. Loïc Vandeput from the Royal Military Academy of Belgium gave a presentation titled ‘White lie or violation of IHL? A legal examination of the disinformation campaign against the White Helmets in Syria’. He examined whether the disinformation campaign against the White Helmets could violate international humanitarian law, concluding that it probably does not. Rigmor Argren from Örebro University spoke about ‘Disinformation and other Harmful Communication: Safeguarding Freedom of Expression while Harnessing Risk in the Post-truth Era’, arguing that the scope of the restrictiction of freedom of expression should depend on the potential harm of the targeted disinformation.
The third panel was called ‘Countering Disinformation and Cognitive Warfare’. The panel started with a presentation by Pontus Winther from the Swedish Defence Research Agency on ‘Legal Possibilities to Counter Foreign Election Interference – An Analysis of Sweden’s Position on the Application of International Law in Cyberspace’. He examined the international law prohibition of intervention, concluding that elections are within a State’s reserved domain for the purpose of this prohibition. States that spread disinformation may violate the prohibition against using their own territory to violate other States’ rights as well as a population’s right to vote and to be elected. Next Miguel João Costa from the University of Coimbra gave a presentation titled ‘On Quantitative and Qualitative Transformations: Discussing the Criminalisation of Deliberate Misinformation for Electoral Purposes’. Here the focus was on domestic criminal law and its potential to combat election disinformation. A presentation by Nikolas Sabján and Igor Hron from Comenius University in Bratislava was titled ‘From Disinformation to Cognitive Warfare: The Case of Slovak Republic’. They examined and compared legal responses to the phenomena of disinformation and ‘cognitive warfare’.
The fourth and final panel was dedicated to ‘Human rights and constitutional law perspectives on disinformation’. Annika Knauer from Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law presented on ‘Gendered Disinformation under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women’. She emphasised the need for legal protection of women against mysoginistic narratives and gendered disinformation. Kirill Koroteev from the International Network of Civil Liberties’ Organisations discussed the topic ‘Disinformation and Freedom of Speech: Comparative Constitutional Law in the Absence of Human Rights Standards’. He argued that laws providing for criminal reponsibility for spreading disinformation are, for various reasons, considered unconstitutional in many domestic jurisdicitons. Maike Middeler from Helmut-Schmidt-Universität spoke about ‘Truth, Power, and Disinformation: Human Rights Implications in the Creation of State Narratives’. She critiqued instrumentalisation of human rights languge in memory laws which contributed to deligimisation of alternative historical accounts.
Finally, Vice-Dean for Research the UiT Faculty of Law Professor Magne Frostad concluded the workshop. Frostad pointed that disinformation remains one of the major challenging facing the modern society, not least because it is willingly employed by many State and non-state actors. He noted that the law plays an important, albeit limited role in countering disinformation.
Publisert: 31.10.2024
Lenke til denne siden
