Search Climate Insights Directory

The Global Digital Justice Forum, a coalition of civil society organizations from the Global Majority, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley firms and US government leadership—has weaponized data and AI, leading to human rights abuses, ecological injustice, and the exclusion of 2.5 billion people from digital benefits. The coalition demands a transition to 'global digital constitutionalism' where digital infrastructures are treated as commons rather than commodities, urging governments to curb corporate monopolies and protect the rights of nature.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice argues that the internet has transitioned from a space of creativity to a tool for surveillance and oppression, driven by the profit-seeking motives of Silicon Valley companies and US foreign policy. The statement highlights that 2.5 billion people remain digitally excluded, exacerbating global inequalities. It calls for a 'new global digital constitutionalism' to replace corporate greed and state control with digital commons and policies that limit monopolies and protect ecological justice.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice, a coalition of Global South civil society organizations, argues that the 'Broligarchy'—Silicon Valley companies aligned with the US government—threatens international norms, human rights, and ecological justice. The statement claims that digital spaces have shifted from tools of creativity to instruments of surveillance and oppression, with AI and data being used as weapons that contribute to labor precariousness and climate catastrophes. It calls for a transition to digital infrastructures as common goods rather than commodities, urging international solidarity for a democratic digital order, government action to limit corporate monopolies, and global civic mobilization.

A cross-community statement from civil society, the private sector, and the technical community calling for the alignment of the Global Digital Compact (GDC) with the WSIS process to avoid fragmentation in digital governance. The authors advocate for the IGF to be established as a permanent forum with sustainable resources to maintain its role as a primary multistakeholder platform for digital cooperation.

The Global Forum for Digital Justice argues that the 'Broligarchy'—a combination of Silicon Valley companies and US government leadership—threatens the rules-based international system, human rights, and ecological justice. The statement claims that digital spaces have shifted from tools of creativity to instruments of surveillance and violence, driven by corporate profit and US foreign policy. It highlights that 2.5 billion people remain digitally excluded, exacerbating global inequalities. The coalition demands a transition to digital infrastructures as 'commons' and calls for a new global digital constitutionalism, policies to restrict corporate monopolies, and worldwide civic action to protect the planet and empower people.

The document argues that communication is a fundamental human right essential for dignity and justice, rather than just a tool for progress. It critiques the current digital ecosystem for being dominated by Global North monopolies and surveillance capitalism, which marginalizes voices in the Global South. Through various case studies and reports, it advocates for a 'people-first digital ecosystem' based on public digital infrastructure, multilingual accessibility, and ethical AI governance to ensure that digital transformation expands rather than narrows human rights.

The report critiques the current digital ecosystem as a form of 'data colonialism' driven by profit-seeking corporations from the Global North. It traces the history of the struggle for communication control from the 1970s NWICO debates to the current era of AI and Big Tech. The authors propose a 'Communication Rights' (CRs) framework that moves beyond simple freedom of expression to include collective rights, public ownership of digital utilities, and the protection of data sovereignty to ensure a more equitable and diverse digital future.

The document examines how AI can support peacebuilding through early warning systems, digital dialogue, and humanitarian mapping, while warning against risks such as digital surveillance, misinformation, and algorithmic bias. It argues that AI must be treated as a supplementary tool governed by human rights and 'do no harm' principles, emphasizing the need for localized models and cross-sector collaboration to prevent the technology from exacerbating instability in fragile regions.

The COP29 Declaration on Green Digital Action outlines a framework to leverage digital innovation for greenhouse gas reduction and climate resilience while addressing the digital sector's own energy and water consumption, e-waste, and the digital divide.

The report examines the dual-use nature of AI in peacebuilding, highlighting its potential to enhance conflict forecasting, real-time mapping, and inclusive dialogue while warning against risks such as algorithmic bias, surveillance, and the erosion of human facilitation skills. It emphasizes that AI's effectiveness depends on a healthy information environment and a rights-based approach to design and governance.

The document examines how African youth are transforming peacebuilding through AI and digital tools, shifting from passive consumers to active knowledge creators. It highlights the decentralisation of early warning systems and the use of digital platforms for peace messaging and mobilisation. However, it warns that digital divides, gender gaps, and linguistic biases—where 88% of African languages are ignored by computational tools—threaten to marginalise rural youth and women. The brief notes a disconnect between the AU's Continental Framework on Youth, Peace and Security and digital strategies, urging for integrated policies and the institutionalisation of youth roles in AI governance to ensure digital peacebuilding is ethical and inclusive.

The document explores the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to drive economic growth and strengthen cooperation among BRICS nations (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). It argues that while AI can streamline trade, enhance maritime security, and bolster cybersecurity, the bloc must overcome internal economic imbalances and diverse regulatory approaches. The author highlights existing frameworks like the 2015 MoU on Cooperation in Science, Technology and Innovation and recommends joint R&D, shared ethical guidelines, and infrastructure development to counter the hegemony of the Global North in AI policymaking.

The report examines the potential for mining companies to share their digital infrastructure—such as high-speed connectivity and data processing technologies—with host communities to catalyze economic diversification and social benefits. It identifies significant barriers, including the 'usage gap' driven by digital illiteracy and a lack of devices, and a pronounced gender digital divide. The document provides policy recommendations to integrate digital connectivity into local content strategies, improve inter-ministerial coordination, and establish public-private partnerships to ensure the long-term sustainability of these networks beyond the mine's life cycle.

The author argues that current international trade law is insufficient for managing the complexities of the digital economy, particularly regarding data-restrictive measures and the global data divide. The paper proposes a multi-layered approach combining binding treaties with soft law and multistakeholder cooperation to foster regulatory interoperability and digital inclusion.

The article examines why many developing countries oppose the WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, which is currently set to expire by March 31, 2026, or the 14th Ministerial Conference. It argues that the moratorium disproportionately benefits developed nations due to the global digital divide and creates significant fiscal challenges for developing states that rely heavily on customs duties for public revenue. The author highlights a critical lack of a formal definition for "electronic transmissions," which leads to uncertainty about the moratorium's scope. Furthermore, the text asserts that the moratorium restricts the policy space for developing countries to use customs duties as a tool for industrial policy and structural economic transformation, while questioning the effectiveness of VAT as a replacement due to administrative hurdles and the loss of competitive advantages for domestic producers.

The article examines why many developing countries oppose the WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, highlighting the digital divide, loss of public revenue, and restrictions on industrial policy. It argues that the moratorium primarily benefits developed nations that dominate digital exports and calls for a clear definition of 'electronic transmissions' to resolve disputes.

The author analyzes the friction between national data regulations and international trade agreements, proposing four key lessons for future rule-making: developing a balanced narrative beyond the 'free flow vs. data sovereignty' dichotomy, understanding the limits of trade law in solving complex policy issues, integrating the perspectives of developing countries to combat 'data colonialism', and adopting a multi-layered governance framework that combines binding treaties with soft law and multi-stakeholder cooperation.

The author analyzes the tensions between the free flow of digital data and national regulatory interests, such as privacy and cybersecurity. The paper argues that current international trade frameworks are insufficient for addressing the 'global data divide' and the dominance of big tech. It proposes a multi-layered governance model combining binding agreements with non-binding standards and regulatory interoperability to foster an inclusive digital economy.

The document analyzes why many developing countries oppose the WTO moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, highlighting the global digital divide, the lack of a clear definition for 'electronic transmissions', and the resulting loss of public revenue and industrial policy flexibility.

The document analyzes the 'stabilized text' of the JSI e-commerce agreement, which aims to establish a global benchmark for digital trade rules. It details enabling regulatory obligations, a moratorium on customs duties for electronic transmissions, and specific flexibilities for developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs), such as extended implementation timelines and technical assistance. The author highlights significant challenges, including the low participation of LDCs and African nations, disagreements among key members like the US and China, and a broader legal debate over whether plurilateral agreements can be formally incorporated into the WTO's consensus-based treaty system.