Human Rights in the Future of Emerging Virtual States: Transitioning traditional structures to online states
AUTHOR: Jui Park
The Rise of Virtual States
In the digital age, the very fabric of human society is undergoing a profound transformation. As we witness the convergence of the physical and digital realms, a novel concept is beginning to gain traction: emerging virtual states. These online entities, grounded not in territorial boundaries but in the shared interests, values, or aspirations of their virtual citizens, pose compelling questions about the future of governance. Will they complement, coexist with, or even replace traditional governance structures? As we navigate this potential paradigm shift, the imperative to uphold human rights cannot be understated. Central to this conversation are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which have long served as bedrocks for human rights in traditional states. This essay explores the applicability of these covenants in the context of virtual states and contemplates whether emerging online communities might necessitate a broader or even a reimagined framework for human rights considerations. As we stand at the cusp of this transformation, ensuring the sanctity of human rights will be pivotal for the ethical evolution of our digital civilization (United Nations, 1966a; United Nations, 1966b).
Virtual states represent an avant-garde concept that captures the evolving nature of governance in the digital age. At their core, virtual states are imagined as online communities or platforms that take on certain characteristics or functions traditionally associated with sovereign states, albeit within the digital realm. These entities might form their own “constitutions”, establish regulations, or even develop economic systems, all operating within the confines of cyberspace. Emerging in response to globalization and the exponential growth of digital technologies, virtual states challenge traditional notions of territory, citizenship, and jurisdiction, offering a glimpse into potential future structures of governance where physical boundaries become less relevant, and digital allegiances become more pronounced.
In this essay, a concept of a full digitalized future is considered. The digital frontier is expanding at an unprecedented pace, with virtual spaces such as the metaverse becoming the new epicenters of innovation, interaction, and imagination. The metaverse, a collective virtual shared space created by the convergence of virtually enhanced physical reality and interactive digital spaces, is rapidly emerging as a hub where users can immerse themselves in alternate realities, forge global connections, and even establish unique digital economies. This evolution reflects a broader societal shift wherein virtual spaces could, in the not-so-distant future, become primary domains for work, leisure, and socialization. As technology continues its relentless advance, with augmented reality (AR), virtual reality (VR), and artificial intelligence (AI) becoming more sophisticated, there is growing speculation that our engagement with the physical world might diminish in favor of these expansive and limitless virtual realms. The implications of such a shift are profound, heralding a future where the boundaries between the physical and virtual are not just blurred but may become almost indistinguishable.
As our world evolves deeper into the digital realm, nations like Estonia stand as pioneers showcasing how this evolution affects governance and citizenship. Beyond the mere digitalization of governmental functions, envisioning a future where people might “upload” their consciousness onto the internet brings forth complex human rights concerns. In an age where digital and physical realities intertwine, understanding the human rights implications becomes crucial.
The Challenge of Defining Human Rights in a Digital Realm
As the digital domain in life grows by day, the future states may be based on a digital platform, more than a physical territory. With the sea level rising, and temperatures affecting the climate, people may adapt to the digital spaces as their primary platform of life, spending most of their day working and spending time online. The idea is receiving gradual interest as there are not only sinking states, but also potential possibility of several pandemics after COVID-19, or in future extreme climate.
Statehoods would not be recognized by the traditional standard of territory, permanent population and its abilities to govern and enter international relations, but would be grounded by permanent users, or even subscribers who pay monthly their fee (or taxes) to digitally exist as part of that platform state.
The concept of human rights, traditionally rooted in the physical realm, might undergo profound changes in the digital age. In the physical world, being ‘human’ carries biological, sociological, and philosophical implications. But in the digital realm, who do we consider ‘human’? Further, what rights should be assured, and how? If the future allows consciousness uploads onto digital platforms, determining what is ‘human’ becomes a challenging endeavor. Currently in the digital space, avatars are used to represent individuals in virtual environments. These avatars range from simple online profiles to Artificial Intelligence-driven entities. While avatars are not identified as ‘human’ in the traditional sense, they may be, in a sense, a future form of a digital citizen. However, as for now, the only possible acknowledgement for future ‘humans’ may be uploaded consciousness, which can be a continuation of human existence.
As humans’ rights transfer to the digital states, pertinent may exist. Humans may be ensured the right to digital existence, just as we have the right to life in the physical world. This idea could lead to discussions on the right to be a digital human form free from territorial grounds, and instead of domestic laws, there would be universal laws and virtual state laws, which does not bind the person from birth. This could also raise the question of how easily one’s digital citizenship should be registered or transferred to another virtual state or state-level digital organization. Imagining the case where citizenships may be assigned and re-assigned as easily as we can subscribe and unsubscribe online services, an international digital law may be the first and foremost authority of justice, legally binding the territory-free citizens with terms and conditions as they were registered. There would be a clarity on how many digital citizenships one can hold, and when and how a citizenship can be bestowed to a digital individual. If the citizenship is not determined by birth, would the parents’ digital citizenship affect the child’s ‘nationality’? Would the child’s rights be protected under the parent’s state of human right’s law, until they are old enough to join, or ‘subscribe’ to another state of their choice?
Once virtual states are formed, how is one’s right to privacy protected? The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, emphasizes the importance of privacy in the digital age, and how there could be risks, as there might be people who are unaware of who holds their data, or how and if it Is being used (Bachelet, 2019). This right could extend to protecting an individual’s digital footprint, data, and any manifestation of their digital identity. In that case, would the information of a virtual citizen be secured for privacy issues? Citizenships and personal digital data may be protected just as how digital copyrights are protected online. Perhaps Digital rights management (DRM), which is used as censorships as not only protection, but of control over the legislation and licensing (Nicholson, 2009), may be used for personal data of privacy. The contemplation on the right to information intersects directly with the very nature of digital existence. In a digital state, where one’s existence is would be based not on physical state, but a virtual space, and possibly one day one’s consciousness—memories, experiences, and thoughts—are transformed into data, the right to access, modify, or delete this information might be tantamount to the right to existence or non-existence. Furthermore, would an uploaded consciousness have the freedom to decide on its access to external information? What, in case, a certain part of data is wished to be deleted?
In the digital age, the right to be forgotten takes on a profound existential dimension, going beyond simple data protection measures. Bachelet (2019) emphasizes the importance of ensuring digital technologies uphold privacy rights. In a digital state, how does one navigate the right to erase parts of their digital existence? The EU’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) is perhaps the most famous legislation granting the right to be forgotten. Under Article 17 of the GDPR, individuals can request data controllers to erase their personal data under specific conditions. But when interpreted to the realm of a future virtual world, would the state have authority to rule out, or even permit deletion, to protect or to promote one’s right to be ‘deleted’? There should be a clear documentation on data erasure, possibly using classifications on data categories of how easily it can be deleted. Widely accepted current actions such as parents uploading videos of their young children may not be acknowledged as normal behavior anymore. To dive into the possible future, regarding uploaded consciousness, intense discussions and agreements should be established on the deletion of existence, as this would be the digital form of death. If one wishes to ‘die’ and have their data unretrievable, but another wishes to preserve certain data, whose wish will hold significance over the other? This is yet another challenge of human rights that needs to be clarified and documented by the rise of virtual states.
Naturally, the question of jurisdiction and governance in digital states arises. UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, accentuates the urgency for clearer definitions and robust protective mechanisms for human rights in this digital domain (Bachelet, 2019). Who has the authority to view which data, and what happens when the data is misused? If a digital entity, embodying an uploaded consciousness, commits a “crime,” under whose jurisdiction does it fall? Would digital states have their own judiciary? Would they be judged by their digital peers, by AI, or by humans in the physical realm? And with the acknowledgment that human rights in cyberspace should be universal, indivisible, interdependent, and interrelated, as suggested by De Stefano (2017), the incorporation of these principles in digital state jurisprudence becomes indispensable.
Then an issue of inclusion arises. If better cyber protection can be provided through service subscription, wouldn’t that indicate that wealthier people are more likely to have their digital human rights protected, while others are not? Businesses would pry on daily matters, such as data storages and the permitted access limit of information. Perhaps the more well-funded organizations may be able to purchase better algorithms for advertisement that invades individuals’ lives, or states can subscribe to AI populations, to keep their operation to the state-of-the-art. In such a world, those who are financially unable to fund their ‘subscriptions’ to better services would not only be left out but be a vulnerable target of various cybercrime and data abuse. This would mirror the real-word inequalities where wealth translates to better protection and access to rights. There should be special prevention of the digital divide, and states can act as a pillar to safeguard those within the digital society.
A final challenge would be the power of the hosting platforms. If virtual states would be established based on platforms, the platform would have policies of their own, that would be more likely focused on private financial gain, rather mere good intention. Disputes can arise as their principles do not necessarily always agree with the international digital law of virtual states, with the influence they have gained, the platform may even have more authority over the digital government. If the corporate decides to breach human rights of an individual within their platform for their personal benefit, how is this crime to be dealt with? There should be a document that serves above all, holding foremost legal obligation even above the platform policies, aligned with the existing and newly emerging human rights within the digital realm. Governments can also establish clear regulatory frameworks to set boundaries not only on user data collection, storage, sharing, but on digital expression as well. International digital legal institutions can act as a third-party to mandate the platforms to publish transparent reports on breaches or management.
Clear Visions, Secure Rights: Mapping Our Digital Future
In conclusion, as our technological landscape continually evolves, the concept of a wholly digital state is no longer confined to the realm of science fiction. The increasing ubiquity of digital spaces, like the metaverse, points to the potential rise of virtual territories that could redefine our understanding of nationhood (Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S., 2008).
The allure of a virtual state lies in its accessibility and potential for innovative problem-solving. Individuals from diverse backgrounds and geographies can congregate and collaborate, breaking free from conventional geographical constraints, and even possibly provide a more convenient life in the era of ever-changing climate and risks of extreme pandemics. However, transitioning to a digital state presents its own set of intricate challenge, such as the nuanced intricacies of online privacy or the right to be forgotten in a digital context (Australian Human Rights Commission, 2013), as discussed.
These complexities call for the need of the establishment of a robust virtual governance structure. Such a structure would ensure that rights and freedoms are preserved in this novel environment, possibly encompassing digital charters and legal instruments tailored for the virtual domain (Berman, A. & Hafner, K., 2019), and evolve in accordance with the fast-paced change of society’s form.
In summation, as the lines between the tangible and the virtual continue to blur, the proposition of a digital state gains momentum. It’s imperative, therefore, to proactively address and shape this potential future, ensuring it is equitable and rights-centric for all participants.
LIST OF REFERENCES
– Australian Human Rights Commission. (2013). [Human Rights in Cyberspace] (https://humanrights.gov.au/sites/default/files/document/publication/human_rights_cyberspace.pdf).
– Bachelet, M. (2019). Addressing human rights in the digital age. OHCHR. https://www.ohchr.org/en/speeches/2019/10/human-rights-digital-age
– Berman, A. & Hafner, K. (2019). [Digital Authoritarianism and the Future of Human Rights] (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344561115_Digital_Authoritarianism_and_the_Future_of_Human_Rights).
– De Stefano, L. (2017). Human Rights and the Digital. Padova University Press.
– Kotva, T., Alvarez del Castillo, C. I., & Korjus, K. (2015). Estonian e-Residency: Redefining the nation-state in the digital era. University of Oxford.
– Mossberger, K., Tolbert, C. J., & McNeal, R. S. (2008). Digital Citizenship: The Internet, Society, and Participation.
– Nicholson, D. R. (2009). Digital Rights Management and Access to Information: a developing country’s perspective. Library and Information Science Research E Journal, 19(1), 1-17. https://dx.doi.org/10.32655/LIBRES.2009.1.2
– United Nations. (1966a). International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/ccpr.aspx]
– United Nations. (1966b). International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/cescr.aspx
AUTHOR’S BIO
Working mostly in interpretation and project management, I am currently an interpreter and assistant project manage, working between people. Despite being a rather pessimistic workaholic who absolutely loves to torture myself with challenges, I live on out-of-nowhere what-if questions, trying to maintain a curious mindset towards the world. My previous work with children for roughly 7 years had me prioritize respect among people beyond age, and put me in a state of curiosity of how the future world may be.
