It has become impossible to imagine a world without technology. Digital systems shape every part of our daily lives, from how we communicate to how our rights are documented, tested, and defended. This year’s Human Rights Week set out to explore precisely that intersection: how the digital sphere reshapes the protection and perception of human rights. Across three days under the theme Digital Frontlines: Technology, Power, and Human Rights, participants explored how digital innovation can both empower and endanger communities around the world. From open-source investigations and satellite imagery to disinformation campaigns, AI-driven warfare, and the politics of platform power, the congress reflected on the profound impact of technology on human rights, and the shared responsibility to shape a digital future rooted in dignity, accountability, and justice. The program featured expert panels, interactive workshops, a documentary screening, and an art exhibition, each offering different lenses on how technology influences social and political realities across the globe.
Day 1: Technology, Accountability, and Control
Day One focused on the growing role of technology in human rights contexts, highlighting its potential to strengthen accountability, as well as the profound risks when used for surveillance and control. The opening panel, Mapping Atrocity: Human Rights, Technology and Digital Evidence moderated by Dr. Agustina Becerra Vazquez, Independent Consultant in Criminal Law, Human Rights, Transitional and Restorative Justice, examined how mapping, verification, and digital evidence are transforming accountability in conflict and crisis zones. It was quickly established that open-source investigations (OSINT) and satellite imagery have emerged as powerful tools to monitor human rights violations. These technologies have redefined how investigations are conducted, extending far beyond traditional field reporting to allow independent cross-checking and remote verification of events.
Dr. Maroun Maalouf, Human Rights Investigator at the United Nations, highlighted how social spaces for investigations helps construct a fuller picture of what happened, for example within the search of missing persons, and supports international justice processes. Using the example of the 2026 Minab School Attack in Iran, Eike Hoppmann, Open Source Intelligence reporter at Neue Zürcher Zeitung illustrated how digital evidence, from satellite imagery to social media footage, opens new opportunities for gathering evidence and constructing overviews of incidence, significantly changing reporting. However, as Olivier Dietrich, PhD Candidate in the Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing Group at ETH Zurich emphasized, these tools come with growing complexity: vast volumes of data, issues of authenticity, and ethical risks related to privacy and digital profiling. The discussion also touched on the Berkeley Protocol on Digital Open Source Investigations, an emerging international standard outlining best practices for collecting, verifying, and preserving digital evidence while protecting individuals involved. Despite its power, participants stressed that technology must not replace human testimony, but rather complement it, ensuring that digital innovation serves truth and accountability.
The afternoon workshop Technologies, Human Rights, and Migration turned to the darker side of digital innovation: how technology is being used to govern and control migration. Postdoctoral Researcher Nina Khamsy in migration and mobility studies at the National Center of Competence in Research, University of Neuchâtel, presented new insights into the use of surveillance technologies at European borders, from sound-emitting “speaking fences” to thermal cameras, showing how such systems both deter and monitor migrants. Mobile phones emerged as a central paradox in this discussion: indispensable for migrants seeking information, navigation, and connection, yet also a source of vulnerability through the digital traces they leave behind. Case studies from Croatia and Germany shed light on these dynamics. In Croatia, the use of the Eurodac fingerprinting database reflects a wider trend of data-driven border management rooted in surveillance logics with colonial origins. In Germany, authorities’ increasing access to migrants’ mobile data, sometimes under pressure to unlock devices, demonstrates both the technological power imbalance and the human rights implications of digital evidence in asylum procedures. While such measures are often justified as tools for control or efficiency, discussions made clear that the real-world impact on privacy, dignity, and trust demands far greater scrutiny.
Day 2: Digital Warfare, Surveillance, and the Power of Big Tech
Day 2 explored the growing role of digital technologies in shaping modern conflict, focusing on the power of big tech, the spread of disinformation, and the implications of surveillance systems. The panel Big Tech, Power, and Digital Warfare, moderated by Vera Minder, Co-President of Amnesty IHEID highlighted how major technology companies have come to play a central role in global information ecosystems, operating with unprecedented influence yet limited accountability. As digital tools, from social media algorithms to deepfakes and emerging technologies, reshape war reporting, public opinion, and civilian protection, the discussion made clear that technology is not neutral. Instead, it actively shapes narratives, power dynamics, and the ability to hold actors accountable, raising urgent questions about regulation and the applicability of international humanitarian law.
A key focus of the panel was the role of disinformation in contemporary conflict. Dr. Roman Horbyk, Director of the War DS Lab and Ukrainian Studies Hub at the University of Zurich, outlined the mechanisms behind modern information warfare, distinguishing between open channels, such as media outlets, and closed channels, including official statements and controlled communication. He also drew parallels between current Russian information strategies and historical Soviet propaganda, emphasising how influence operations today rely on a combination of mainstream media, social networks, and coordinated messaging. Sarah Grand-Clément, Senior Researcher at the UN Institute for Disarmament Research, highlighted how propaganda can become embedded within regular media landscapes, contributing to the normalisation of certain narratives. At the same time, technological developments have significantly increased the speed and scale at which misinformation spreads, with social media platforms playing a particularly important role, illustrated by the fact that false information circulates far more widely than verified content.
Dr. Olivier Crochat, Executive Board member of the CyberPeace Institute and Executive Director at the Center for Digital Trust at École Polytechnique in Lausanne, further underscored the structural challenges in addressing disinformation. Under current regulatory frameworks, platforms often lack incentives to effectively limit harmful content, and existing governance gaps allow companies to exploit legal loopholes, for example, by shifting jurisdictions. While legal frameworks do place limits on certain forms of harmful speech, such as incitement or hate speech, the regulation of misinformation remains far more complex. The discussion also raised broader questions about whether social media platforms should be treated as private or public spaces, noting that these boundaries are increasingly blurred. Ultimately, the conversation pointed to the urgent need for stronger and more coherent platform governance, as well as clearer mechanisms for accountability in the digital sphere.
The second panel, Surveillance Technologies and Human Rights, moderated by Elin Schutte, PhD Candidate in International Law at IHEID, expanded the discussion to the use of digital tools for monitoring and control. It highlighted the growing role of surveillance technologies in shaping power dynamics and raised important questions about privacy, accountability, and the protection of human rights in an increasingly data-driven world. It became clear that digital surveillance must be understood not only as a matter of national security, but fundamentally as a question of human security, with direct consequences for individuals and vulnerable communities. Francesca Bosco, Chief Strategic Officer, CyberPeace Institute, critically examined the notion of “tech for good,” showing how technologies designed for protection, such as humanitarian data systems can in practice expose populations to new risks, undermine trust, and reinforce existing inequalities. Bosco described a case from West Africa, in which over 500.000 data profiles were exposed, turning coordination into a surveillance action of collecting data and exposing beneficiaries.
Barrie Sander, Assistant Processor of International Law at Leiden University, highlighted that these technologies, particularly Artificial Intelligence, are not neutral but embedded within global power structures, with impacts stretching across their entire lifecycle, from resource extraction to deployment. Further, both experts described that current legal and governance frameworks are struggling to keep pace, relying largely on non-binding norms while leaving significant accountability gaps, particularly for powerful corporate actors. The discussion also underscored the dual-use nature of many technologies, which can serve both protective and repressive purposes, making regulation increasingly complex. Ultimately, the panel emphasized that effective governance requires more than high-level principles: it demands embedding human rights from the outset, as well as ensuring meaningful participation of affected communities in the design and oversight of these technologies.
Day 3: Online Radicalisation – Dynamics, Prevention, and Responsibility
Day 3 focused on the dynamics of online radicalisation and the challenges of preventing it in an increasingly digital and interconnected world. In the workshop Preventing Radicalization in the Digital Age, Understanding Online Extremism and Building Resilience, Dr. Andre Alves dos Reis, Head of Performance and Impact at Global Community Engagement & Resilience Fund and Specialist in Online Radicalisation, explored how radicalisation unfolds today, emphasising the role of online environments in shaping and accelerating these processes. Radicalisation was defined as the gradual adoption of extreme political, social, or religious ideologies, while violent extremism refers to beliefs or actions that justify or use violence to achieve ideological goals, often at the expense of fundamental rights.
Drawing on key psychological models such as the 3N framework (Need, Narrative, Network), the session highlighted how individuals’ search for meaning, belonging, and identity is amplified in digital spaces. Algorithm-driven content, echo chambers, and online subcultures create powerful feedback loops that reinforce beliefs and foster a sense of community around extremist ideas. These dynamics are further intensified by the structure of today’s digital platform landscape, where extremist actors operate across a vast number of platforms. As illustrated by the example of ISIS supporters using hundreds of online platforms to disseminate content and recruit members, the scale and adaptability of these networks pose significant challenges. The case of the neo-Nazi “Feuerkrieg Division” further demonstrated how entire extremist organisations can be coordinated exclusively online through encrypted platforms, facilitating recruitment, knowledge-sharing, and operational planning.
The discussion also addressed the evolving role of emerging technologies, particularly artificial intelligence, as a force multiplier in radicalisation processes. At the same time, it became clear that current responses remain insufficient. Content removal alone was identified as a limited strategy that can push extremist communities into less regulated spaces. Instead, effective prevention requires a comprehensive approach combining strategic communication (including counter- and alternative narratives), digital literacy, sustainable funding, and coordinated governance across states, technology companies, and civil society. However, significant regulatory gaps persist, including limited moderation capacities on smaller platforms, algorithmic amplification of divisive content, and tensions between platform governance and legal accountability frameworks.
These themes were further deepened during the screening of the documentary Hacking Hate, provided by FIFDH, in which journalist My Vingren investigates the rise of online extremism in Sweden and traces the global interconnectedness of neo-Nazi networks. The film, directed by Simon Klose, offered a powerful illustration of how digital platforms can facilitate the spread of extremist ideologies, highlighting both the failures and limitations of current governance mechanisms. As one striking observation from the documentary suggests, “it is not only that extremists are good at using social media, but that social media itself is particularly conducive to extremism.” By exposing the hidden dynamics of online networks and the ease with which hate can spread across borders, the film reinforced the urgency of addressing gaps in digital governance.
Bringing together insights from across the three days, Day 3 underscored that tackling online radicalisation requires not only technological solutions but also a deep understanding of human behaviour, ethical responsibility, and the broader social and political contexts in which these processes unfold. It served as a fitting conclusion to the congress, tying together questions of technology, power, and accountability. We sincerely thank the Events Team of the Graduate Institute for the support and the opportunity to hold another Human Rights Week this year, Amnesty IHEID for their cooperation, our amazing panelists and speakers, and our moderators for making this year’s congress another success.
Leave a Reply