From State Sovereignty to International Accountability

The 20^th century radically transformed the Westphalian model of state sovereignty. Absolute state sovereignty was a shield protecting nation states from external intervention in their domestic affairs. Scholars and authors have, however, criticized the Eurocentric roots of international law. The concept of state sovereignty, while ostensibly protecting all nations equally, was often selectively applied. Non-European countries were subject to interference and domination under the name of legal norms created by and for European powers.

A shift appeared in the aftermath of World War II, when the United Nations was created and human rights became inalienable. This transformation challenged the absolute sovereignty of states, as international human rights norms now demanded accountability for the protection of citizens’ rights. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) was a crucial step in this direction, aiming to hold states liable for human rights violations. However, the enforcement mechanisms, often dominated by Western interests within international organizations, have led to criticisms that these institutions selectively apply human rights standards, reflecting broader geopolitical dynamics.

The post-World War II era saw empires dismantled and independent states emerge, yet colonialism’s impact remains significant. Independence movements in the mid-20th century sought to reshape global organizations, challenging Eurocentric views and expanding the international human rights framework to be more inclusive. The 1960s marked a turning point, transforming human rights from selective privileges to a more universal agenda.

Critics like Chandra Mohanty argue that, while colonial legacies persist, Global South countries should move beyond a “victim narrative” and define their own paths. Efforts from the Global North, including acknowledgments of past harms and indebtedness for reparations, indicate progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations. A notable example is King Philippe of Belgium, who in 2020 wrote a letter to the president of the Democratic Republic of Congo, expressing his “deepest regrets” for the atrocities committed during Belgium’s colonial rule, making progress toward mutual accountability and development opportunities across nations.

The Colonial Legacy: Analyzing the Remaining Power Imbalance

Colonial power dynamics persist, even in forums such as the United Nations Security Council where Western countries hold disproportionate power with instruments like the veto. This structure of such organizations limits Global South’s representation and influence, perpetuating inequalities. Despite the formal end of colonialism, those power imbalances maintain alliances protecting the most powerful nation’s interest. Colonies are left with little support from their former colonial powers.

Human rights became institutionalized within global structures, shifting from a tool made to challenge an oppressive system to one that upholds the status quo. This had diluted its revolutionary roots with interventions, sometimes selectively enforced, based on the interests of powerful nations rather than a consistent humanitarian standard.

For instance, interventions justified by the “Right to Protect” often reflect Global North interests, mirroring colonial practices under the guise of humanitarianism. This dynamic is evident in cases like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s (NATO) 1999 intervention in Kosovo, where the action both brought stability to Kosovo and limited Russian influence in the Balkans. NATO had every reason to participate in this conflict, to stop human rights abuses against ethnic Albanians by Serbian forces; however, it also helped to reassert its relevance post-Cold War and define its role beyond the collective defense against the Soviet threat. While this intervention had positive outcomes for local safety and governance in Kosovo, it underscores how such interventions can blend humanitarian goals with strategic motives, reinforcing existing power imbalances.

Toward a More Sustainable Legal Order

Countries in the Global South, while having gained independence from colonizing powers, still suffer from this era, in subtle and more obvious ways. This issue is an ongoing discussion in many organizations where solutions are considered in order to develop and preserve human rights.

To effectively dismantle the legacies of colonialism, efforts must come from powerful states, to establish the equal application of international human rights between them and countries from the Global South.

Many panelists argue that former colonial powers should provide compensation to nations and peoples affected by colonial exploitation and violence. This also includes the return of cultural artifacts looted during the colonial period, but also addresses the psychological and cultural damage inflicted on colonized societies. It is only by acknowledging the remaining legacy of colonialism and actively working against it that international human rights can become a tool for genuine justice and equality, rather than another battlefield for power.

ESR issues can crop up at all stages of the AI lifecycle. First, AI for development is hampered by a lack of accurate, up to date data sets in the Global South, especially for underserved communities and languages. As a result, an AI tool to – e.g. enable cancer scans trained on data from the Global North – may create biased outcomes with regard to the right to health when deployed in countries with poor access to diagnostic equipment or different racial and socio-economic compositions. Second, AI for development relies heavily on digital infrastructure controlled by a few large private sector actors based in the Global North. These companies currently operate in a “human-rights free zone” governed largely by self-regulatory efforts, with effective state oversight hampered by a pervasive lack of transparency.

Finally, when integrated into the delivery of public services, AI systems can impact a huge range of ESR’s depending on their deployment context, including the right to work, right to be free from hunger, and right to education. Particular attention must be paid to the rights of marginalised groups and individuals. For example, the right to social protection may be adversely affected where algorithmic decision-making is incorporated into welfare systems without adequate attention paid to digital inclusion and guardrails. These risks are exacerbated by human over-reliance on algorithmic outputs, particularly in jurisdictions where decision-making capacity is limited or digital literacy is low, and where institutional safeguards such as redress mechanisms are lacking.

However, ESRs can also play a transformative, enabling role in AI regulation and governance in the Global South. AI regulatory proposals grounded in human rights (e.g. the Council of Europe’s Draft Framework Convention on AI) often do not deal with ESRs in great detail. An ESR framing for AI regulation in the Global South should reject binary tradeoffs between innovation and regulation, emphasising instead sufficient guardrails to manage negative impacts on marginalised communities, while also supporting governance as an enabler for local AI development in the Global South that supports the Sustainable Development Goals and closes the global AI divide (see UN High-Level Advisory Board’s interim report). An ESR approach to AI regulation should also be developed in consultation with marginalised communities likely to be economically or socially impacted by AI systems, with emphasis on ensuring the ESRs are included within mandatory human rights impact assessment frameworks (see below).

ESRs can also provide a framework for practical AI governance efforts, drawing on existing models such as the Council of Europe’s proposed HUDERAF process (which, although rigorous, does not devote a great deal of attention to ESRs per se). Crucially, an ESR lens requires project teams to ask whether AI is actually needed to achieve the intended development outcome and raise standards of living, from the point of view of rightsholders. There is an urgent need for States and their development partners to begin creating rights-based frameworks to guide AI deployment.  Although frameworks such as the World Bank’s Environmental and Social Framework deal with issues closely related to ESRs, these are not necessarily tailored to the unique considerations faced by AI deployment, and are often limited in scope (e.g. the ESF only applies to Investment Project Financing). The World Bank’s Human Rights, Inclusion and Empowerment Umbrella Trust Fund is currently funding a project seeking to deliver recommendations on a toolkit to assess human rights risks arising from Bank-funded operational projects involving AI (disclaimer: the author is a consultant on this project). Ultimately, an ESR-based approach rejects artificial distinctions between sustainable development and human rights, allowing the creation of AI for development that improves standards of living for all and enables full enjoyment of citizens’ fundamental rights.