IGF25: Who is keeping an eye on the tech industry in conflict zones?

Contents

IT companies are among the most important providers in conflict zones today. Can they be held accountable if their products and services violate international humanitarian law and fundamental rights guarantees? Not so easy, according to a panel at the 20th United Nations Internet Governance Forum in Oslo.

Compliance with fundamental rights guarantees worldwide is one of the basic principles of the IGF, which has been working for two decades on the issues of freedom of expression and assembly, confidentiality and the right to equal access to digital resources. However, the governments and IT players represented at the IGF have not fulfilled their promises sufficiently, as can often be heard at the current IGF.

Aiding and abetting war crimes through software and hardware?

The non-governmental organization Business and Human Rights Resource Centre (BHRRC) has collected almost 1,500 individual cases of tech companies operating in conflict zones over the past ten years.

"Our data shows that tech companies are now a major player in modern conflicts," summarized Meredith Veit from the BHRRC. The Big Tech industry not only profits from conflicts, "they exacerbate and aggravate them. They incite violence, in some cases going as far as war crimes and serious violations of human rights," said Veit.

In Oslo, Marwa Fatafta from Access Now reported on direct violations of essential basic rights by companies, such as censorship, or discrimination carried out on the orders of a government, for example in the case of Google Maps, which are only intended for the Jewish population. In your view, companies become complicit when they provide direct support to a force accused of war crimes.

The militarization of tech companies that have abandoned their ethics clauses can be seen when leaders of Meta, OpenAI and Palantir are accepted into the so-called "Executive Innovation Corps" as US Army Reserve officers.

Lack of transparency

A major problem for the activists is the lack of transparency in business and the unwillingness of companies to ask questions about their potential responsibility.

The largest pension fund of IGF host Norway, KLP, shows a way to react to the worrying development. According to Kiran Aziz from KLP, they regularly investigate reports from whistleblowers and activists. "Of course, the fund is about making a good investment," she says. However, for an organization that thinks long-term, the risks must also be calculated. "This also includes looking at the observance of human rights when deciding on an investment," she says.

Like the activists, however, even the fund rarely succeeds in persuading companies to make a declaration. The large tech providers based in the USA are particularly tough nuts to crack.

In many cases, the fund then draws its sharpest sword: "We take the companies out of our portfolio." It is the last resort, but "we don't want to run the risk of being guilty of aiding and abetting such infringements ourselves", said Aziz in Oslo. The fund has already removed numerous companies from its portfolio, in the past more traditional weapons manufacturers.

Support through legislation necessary

Although the example of KLP has received a lot of attention, the fund's resources are ultimately limited, Aziz regretted. Ultimately, the funds are waiting for clear guidelines from their supervisors. The sovereign wealth fund, which has been criticized in Norway for its lax human rights due diligence policy, is subject to financial supervision and the Ministry of Finance.

It is regrettable, said Aziz at the IGF in Oslo, that the responsible authorities are shirking their responsibility. "They are shifting the main responsibility onto investors and the economy."

The latter are then left up in the air when it comes to the question of what evidence is required to identify violations. Additional legal standards would be needed here, such as a reversal of the burden of proof.

When asked about possible improvements, Norwegian Digital Minister Kariane Tung told heise online that she was not responsible. The Ministry of Finance has yet to provide an answer.

Responsibility before the International Criminal Court

So far, only a few companies have had to answer for their complicity in conflict zones in court, the activists regret. For the time being, proceedings are most likely to be pursued on the basis of national rules. One example of this is the recent conviction of a Syrian doctor by the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court for war crimes.

Proceedings before the International Criminal Court, which has the genocide case against Israel on its plate, are subject to high hurdles, says Chantal Joris from the NGO Article 19. However, the Hague Court is currently working on the question of whether and how IT companies or their managers can be prosecuted in future on the basis of the Rome Statute relevant to its proceedings.

(nen)