Czechia, Maldives, Mexico, The Netherlands and South Africa on behalf of the Core Group (1:46) Before the vote:

“Digital transformation is reshaping every aspect of our societies: how we learn, how we work, how we participate in public life and how we safeguard the integrity of democratic processes. Against this backdrop, the central message of this resolution remains unchanged. The same human rights that people enjoy offline must also be protected online. As more of our lives shift into digital spaces, this simple yet fundamental principle becomes only more relevant…. For hundreds of millions of people, meaningful access to the digital world is now indispensable for the full enjoyment of their human rights. That is why inclusion, not exclusion, must define the digital transition.”

The Netherlands (6:43) Before the vote:

“We reaffirm the importance of promoting information integrity online in a manner that supports the right to privacy and the right to freedom of expression. This includes promoting user access to diverse online content, respecting pluralistic online media and journalism and ensuring that any measures taken to address disinformation and misinformation are in accordance with international law, including international human rights law…. We reaffirm the importance of ensuring an open, secure and safe online civic space, [as this] enables individuals and stakeholders to exercise their human rights and to participate meaningfully in the political, economic, social and cultural lives in their societies. This plays a crucial role in strengthening democracy, promoting pluralism and multiculturalism and enhancing transparency and press freedom…. 

We reaffirm the importance of refraining from application of technologies throughout their life cycle that can risk undermining human rights such as the negative impacts of surveillance, censorship, micro-targeting and internet shutdowns and other restrictions. We regret that the UN membership could not agree to advance the text of this resolution on the issue of internet shutdowns, and would like to have seen a broadened scope of the term internet shutdowns to also include wider internet restrictions…. We attach great importance to ensuring that a digital transition does not lead to reinforced societal inequalities and discrimination, especially in terms of race, age, ethnicities, disabilities and gender, including technology facilitating sexual and gender based violence…. We welcome the new language regarding technical standards and human rights.” 

India (9:53) Before the vote:

“We express a reservation on the references to unequivocal condemnation of internet shutdowns. The text, unfortunately, does not adopt a nuanced approach to this issue that necessitates taking ground realities into account when states make such decisions. In prescribing good practices, UN bodies should not overlook the mandates of national legislation. Laws and policies are made in State-specific contexts, taking into account regional, social, as well as national security realities. In India, the Telecommunications Act of 2023 grants the government the ability to suspend telecommunication networks and services. However, such powers are to be used only in cases of public emergencies, threats to the sovereignty, integrity and defense of India and, most importantly, to maintain public order. Moreover, the resolution was drafted to protect against executive overreach and caveats such as mandatory written orders, specifying geographic areas, specific duration and a 24-hour review period have been incorporated. 

My delegation also expresses reservations on the use of new terminology such as ‘racial’ and ‘ethnic’ when referring to digital divide… to refer to the digital divide in terms of race and ethnicity seeks to needlessly politicize a noble goal. Lastly, while flagging concerns of cyber bullying, cyber stalking and child exploitation, as well as expressing concern regarding the spread of misinformation and disinformation on social media platforms, the resolution stops short of expectations. The text neither highlights the imperative for holding technology service providers accountable, nor does it mention the growing threats to the misuse of personal data [and] need for data protection…. However, our vote in favour would signal our continued commitment to the cause of making online platforms safe and more transparent for all.” 

Philippines After the vote:

“[T]he Philippines places on record several important points of clarification: provisions on encryption, anonymity tools, and surveillance technologies must be read in line with the Philippine Constitution and domestic legal frameworks. Surveillance may only occur lawfully, proportionately, and with judicial authorization, and never arbitrarily. Non-interference with encryption refers to preventing unlawful interference, and does not restrict the State’s ability to seek lawful access through due process. References to disinformation will be implemented consistent with the constitutional balance between freedom of expression, public order, and accountability. Existing Philippine laws on libel, defamation, child protection, and data privacy continue to apply. Expectations of business due diligence and emerging technology safeguards must respect domestic legislative and regulatory processes and do not pre-empt ongoing policy deliberations. With these clarifications, the Philippines reiterates its commitment to a safe, inclusive, and rights-based digital environment and joins consensus on this resolution.”

South Africa (20:16) After the vote:

“This resolution is important to the broader discussion on the application of human rights, and allows for a collective discussion on the recognition that the same rights that people have offline must be protected online. We therefore support strong safeguards for privacy and dox protection, effective remedies and the responsible use of technologies across their life cycle. Indeed, our own courts have given us guidance on surveillance, indicating it must be lawful, necessary and proportionate with robust judicial oversight. Additionally, we believe that combating cyber crime and online harms is essential to protecting the human rights of all people, but measures must be precise, transparent and human rights-based. We will continue to strengthen the implementation of our own cyber crime data protection and access to information frameworks in line with international human rights law. A key aspect of this resolution is the well-considered and established commitment to balancing the protection of human rights with their inevitable promotion. In this sense, meaningful connectivity is a people centred development priority. The resolution recognizes the right to development closing digital divides…. We welcome the resolution’s call for multistakeholder cooperation – states, national and human rights institutions, industry, technical communities, academia and civil society alike – to align innovation with human rights and sustainable development. We also emphasize capacity building and technology transfer on fair terms, so developing countries can benefit fully and safely from digital transformation.”

Mexico (22:56) After the vote:

“[The resolution] reaffirms a fundamental principle: the same rights that protect individuals offline should also be safeguarded online…. It incorporates key contemporary elements, such as the impact of artificial intelligence, the responsibilities of the private sector, reducing digital gaps, and guarantees ahead of arbitrary or undue use of biometric technologies…. Mexico regrets that despite the broad crosscutting support, one delegation has requested a vote. This step is unfortunate, given that the text reflects a substantive consensus and that the language is based on consensus from other multilaterally negotiated processes addressing the natural evolution of the global debate on the evolution of technologies and human rights.”

Singapore (28:00) After the vote:

“While we appreciate the facilitators efforts to emphasize the protection of individual rights online, Singapore maintains that the resolution could have been more balanced. In particular, the right to the freedom of expression is not and cannot be unfettered online or offline. States have both the right and responsibility to regulate online content, particularly when such content threatens social cohesion and harmony, peace, stability or national sovereignty and security…. The resolution does not give sufficient attention to the legitimate prerogative and responsibility of states to counter online harms and ensure a safe digital environment for their citizens…. Every country must retain the ability to take proportionate and lawful measures to address serious online harms with due consideration to its unique national circumstances and in line with its obligations under international law.”

Denmark on behalf of EU (30:07) After the vote:

“The EU actively promotes universal human rights and fundamental freedoms, the rule of law and democratic principles in the digital space. The EU continues to champion a human centric and human rights based approach in the digital sphere, including on artificial intelligence and other digital technologies. This includes advocating for an open, free, inclusive, safe, global, interoperable and secure internet for everyone; safeguarding its multistakeholder foundation; respect of privacy and to promotion of the rights to privacy; and data protection. Given worrying trends such as digital repression and network restrictions, the EU advocates for stronger unprecedented safeguards to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms such as the freedom of opinion and expression, including by ensuring that any measures taken to address disinformation and misinformation are in accordance with international law.”

United Kingdom (32:38) After the vote:

“We welcome strengthened references to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights and recognition of States’ primary responsibility on human rights, including in the context of digital technologies…. Some aspects of the resolution could have been strengthened further; the long standing principle that the same rights that people have offline must also be protected online, is still not yet fully realized. The work of human rights defenders and civil society in advocating for these protections remains essential. We regret that some Member States took issue with including the term human rights defenders…. References to surveillance must be understood in line with international law. Surveillance measures should only be undertaken when they are lawful, necessary, proportionate and subject to robust legal and democratic oversight. Privacy is a qualified right that may be subject to lawful interference. Respect for the right to privacy should be balanced against legitimate public safety objectives.”

 

United States (12:35) Before the vote:

“This resolution’s approach to artificial intelligence governance and digital technologies reflects a centralized, global governance model that fails to adequately respect the sovereign rights of States to regulate these technologies in accordance with their own national priorities. The United States supports responsible AI development, but we cannot endorse language that promotes overly broad or undefined commitments to international regulatory frameworks without sufficient safeguards for transparency, accountability and respect for national sovereignty. We also note that the UN Guiding Principles of Business and Human Rights are non-binding, and that their use in this context blurs the distinction between State obligations and corporate responsibilities under domestic law…. We believe that the resolution’s references to the UN Principles on Information Integrity, the Global Digital Compact and the Pact for the Future risk advancing frameworks that could undermine State sovereignty and impose global governance models that are inconsistent with US policy priorities…. The United States has made clear that the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Sustainable Development Goals impinge upon State sovereignty as a soft form of global governance, and we will no longer reaffirm them as a matter of course. The United States also supports the Elimination of Discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, age, disability, national origin and genetic information. The United States expects the UN to ensure that its documents and programming avoid using Diversity, Equity and Inclusion concepts and terminology at the expense of recognizing hard work, excellence and individual achievement…. The UN can no longer afford to waste its resources where there is little or no impact. The number of reports, conferences and negotiations has grown beyond the point of ineffectiveness and waste to a level of dysfunction that makes it impossible to carry out vital work.”

Argentina (17:05) After the vote:

“The resolution seeks to explicitly promote regulation, including advancing the so-called global governance of digital environments, when it speaks of how the internet should function and how digital intelligence and AI should be regulated…. This advance towards global governance goes beyond the remit of the Third Committee…. We believe that this resolution, should not promote the greater role of international organizations in regulating the digital environment and new information technologies, but rather it should promote intergovernmental dialogue with specific contributions on human rights that are important for fruitful debate…. [R]egarding references to Pact for the Future, SDGs, etc., these are non-binding aspirations that each State can seek to implement them in the framework of its sovereign rights.”

 

Russia (25:17) After the vote:

“We note [with] satisfaction the inclusion in the document of an important reference of the upcoming review of the implementation of the agreements of the World Summit on the Information Society, and the reference to applicable international documents and national legislation, as well as the notion of trustworthy technologies…. At the same time, we have to note that the resolution adopted today is chock full of contentious ideas and references on documents that have not been agreed at the intergovernmental level and that often are in contradiction with national policies of UN Member States…. We confirm our position on the rejection of Principles of Information Integrity, the Global Digital Compact and cyber references…. Paragraphs 5, 6, 18, 29, 33 and 34 of the preamble are unacceptable to us, as well as 3f, 5, 17, 19 and 24c of the operative part.” 

Israel (35:56) After the vote:

“While it is self-evident that safeguarding human rights must remain a central concern, we believe the text did not yet sufficiently reflect the need to take into account the current state of technological development, nor the importance of encouraging technological innovation – innovation which, when properly governed, can make a significant positive contribution to society…. We disassociate from the references to the Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, which we are concerned are being politically utilized.”