The UN General Assembly (UNGA) Third Committee (C3) discusses issues of human rights, humanitarian matters, and social and cultural issues. Human rights issues are introduced by the UN special rapporteurs and independent experts appointed by the Human Rights Council (UNHRC), with mandates to report and advise on human rights from a thematic or country-specific perspective.
The excerpts are grouped by thematic sessions: | UNGA C3 typically adopts around 60 draft resolutions, many by a vote, which are then forwarded from the Committee to the UNGA plenary for final adoption. The sessions may feature presentations from the UN human rights special rapporteurs or independent experts, followed by an interactive session with Member States.
|
Right to food (17 October 2025) | Key Themes | |
Michael Fakhri, Special Rapporteur on the right to food: Report: Corporate power and human rights in food systems (A/80/213) “Corporations control labour conditions, prices, and food choices in a way that serves the ultimate goal of profit maximization and not the public good. Moreover, corporations are increasingly influencing how policy decisions are being made within national Governments and the United Nations. States are giving up their sovereignty for a profit…. Today, agrifood corporations are turning more towards new digital technologies and large amounts of data processing, through the use of digitalization. The fast-moving digital revolution in food systems will cause more harm than good, in the absence of appropriate regulation. The world does not need more data or more food – people instead need more power and control over data in food systems…. The recent increase in food prices reflects the high concentration of suppliers’ market power. Globally, food inflation rates are at record highs. Food inflation is principally caused by transnational corporations raising prices at rates that exceed increased costs and risks. Corporations have been falsely attributing price hikes to various crises to hide their profiteering… The problems of the world’s food systems stem from a global political economy that allows corporations to financially benefit from violating people’s human rights – even allowing corporations to profit from famine and genocide… We need legally binding mechanisms to be used. We need real consequences for human rights violations. We need real power to push against corporations… it is very difficult to curtail corporate power or hold corporations accountable unless corporations are changed from within. Indeed, the very purpose of the corporate form is to limit personal liability. I argue that the best way to stop corporations from increasingly violating human rights in food systems, and other sectors, is to change the legal nature of corporations from within. The way forward is to focus on using corporate law to change the internal incentives within corporations to align with respecting, protecting, and fulfilling human rights.” | Corporate control of food systems; impact of digitization of food system; corporate law to curtail power concentration | |
Michael Fakhri (cont.) (1:47:33)“What often happens with technology companies is they invent a solution that doesn’t necessarily have a problem…. At the core, hunger is not the result of systemic shortages… It is always a problem of power and institutions… Who has power?” | Techno-solutionism; Power concentration in big tech | |
BANGLADESH | 17 OCT (1:19:40)“Over recent decades, a few powerful transnational corporations have come to dominate global food systems and control production, pricing, labour and policy… how can we balance between the benefits of digital technologies in agriculture and the related risk of data concentration that undermines farmers’ autonomy and excludes small scale producers… What regulatory frameworks are needed to ensure that digitalization empowers rather than exploits?” | Impact of data concentration on smallholder farmers; digitization of agriculture systems | |
Cameroon | 17 OCT (1:33:34)“The role of transnational corporations in the inflation of food prices, the shaping of food systems and nutrition habits, exploitation of workers and environmental degradation is deeply concerning. The vulnerability of developing countries to powerful international corporations weakens their ability to protect the citizens’ rights and their economic development… [Corporations’] growing influence in United Nations processes, including the Agrifood System’s Summit and during treaty negotiations, is very disturbing. What measure can countries [take], especially developing ones, to protect their food sovereignty against powerful international corporations?… What opportunities does the UN Convention on International Tax Cooperation present in terms of enhancing multinational responsibility in terms of the protection of human rights? How is it possible to protect the intergovernmental process from the influence of multinational corporations? My delegation is concerned by resistance vis a vis the UN draft treaty on Transnational Businesses and Human Rights. How do you think that this instrument can help to balance out the responsibility of businesses and their economic profitability?” | Role of TNCs shaping food system; increasing influence of corporations within the UN; power of Tax Convention to curtail corporate power? | |
Independence of judges and lawyers (22 October 2025) | Key Themes | |
Margaret Satterthwaite, Special Rapporteur On The Independence Of Judges And Lawyers:Report: Artificial intelligence in judicial systems: promises and pitfalls (A/80/169) “AI is valuable only when it improves justice in concrete ways; it should never be pursued as an end in itself. States and justice professionals should not allow ‘techno-solutionism’ to propel the adoption of systems carrying serious human rights risks and significant negative climate impacts. Those considering using AI should first assess which justice problems it can help to solve, whether it is fit for purpose, and whether it may in fact make things worse…. before deciding to invest in AI-powered justice solutions, States should be aware that AI use entails a concentration – and often a transfer – of power. AI technology, data centres and computing hubs are focused in a minority of States and owned by a handful of companies. As States increasingly rely on AI, this power will become more condensed and inequalities will grow. Even when under-resourced States gain access to AI tools, they can be ill-suited for deployment in local judicial systems, given the vastly different contexts in which they were developed. States tempted to resort to public-private partnerships to facilitate rapid digitalization and the introduction of AI justice tools should also be conscious of the risk of abuse by companies motivated by profit. In particular, States must ensure they retain ownership of data and that they do not fall victim to vendor lock-in.” | “Techno-solutionism”; AI and justice systems; PPPs and digitization; AI profit motives above people | |
EU“While the use of AI offers clear advantages, its potential risks – especially those concerning human rights must be carefully considered…. Any use of AI in justice must remain human-centric, with technology assisting rather than replacing human judgment and fundamental rights guiding its deployment.” | AI and justice systems | |
Promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (22 October 2025) | Key Themes | |
Irene Kahn, Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expressionReport: Threats to freedom of expression online in turbulent times (A/80/341) “The rules of the game on freedom online are being reset by powerful political and corporate interests…. Billions of people today are dependent for their communications and information needs on social media platforms, owned and controlled by large private companies based mainly in the United States…. Despite a rising tide of hate and lies on social media, the companies have rolled back their policies and tools to combat disinformation and hate speech. In a ruthless competition to dominate new technologies, the digital companies have invested heavily in artificial intelligence, ignoring the limitations of automated content moderation and the harm caused by engagement-based business models…. Many governments are keen to assert their power, not to hold companies to account for their human rights failures…. The tendency among States to silence critical voices is not new but it has gained a new impetus in the current political climate of rising authoritarianism, backsliding democracies and pushback on human rights…. Such disdain for international law has not only emboldened authoritarian states but also Big Tech companies which have rapidly aligned themselves with the U.S. Administration…. The U.S. Administration appears to be treating social media regulation as a ‘trade barrier’ to be removed, rather than an effort to strengthen corporate accountability on human rights. This is yet another sign of the ‘commodification’ of freedom of expression…. I strongly urge the European Union and its Member States to remain steadfast in their commitment to hold digital companies to account for their human rights responsibilities…. [D]igital platforms are owned by private companies, but they serve a public purpose… the drive to innovate AI at full speed, but with no legal guardrails, is a high-risk strategy… the excessive market power of big social media platforms is a matter of serious concern and requires urgent action by States, international organizations and civil society. Measures should be taken to reduce the power of large platforms, diversify the information landscape and enhance the agency of users. States should encourage investment in community networks and decentralized platform governance… there is no lack of knowledge or understanding on what needs to be done. What is lacking is political will. It is of the utmost importance that States and companies recommit to upholding freedom of opinion and expression in accordance with international human rights standards.” | Social media & human rights; AI; lack of corporate accountability by states; rising authoritarianism enabled by digitization; social media as a trade barrier | |
MALAYSIA“How can States enhance their cooperation with social media and digital companies in addressing online harms particularly disinformation and incitement, while ensuring that national regulatory efforts to protect the community are respected and not undermined by opaque or inconsistent private standards? | state/corporate cooperation with digital companies | |
IRELAND“While recognizing the positive transformative potential of Artificial Intelligence, Ireland is deeply concerned that, without integrated human rights safeguards and proper regulation, this technology could pose a risk to the enjoyment of the freedoms of opinion and expression in the digital sphere. It is increasingly clear that AI can be used to manipulate narratives, spread misinformation and disinformation at speed, and undermine information integrity and diversity in information landscapes. The rapid integration of AI as a content moderation tool, particularly where without human oversight, raises additional concerns about overmoderation and the suppression of political dissent and artistic expression. It is vital that a human-centric and human-rights based approach is taken to the development of AI technology in order to protect and uphold our freedoms and democracies in the digital age.” | Need for AI regulation to uphold human rights/democracy | |
BRAZIL“The regulation of social media is not only a necessity, but also an obligation from the State’s commitments to protect and promote human rights…. Tech companies must conduct due diligence to mitigate negative impacts and provide remedies to victims of violations, as outlined in the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights. Furthermore, last month, the Brazilian Congress approved landmark legislation to protect children in the digital space, which increases the responsibilities of tech companies.” | Social media regulation | |
SWEDEN on behalf of Nordic-Baltic States – Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway“The interplay between public policy and private power has allowed innovation and the digital revolution. Examples confirm that self-regulation is important for fostering an enabling environment for business to develop. However, recent shifts in policies by some tech companies risk undermining public trust in their ability to self-regulate in accordance with the Guidelines for Business and Human Rights…. We must uphold international human rights law as the foundation for digital governance. A practical tool in this regard is the ‘Rights respecting digital public infrastructures principles.’ These principles, presented by the Freedom Online Coalition (FOC), promote a human rights-based approach to digital infrastructure, emphasizing inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, privacy, legitimacy, and offer coherence to companies in their global business across borders.” | Self-regulation necessary for businesses to flourish, yet being jeopardized by recent decisions undertaken by Big Tech | |
Selected excerpts from presentations and statements during C3 sessions | Key Themes | |
Attiya Waris, Independent Expert on external debt (23 OCT) (30:34)Report: Effects of foreign debt and other related international financial obligations of States on the full enjoyment of all human rights, particularly economic, social and cultural rights (A/80/173) “The language of war now extends beyond physical conflicts to encompass trade wars, tax wars and digital conflicts. While traditional warfare operates under international humanitarian law, which is called the law of war, not the law of peace, these economic and financial instruments of violence function largely outside legal constraints, causing death through economic collapse, healthcare system breakdown and food insecurity without deploying traditional weaponry. The architecture enabling this reality is deeply entrenched and highly profitable for those who benefit from the conflict. The three largest asset managers in the world are Black Rock, Vanguard and State Street, and hold an average of 16% of shares in major arms companies, because it is more profitable than other forms of economic investment…. High net worth individuals through investment companies are actually one of the biggest sources through their investment processes of funding the continuation of weapons manufacturing in countries that allow for the private weapon manufacturing process… allowing for private manufacture of weaponry, and then allowing for investment into those private weapon manufacturers is what is causing and exacerbating violence in the world, because it is so easy.” | Digitization of warfare | |
Attiya Waris (cont.) (51:45-57:08)“We need to replace private arms companies with public ownership, eliminating profiteering from death.” | Corporate profiteering from war | |
BRAZIL | 3 OCT“Brazil strongly believes that the regulation of new emerging technologies, including artificial intelligence and digital platforms, is an integral part of protecting human rights in today’s world. The prevailing business model of companies based on the large-scale collection of personal data, the erosion of privacy, and the monetization of disinformation and hate speech contributes significantly to political polarization and radicalization.” | Regulation of AI/digital platforms; reform of existing model of tech business | |
NIGERIA | 31 OCT“Nigeria reiterates that ensuring the right to development requires an enabling international environment. This includes predictable and concessional financing, fair technology transfer, debt sustainability, and equitable trade…” | Right to development incl. tech transfer | |
BANGLADESH | 31 OCT (23:21)“We reaffirm that the right to development is a fundamental human right which is essential for realizing all other rights and achieving the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development… To fulfill this right, it requires mobilizing and effectively utilizing resources such as finance, technology, knowledge sharing and technical assistance…” | Right to development incl. tech/knowledge sharing | |
Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights (22 OCT)Report: Far-right populism and the future of social protection (A/80/138) “Digital surveillance is also introduced in welfare systems to detect fraud: discriminatory algorithms are used that target those most in need with unwarranted suspicion – the victims are single parents, migrants, persons with disabilities.” | Digital surveillance; discriminatory algorithms in welfare systems | |