Monthly Archives: April 2026

Astola at Risk: Why Environmental Protection Is a Human Rights Issue

Posted on by
Reply

Yasir Ali,

Teaching Associate and Research Officer at University of Karachi, Pakistan

Furqan Ahmed

Visiting Faculty, Department of International Relations, University of Karachi & Senior Research Associate, SARIM. Pakistan.

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-9234-848X

Abstract

This article argues that protecting Astola Island—Pakistan’s first Marine Protected Area—should be treated not only as conservation policy but as a human rights imperative. It situates Astola within a broader global pattern in which climate change, pollution, biodiversity loss, and unsustainable development disproportionately harm marginalized communities through food insecurity, disease burdens, and the erosion of livelihoods, while weak governance and limited access to independent courts restrict accountability and remedy. Against this backdrop, recent public remarks promoting resort-style development and permanent settlement on Astola are presented as emblematic of a development narrative that undervalues ecological limits and ignores existing management and jurisdictional arrangements. The essay highlights Pakistan’s limited coverage of marine protected areas compared with global benchmarks and emphasizes the fragility of island ecosystems that support green turtles, migratory birds, and sensitive coastal habitats. It also documents civil society pushback, including calls from environmental journalist Afia Salam and the #HandsOffAstola campaign, as evidence of growing public demand for “protecting the protected.” The article concludes by urging timely inter-ministerial briefing, strengthened enforcement, and rights-based environmental governance that safeguards both ecosystems and affected communities.

Keywords: Astola Island, marine protected areas, environmental governance, human rights

Extreme weather, food insecurity, health issues are associated with air and water pollution, and the loss of land, biodiversity, and livelihoods are just a few catastrophic repercussions that environmental crises are having on people worldwide. Human rights violations are caused by inadequate and enforcement of ecologically harmful economic such as mining, agricultural commodities, highly polluting fossil fuel industries. In order to keep global warming under 1.5 degree Celsius and stop additional environmental destruction, governments continue to fail take swift and significant action. The main victim of environmental harm are often underprivileged and marginalized communities that have no access to independents courts for accountability and restitution and little opportunities to actively engage in public discourse and decision-making on environmental issues. 

The issue of environmental protection must be taken seriously, and reason must prevail before it is too late. There are roughly 16,000 marine protected areas worldwide, covering nearly 8% of the oceans, while Pakistan has only three, protecting less than 1% of its waters. In this context, recent comments by one of the most influential ministers, Mr. Mohsin Naqvi, about establishing resorts and populating Astola Island in the name of development, while comparing it to the Maldives—are concerning. Promoting fragile ecosystems like Astola in this manner is not development; it is negligence. 

Astola Island, Pakistan’s secluded gem in the Arabian Sea, offers a rare glimpse of unspoiled natural beauty. Situated off the coast near Pasni (Baluchistan), this remote island is a haven for adventure seekers and nature enthusiasts alike. Its rugged cliffs, clear turquoise waters, and complete absence of permanent human settlement create a landscape that feels both raw and extraordinary. Recognized as the country’s first marine protected area, Astola supports unique wildlife, including green turtles and migratory birds. Whether it’s camping beneath a star-filled sky or exploring its pristine waters through snorkeling, Astola provides a remarkable escape for those in search of tranquility, adventure, and untouched nature.

Ms. Afia Salam, a renowned environmental journalist and trainer, and a member of the National Coordinating Body (NCB) for Marine Protected Areas (MPAs) under Pakistan’s Ministry of Climate Change, has expressed strong concern over the recent remarks made by the interior minister of the incumbent government. In a social media post, she urged him to retract his statement. She also reiterated her stance on LinkedIn, calling on Dr. Musadik Malik and Secretary Aisha Moriani, who oversee the NCB, to brief Mohsin Naqvi and ask him to publicly withdraw what she described as a “dangerous” statement. Afia emphasized that the minister should retract his remarks and encourage people to continue visiting the Maldives instead, while promoting her new hashtag, #HandsOffAstola.

She further urged supporters to amplify the call by turning #HandsOffAstola into #SaveAstolaIsland, warning against what she described as “DEVIL-opers” threatening the island’s fragile ecosystem.  Astola is Pakistan’s first Marine Protected Area (MPA) and we need to ‘protect the protected’, lest we have a hoard of people with ‘Bailcha and Kudaal’ (Shovel and Fence) heading to Pasni. Most importantly, the matter falls under the jurisdiction of the Balochistan Forest and Wildlife Department—so why is the Federal Interior Minister, Mohsin Naqvi, commenting on it?” Afia added. She warned that such remarks could have serious repercussions, as clearly outlined in the management plan.

She called on conservationists to raise their voices and urged the Ministry of Climate Change, Government of Pakistan, to hold a briefing for the Ministry of Interior as soon as possible, as recommended in the NCB’s last meeting. She also noted that timely pushback from environmental organizations could help nip the issue in the bud. We need to raise awareness and inform the public as well about the importance of preserving marine protected areas like Astola to prevent environmental degradation. We can ill afford to further exacerbate our already polluted environment and must act seriously before it is too late.

When activists and ordinary citizens stand up for their rights to land and the environment, they counter intimidation, legal harassment, and deadly violence. We must advocate for human rights law and compel governments to safeguard citizens and stop corporations from causing severe environmental degradation. 

The Algorithmic Frontier: AI, Political Science, and the Future of Human Rights

Posted on by
Reply

Anju Gupta

JECRC  University

 Jaipur,  India

https://orcid.org/0009-0005-6942-3583

Abstract

This paper examines the growing tension between technological innovation and the protection of human rights in the digital era, with particular emphasis on the privacy–security trade-off. While digital tools enhance communication, transportation, and public safety, they also expand the capacity for surveillance, data collection, and automated decision-making, increasing the risk of misuse, identity theft, discrimination, and other rights violations. The discussion highlights how encryption and anonymization can safeguard sensitive information, yet acknowledges that the same technological ecosystem can enable large-scale data breaches and intrusive monitoring through facial recognition, biometric identification, and AI-driven systems. To manage these risks, the paper argues for a multifaceted response that combines transparency and accountability by data-collecting organizations, ethical technology development that embeds privacy protections by design, robust legal frameworks for data protection and oversight, and sustained public awareness so individuals can better understand and mitigate online threats. Ultimately, the paper concludes that the digital age need not undermine human rights; with responsible governance and informed use, technology can support security while preserving dignity, freedom, and democratic values.

Keywords: privacy, surveillance, data protection, artificial intelligence

As we move further into the decade, the intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Political Science has transitioned from a niche technical concern to a fundamental challenge for global human rights. In 2026, the proliferation of generative AI and predictive analytics is not merely changing how we govern—it is fundamentally altering the “Social Contract.” For the international political science community, specifically those focused on human rights, this shift demands a new vocabulary of resistance and a reimagined framework for justice.

One of the most pressing political issues today is the erosion of “Epistemic Security”—the ability of a society to distinguish fact from fabrication. Generative AI has weaponized the “marketplace of ideas.” With hyper-realistic deepfakes, we have entered an era of “The Liar’s Dividend,” where the very existence of AI allows bad actors to dismiss real evidence of human rights abuses as “synthetic.”

From a political science perspective, this shatters the foundation of democratic accountability. When the public cannot agree on a shared reality, the right to free and fair elections—and the right to information—is compromised. We are seeing a shift in political strategy where the goal is no longer to convince the electorate of a particular truth, but to exhaust them with so much “synthetic noise” that they withdraw from the political process entirely.

There is another problem and that is  accountability Gap

The transition from traditional bureaucracy to “Algocracy”—governance by algorithm—represents a significant shift in state power. AI systems are now routinely used in judicial sentencing, social welfare distribution, and migration management. While proponents argue this brings “Scientific Management” and efficiency, human rights advocates see a “Black Box” problem.

In political theory, the legitimacy of the state rests on the transparency of its decisions. However, many AI models are proprietary and inscrutable. If a citizen is denied asylum or a social safety net based on a biased algorithm, whom do they hold accountable? The programmer? The data set? The machine? This lack of transparency violates the right to due process and creates a new form of “digital disenfranchisement” that disproportionately affects marginalized populations.

AI has also enabled a level of “Ubiquitous Surveillance” that would have been unimaginable to 20th-century theorists. The combination of facial recognition, gait analysis, and predictive policing has turned the “Panopticon” into a digital reality.

For the IPSA Human Rights Committee, the concern is how these tools are used to stifle dissent. In several regions, AI is used to monitor political activists in real-time, predicting protests before they happen and “pre-emptively” neutralizing opposition. This “Predictive Authoritarianism” chills the freedom of assembly and association, as the mere knowledge of being watched by an infallible algorithm forces citizens to self-censor their political expressions.

AI has also resulted in the Geopolitics of the “Compute Divide”.

In International Relations (IR), power is being redefined by access to “Compute”—the hardware and data necessary to run advanced AI. This is creating a dangerous “North-South” divide. We are witnessing a form of “Data Colonialism,” where the Global South provides the raw data (often generated by its citizens without consent), while the Global North controls the refined AI models.

This “Compute Divide” has direct human rights implications. Countries without sovereign AI capabilities are forced to rely on foreign platforms that may not align with their cultural values or legal protections. It creates a hierarchy of nations where “digital sovereignty” is a luxury, leaving the rights of billions of people at the mercy of a few transnational corporations.

Perhaps the most profound impact is on the nature of political agency. If algorithms can predict—and influence—voter behavior with 99% accuracy, what remains of the “Autonomous Individual”? Political science must now grapple with the idea that the “voter” is being replaced by a “data profile.”

The challenge for the 21st century is to draft a “Digital Bill of Rights” that treats AI not just as a tool, but as a systemic force that requires global oversight. We must move toward “Human-in-the-Loop” governance, where the final decision in any matter affecting a person’s life, liberty, or livelihood remains a human responsibility.

Conclusion: A Call to Action for Political Scientists

The integration of AI into the political sphere is an “orbit-shifting” event. For the members of the IPSA, our task is to ensure that while technology evolves, the “Compass of Human Rights” remains fixed. We must advocate for the Decolonization of Data, the Auditability of Algorithms, and the Protection of the Epistemic Truth.

The new horizon of politics is digital, but our commitment must remain resolutely human. As we analyze these shifting power dynamics, let us ensure that innovation serves to expand human dignity, rather than providing new tools for its suppression.

Bearing the Risk, Missing the Reward: The Unequal Burden of the New Space Race

Posted on by
Reply

Cássius Guimarães Chai

RC26 Board Member

Full Law and Geopolitics Professor (PPGAERO/PROFIAP/UFMA & PPGD/FDV), Brazil

www.spaceweeknordeste.com

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5893-3901

Abstract

This paper revisits the foundational promise of Article I of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty that outer space shall be explored and used “for the benefit and in the interests of all countries,” and tests that promise against contemporary governance practices through the critical lens of Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL). It argues that the formal language of universality functions increasingly as legitimating rhetoric for a legal order that reproduces global hierarchy. The analysis highlights how ostensibly neutral allocation mechanisms for geostationary orbital slots and radio frequencies—administered through the International Telecommunication Union and structured around practical first-mover advantages—enable early access to become durable control, effectively enclosing finite orbital and spectrum resources. The paper further examines how accelerated commercialization and militarisation, including the rapid expansion of private satellite mega-constellations, intensify congestion and debris risks while concentrating economic gains in a small group of wealthy states and corporate actors. These dynamics externalize long-term hazards—such as collision cascades associated with the Kessler Syndrome—onto countries with limited space capabilities, mirroring patterns of environmental injustice identified by TWAIL scholarship. The paper concludes that achieving the treaty’s egalitarian intent requires more than fidelity to dated treaty language: it demands procedural inclusion, substantive participation by developing states in regulatory bodies, and concrete mechanisms for technology transfer and capacity building.

Keywords: Outer Space Treaty, TWAIL, space governance, orbital debris

The grand promise enshrined in Article I of the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, that the exploration and use of outer space shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, constitutes one of international law’s most ambitious normative declarations. It proclaims space as the “province of all mankind,” a common beyond terrestrial sovereign claims. However, viewed from the critical perspective afforded by Third World Approaches to International Law (TWAIL), this foundational promise stands in stark and increasingly indefensible tension with present realities. The juridical architecture of space governance, far from guaranteeing equitable access and benefit-sharing, functions as a mechanism for consolidating the technological and economic primacy of a handful of wealthy states and their corporate proxies, thereby perpetuating the very structures of global inequality that TWAIL scholarship has long sought to unmask.

The TWAIL critique offers an indispensable hermeneutic for understanding why the “province of all mankind” remains a largely rhetorical flourish. It posits that international legal norms, including those governing outer space, were forged within a post-colonial order inherently reflecting the interests of powerful, developed states. The ostensibly neutral principle of equitable access is, in practice, subverted by operational realities. The prevailing regime for allocating geostationary orbital slots and radio frequencies, administered by the International Telecommunication Union, operates effectively on a “first-come, first-served” basis. This procedural framework creates an insurmountable first-mover advantage, allowing established spacefaring nations and their commercial entities to claim prime orbital real estate long before developing nations possess the technical and financial capacity to compete. The result is not a common management for universal benefit, but a de facto enclosure of a finite resource, sanctioned by a legal order whose structural biases TWAIL consistently foregrounds.

Furthermore, the accelerating commercialization and militarization of space exacerbate this foundational inequity. The deployment of vast satellite mega-constellations by private corporations, while offering global services, consumes enormous amounts of spectrum and orbital volume in Low Earth Orbit. This raises urgent concerns about the ability of non-spacefaring countries to ever achieve meaningful access. The orbital environment is rapidly becoming congested and polluted, predominantly by the actions of a few, yet the consequent risks of collision and debris proliferation fall disproportionately upon nations that have yet to launch their first satellite. This dynamic, wherein the costs and dangers of technological “progress” are externalized onto the global periphery, mirrors patterns of environmental injustice and resource extraction that TWAIL identifies as characteristic of neo-colonial legal and economic relations. The principle of the “province of all mankind” is thus inverted: the benefits are privatized and concentrated, while the long-term risks and burdens are socialized globally, with developing nations bearing a disproportionate share of the potential consequences of the Kessler Syndrome.

In conclusion, the intersection of space law’s foundational promise with TWAIL’s critical lens reveals a profound and disquieting juridical dissonance. The “province of all mankind” functions less as a binding normative commitment and more as a legitimating ideology for a system that entrenches global hierarchy. A genuinely equitable framework for space governance cannot be realized through a superficial adherence to dated treaty language; it demands a fundamental reimagination of the legal order itself. This reimagination must prioritize procedural inclusion, granting developing nations a substantive voice in the regulatory bodies that shape the future of the cosmos. It requires concrete mechanisms for technology transfer and capacity building that move beyond mere aspirational statements. Ultimately, the legitimacy of international space law hinges upon its capacity to transform the abstract promise of a shared celestial commons into a tangible reality of equitable participation and shared benefit. Without such a transformation, the law merely provides a veneer of legality to a new frontier of global disenfranchisement.

The Policeman Has Left the Building

Posted on by
Reply

On Human Rights, American Exceptionalism, and the Architecture of Convenient Conscience

 Swati Sakshi Mishra 

Geopolitical Journalist, MEA WorldWide

Masters, International Relations

JECRC University, India

https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0912-7913

Abstract
This essay interrogates the foundational myth of the postwar human rights regime: that its authority rested on universal principle rather than on the reputational arithmetic of American power. Beginning with the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by a United States that simultaneously practiced racial segregation, administered colonial territories, and engineered coups in Iran and Guatemala, the piece argues that rights language has functioned historically as a Cold War instrument, calibrated to discipline rivals while insulating its architect. The implicit bargain that sustained this architecture was never moral; it was reputational. Dictators observed limits not because Washington had a conscience, but because it had an image to protect. That calculation has now definitively ruptured. The essay documents how the active dismantling of multilateral commitments, from withdrawal from the UN Human Rights Council and WHO to executive attacks on judicial independence, civil society, and press freedom, constitutes not isolationism but demolition: the meaningful difference between a state that stops attending the meeting and one that burns the meeting hall on its way out. Governments in Budapest, Ankara, and Riyadh do not feel embarrassed by Washington’s conduct; they feel vindicated. Against this backdrop of declining global freedom, shrinking civil-society funding, and institutions being starved rather than reformed, the essay advances a paradoxical claim: that the departure of the hegemon-patron may be the most honest moment human rights discourse has ever occupied. Stripped of its association with Western foreign policy, a contamination that postcolonial critics and feminist IR theorists had long diagnosed, the idea must now earn authority on its own terms. Youth-led mobilizations in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nepal, and Venezuela suggest that accountability does not require American endorsement; it requires publics angry enough and organized enough to demand rights as an autonomous political project. The policeman has left the building. The test is whether human rights ever meant anything beyond his convenience.

Keywords: human rights, American exceptionalism, multilateralism, reputational power, civil society, postcolonial critique, democratic backsliding

There is an old joke in international relations: human rights are what powerful states demand of weaker ones. It is not actually a joke.

When the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was adopted in 1948, the United States voted in favour. Eleanor Roosevelt had chaired the drafting committee. The symbolism was enormous, the sincerity, selective. At the time of signing, the US maintained legal racial segregation at home, ran a colonial administration in Puerto Rico, and was orchestrating coups in Iran and Guatemala within the same decade. The Declaration was a magnificent document. It was also, in significant part, a Cold War instrument, a rhetorical cudgel with which the West could beat the Soviet Union while (silently) exempting itself from the same blows.

You might think it’s cynicism. But (unfortunately) this is history.

For seventy years, the global human rights system operated on an implicit understanding: the United States was its guarantor of last resort. Flawed, hypocritical, frequently absent, but present enough to give the architecture some credibility. Dictators knew there were limits. Not because Washington had a conscience, but because it had an image to maintain. 

Reputational cost is a real cost in international politics, even when moral cost is not.

That calculation has now collapsed.

In the course of a single year, the Trump administration undermined trust in elections, attacked judicial independence, defied court orders, rolled back women’s rights, stripped protections from trans and intersex people, eroded privacy, and used government power to intimidate the media, law firms, universities, civil society organizations, and, remarkably, even comedians. Comedians. The regime that cannot tolerate a joke is historically not a regime that tolerates much else.

The US withdrew from the UN Human Rights Council, the World Health Organization, and announced plans to exit 66 more international institutions. You might its isolationism but Isolationism, my dear readers, is passive. This is active demolition. 

There is a meaningful difference between a country that stops attending the meeting and one that burns down the meeting hall on its way out.

The consequences are not abstract. Authoritarians worldwide have monitored this assault and learned that they are unlikely to be held accountable internationally in the near term. Observation and emulation are the sincerest forms of political flattery. When Budapest, Ankara, and Riyadh see Washington sanction ICC judges and call it foreign policy, they do not feel embarrassed. They feel vindicated.

Here is the deeper problem, and it requires some philosophical honesty to state: the human rights system was always underpinned more by American power than American principle. 

John Rawls built his theory of justice on the idea of a veil of ignorance, that we design fair rules when we do not know which position we will occupy. The American approach to human rights worked on the opposite logic. Washington always knew exactly which position it occupied, and designed the rules accordingly. What is remarkable is how long the rest of the world politely pretended otherwise.

Freedom House recorded its 19th consecutive year of declines in global freedom. Human rights funding globally faces a projected reduction of $1.9 billion by 2026 compared to 2023 levels. Civil society organizations are being defunded, banned, and in some cases disappeared. Nearly 44 percent of peacebuilding organizations surveyed would run out of funds by the end of 2027. The infrastructure of accountability is not being reformed. It is being starved.

So where does that leave human rights as a political project?

Precisely here: stripped of its most powerful patron, the idea must now justify itself on its own terms. That is, paradoxically, the most honest position it has ever been in. For decades, human rights advocacy was contaminated by association with Western foreign policy, a problem that scholars from the Global South, feminist IR theorists, and postcolonial critics had been raising long before it became fashionable to notice. When Amnesty International’s credibility depended partly on the State Department’s credibility, that was always a fragile foundation.

Civil society organizations are more important than ever and can play a critical role in defending rights, protecting minorities, and holding governments accountable. Youth movements in Bangladesh, Kenya, Nepal and Venezuela demonstrated in 2024 and 2025 that accountability does not require American endorsement. It requires people who are angry enough and organized enough to demand it themselves.

The policeman has left the building. He was, admittedly, a policeman who sometimes robbed the same houses he claimed to protect. His departure is not a tragedy for human rights. His departure is a test of whether human rights ever meant anything beyond his convenience.

The answer to that test will define the next century of global politics.