New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

that safeguard their well-being. This, in turn, places both the affected individuals and the broader community at an increased risk. An example of this phenomenon was vi sible during the COVID-19 pandemic, where the proliferation of health-related misin formation and disinformation contributed to vaccine hesitancy, thereby undermining public health efforts across the globe. 3. The Role of International Law in Combating Infodemia Considering the global harm caused by State-influenced disinformation, it makes sense to look to international law, which main goal is to guarantee the peaceful coexis tence of states, for solutions to counteract infodemia. Noteworthy, the Human Rights Council has affirmed through various resolutions that international human rights law (IHRL) applies to the internet and that human rights must therefore be respected in cyberspace as well. 730 The exercise of IHRL is still mostly restricted to national borders, or at the very least, territorial control, due to its state-centered orientation. 731 Therefore, as a result of ratifying international human rights treaties, states owe both positive and negative human rights duties to the individuals within their borders. Nonetheless, the concept of effective control mandates that states that possess territorial authority over other sta tes guarantee the preservation of human rights within that area. 732 When there is no territorial control, there are no duties owing to the people who reside in other States. 733 While there is a continuous discourse in academia regarding the transnationalization of international human rights law, states and international courts are hesitant to extend the extraterritorial scope of IHRL due to the present State-centered approach’s incapacity to encompass globalized phenomena like migration, transboundary environmental harm, or even international disinformation campaigns. 734 When considering the role of international law in combating infodemia, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of other states must be acknowledged. 735 The principle is considered “one of the fundamental duties of the State” 736 and has been acknowledged as an integral part of customary international law 737 by the International 730 Human Rights Council, ‘Promotion and Protection of All Human Rights, Civil, Political, Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Including the Right to Development’, A/HRC/47/L.22, (7 July 2021), p. 3. 731 Mishra A, ‘State-Centric Approach to Human Rights: Exploring Human Obligations’ (2019) 32 Rev Quebecoise de Droit Int’l 49, p. 57. 732 ECtHR, Al-Skeini v. United Kingdom , Appl. No. 55721/07, Judgment (7 July 2011), paras 138–140. 733 Milanovic M, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties (OUP, 2011), p. 210. 734 See, supra (n 726), p. 62. 735 Ibid. 736 Kunig P, ‘Intervention, Prohibition of’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law accessed 3 October 2023, para 7. 737 ICJ, Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) , Judgment [1986] ICJ Rep 1986, para 202; see also, ICJ, Corfu Channel (United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland v Albania) Judgment [1949] ICJ Rep 4.

180