Background
The Human Rights Council, in its resolution 45/6, welcomed the first report (A/HRC/45/29) of the Expert Mechanism on the Right to Development, and requested it to implement the recommendations contained therein, including the preparation and submission to the Council thematic studies in the discharge of Expert Mechanism’s mandate. At its 8th session, the EMRTD outlined the thematic studies that it planned to submit to the Human Rights Council during the 2024-2026 cycle, including a study addressing artificial intelligence, regulation and the right to development.
Objectives
In light of evolving global dynamics affecting human rights, particularly those linked to rapid technological change, this study will specifically explore the implications, both positive and negative, of AI on cultural rights within the broader framework of the right to development.
AI technologies are already reshaping cultural landscapes, from creative production and dissemination to the accessibility of cultural content, language preservation, and participation in cultural life, to mention a few. At the same time, these developments give rise to significant risks including disinformation, algorithmic bias, and the erosion of cultural diversity risks that are enhanced by persistent digital divides.
Ensuring that AI is developed and deployed in a manner consistent with the right to development requires a rights-based approach, one that recognizes and protects, amongst others, cultural self-determination and participation in cultural life. However, against the backdrop of rapid technological advancement, fragmented and insufficient regulation at the national, regional, and global levels is unlikely to ensure the protection of cultural rights.
In these circumstances, this questionnaire aims to:
• Gather concrete examples of how AI is impacting cultural rights and access to development;
• Identify risks, including discrimination, censorship, or appropriation, arising from AI applications;
• Understand the scope and role of national, regional, and international regulatory approaches;
• Assess the adequacy of current institutional frameworks in addressing these challenges;
• Explore feasible policy and legal instruments, including regulatory frameworks, mitigation strategies, and guiding principles.
Submissions are invited from a wide range of stakeholders, including Member States and regional groups, civil society organisations; academic and research institutions; private sector entities, especially those involved in technology development; independent experts, artists, and cultural practitioners.
Key questions and types of input/comments sought
1. In your opinion, what, if any, are the potential benefits of Artificial Intelligence (AI) for cultural rights in the context of the right to development? You may, for instance, consider AI’s impact on development, cultural participation, cultural diversity (including language preservation, artistic creation and expression, access and participation in science, academic and scientific freedom, and the protection of moral and material rights of authors and creators)?
2. Can you provide any specific real-life examples where AI has already enhanced the enjoyment of cultural rights when pursuing the right to development?
3. To what extent, if any, do existing digital divides deprive developing and least developed countries from reaping those benefits?
4. Can you provide any specific real-life examples involving the impacts of such digital divides on the enjoyment of cultural rights when pursuing the right to development?
5. What are the main risks posed by and drawbacks already identified of Artificial Intelligence, including, amongst others, generative AI, to cultural rights in pursuing the right to development?
6. In addition to the above, please set out your views on the following potential AI risks and drawbacks in terms of how they relate to cultural rights:
(i) Algorithmic bias
(ii) Discrimination by automatic moderation and censorship
(iii) AI-generated disinformation
(iv) AI systems going wrong
(v) Appropriation of cultural production or dissemination
(vi) Artistic, academic, and scientific freedom and development
(vii) Creative industries
(viii) Protection of authors’ moral and material interests and cultural diversity, including linguistic diversity
7. Do those risks and drawbacks disproportionately affect any particular category of individuals or groups of people when pursuing their right to development? Please explain below.
8. What do you believe might be the long-term effects of AI use on cultural rights and, in that context, the future of the right to development, including cultural self-determination?
9. How can cultural rights be protected in the era of rapid AI development ? You may, for example, consider prevention and mitigation.
10. Do you think regulating AI would be an effective way to protect cultural rights when pursuing the right to development?
11. If so, what kinds of AI uses or tools should be regulated, how, and by whom?
12. Is self-regulation of technology companies that develop AI sufficient to protect cultural rights? If not, why not?
13. Do you envisage any disadvantages to the protection of cultural rights and the right to development if binding AI regulations were in place?
14. Is the current institutional framework in your country equipped to deal with the new AI challenges to cultural rights? If not, what are some of its blind spots or shortcomings?
15. Are regional agreements equipped to deal with the new AI challenges to cultural rights that underpin or are motivated by the right to development? If not, in what ways do they fall short?
16. Which do you think would be more effective—a binding global treaty on AI regulation and human rights or domestic regulation on the same issue?
17. What are the potential barriers to developing and implementing a binding global treaty on AI regulation and human rights?
18. What do you think about the potential benefits of Guiding Principles on AI regulation and cultural rights, akin to those on Business and Human Rights? Would such an instrument be useful, especially in the absence of domestic regulation?
19. Please share any other comments.
How inputs will be used?
Input directly relevant to the study may be cited in the study report. Contributors may choose to opt out of having their submissions cited. If contributors prefer their input to remain confidential, they should specify this in their submission. All confidential input will be treated as such.
Next Steps
Input/comments may be sent by e-mail. They must be received by 28 November 2025 00:00 (Geneva time).
Kindly submit your contributions preferably in English or accompanied by a translation into English, in MS Word or compatible format.
Email address: iad@unippo.org
Email subject line: Input for EMRTD study "Artificial Intelligence, Cultural Rights, and the Right to Development"
Accepted file formats:
Word, PDF
