The UN Court of Justice stands for the first time in the face of hate speech

The International Court of Justice of the UN (TIJ), based in The Hague, has raised its voice in the face of the phenomenon of hate speech after Armenia and Azerbaijan, neighboring countries and at odds in the Nagorno-Karabakh region, requested the adoption of emergency measures for alleged violations of the other side of the UN treaty that prohibits racial discrimination. The last military escalation between the two countries, at the end of last year, cost the lives of more than 5,000 people. The cessation of hostilities signed between the parties included the deployment of 2,000 Russian soldiers as peacekeepers in the enclave.

Insults between Armenians and Azerbaijanis have become a major component of lawsuits brought before international justice. Terms such as "barbarians", "animals" or "fascists" appear in the allegations of both countries. The judges of the highest judicial instance of the United Nations have ordered both parties, in a provisional order of the 7th, unparalleled in the court's history, to prevent racial hatred while they review the case. <CW9>

Hate speech, which flourishes both in democratic societies and in authoritarian regimes, threatens human rights by promoting discrimination and racism and undermines the legitimate exercise of freedom of expression. Aired in political harangues or on social media, they create an atmosphere of intolerance that can incite violence. Although the court has no power to enforce these injunctions, they are binding on the litigants. Hence its strength, but also its limitations. In this case, the judges did not distinguish between the expletives of Armenians or Azerbaijanis, but demanded - unanimously - the application of provisions to stop the incitement and promotion of racial hatred.

“It is the first time that the court has issued such clear precautionary measures on this matter. It is not just that this speech is illegal. It also creates the necessary climate for other abuses or violations to take place. It will be difficult for the parties to comply with everything ordered to the end, but it is to be expected that the tone of the public discourse will be lowered, "says, in a telephone conversation, Asier Garrido Muñoz, professor of Public International Law at the University of La Haya for Applied Sciences.

Among the examples invoked in this case are the words of the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliyev, to refer to the Armenians. He has called them "bandits," "vandals," "fascists," "barbarians," "infidels in black clothes," "enemies," and "cowardly in nature," as well as "animals." For its part, the Armenian state news agency, ArmenPress, writes that the Azerbaijanis "are as barbarous as the Turks." "They are not worthy of being on Earth" is another of the expressions that the judges have used. For Garrido Muñoz, "the intersection of accusations based on a similar denigrating intention" is disconcerting. "There are differences in their arguments, but in essence we observe the same dehumanization of the neighbor, whom they consider a threat," reflects the expert.The dispute has invoked the Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, to which Armenia and Azerbaijan are parties.

After the implosion of the USSR in 1991, Armenians and Azerbaijanis clashed in Nagorno Karabakh. The territory - and neighboring areas - remained in Armenian hands. Over the years, the false closure of the conflict led to a series of breaches of the fragile ceasefire. In 2016, what is known as the Four-Day War broke out, causing some 200 deaths, and in last year's confrontation the militarily superior Baku regained the majority of Nagorno Karabakh, following an agreement brokered by Moscow.

Hate speech precedes institutional decay, Nazism, or anti-Semitism, with episodes as famous as the

in late 19th-century France. Alfred Dreyfus was an Alsatian Jewish captain falsely accused of delivering secret documents to the Germans. The denunciation of the scandal by the writer Émile Zola, in his famous allegation

, caused a political and social crisis.

The closest thing to a general prohibition of this phenomenon in international law is the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), continues Garrido Muñoz.

“The TIJ resolves disputes between states, and in current international law states cannot be criminals, otherwise they would have to be prosecuted as such.

So what is being purged before this court is the responsibility of the State, not that of its leaders, for violations of obligations of interest to the international community ”, assures the professor.

Hate against the Rohingya in Myanmar

An example is the Gambia's lawsuit against Myanmar, also before the TIJ, in which an African state singles out an Asian state for genocide of the Rohingya minority without there being a single victim of their nationality.

The case of Myanmar is an example of the powerful role social media plays in inciting racial hatred. Giulia Pinzauti, an expert in International Criminal Law at the Dutch University of Leiden, explains by phone that “Myanmar was a practically closed society until 2013, and there social networks are synonymous with Facebook. The use of false profiles and the spread of hatred by theoretically private groups - albeit with thousands of real users - has been decisive in targeting the Rohingya with genocidal intent.

Facebook prohibits hate speech according to its normative documents, but until 2020 its algorithm system did not distinguish between groups that could be targeted and those that could not. In the case of Myanmar, it ended up deleting the disputed messages. “Okay, because damages are limited and these platforms must be held accountable. However, this may lead to the loss of material evidence for an ongoing investigation, or in ongoing proceedings, such as the TIJ. In court, these messages can serve as evidence to demonstrate the intent of their authors. It is necessary to find the legal balance to preserve them ”, continues Pinzauti.

Last September, US judge Zia M. Faruqui issued an order for Facebook to allow investigators access to deleted messages for use by the TIJ.

In his brief, the judge argues that "the false accounts created by public representatives in Myanmar with the intention of spreading hatred for political purposes had the clear intention of reaching the public: they had about 12 million followers."

In turn, a group of Rohingya refugees in the United Kingdom and the United States have sued Facebook "for not monitoring their content and because the design of the platform contributed to violence against this minority."

Follow all the international information on