‘Promise of Artificial Intelligence Must Not Blind Us to Risks’, Third Committee Told, amid Fears of Undermined Social Skills, Widening Educational Disparities
“The promise of artificial intelligence (AI) must not blind us to its limitations and potential risks,” an educational rights expert warned the Third Committee (Social, Humanitarian and Cultural) today, as it also heard reports on cultural rights, freedom of religion, extreme poverty and other topics.
“States must establish robust legal and ethical frameworks that govern the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in education,” stressed Farida Shaheed, Special Rapporteur on the right to education, who presented her report (document A/79/520), which examined the opportunities and risks AI brings to education.
She spotlighted AI’s potential to make education more inclusive — especially for students with disabilities — through assistive technologies that break down barriers to learning. It also offers countries — grappling with teacher shortages or systemic educational service delivery challenges — new opportunities to ensure inclusive, equitable and quality education for all.
However, she said, it must not replace the essential role of teachers, undermine the development of social skills or deepen existing inequalities in education. In this regard, she warned about “a real risk that AI will exacerbate digital divides as more than one-third of the world’s people remain unconnected, with limited access to digital infrastructure”.
Moreover, she stressed that AI raises profound ethical questions about privacy and the risk of discrimination embedded in algorithms. She also warned of the commercialization of education by the increasingly dominant private tech companies. “Without adequate oversight, AI has detrimentally affected educational outcomes, […] in particular when decisions are driven or made by AI,” she emphasized, underlining the need to ensure that AI systems operate within a framework that prioritizes human rights.
In the ensuing interactive dialogue, some speakers highlighted the impact of conflict and violence on the right to education, while others called for greater international cooperation to strengthen digital infrastructure in developing countries.
“In an environment where educational institutions are disrupted by conflict, schooling transcends mere academic progress and becomes a vital lifeline that fosters resilience,” said Malaysia’s delegate, drawing attention to the plight of Palestinian children, whose schools have been targeted during military operations.
“Educational institutions in Lebanon opened their doors for the current school year, only to close them swiftly due to Israel’s aggression,” which started on 23 September, said the country’s representative. In Lebanon, 400,000 students and 40,000 educators were displaced, and 330 public schools and vocational institutions were closed.
Ukraine’s delegate said millions of children in her country continue to face severe disruption to their education due to the Russian Federation’s war of aggression. For example, in Kharkiv, constant shelling has forced students to attend in-person classes in underground schools. Since February 2022, 3,428 educational facilities in Ukraine have been damaged, with over 300 eradicated. Additionally, military occupation severely undermines academic freedom, she stressed, voicing concern over the practice of Russification.
Highlighting AI’s potential to improve the quality of education in the least developing countries, Yemen’s delegate said that,amid the current challenges in her country, AI can provide innovative solutions, reinforce access to education in remote areas and improve the quality of education. However, success in this transformation requires strong and inclusive international cooperation, she observed, adding that “no country should be left behind in this technological transformation”.
On that note, South Africa’s representative underlined the need to bridge the digital gap to benefit developing countries, advocating for technology transfer to and capacity building in the Global South.
Raising the question of the impacts of unilateral coercive measures on the right to education, the speaker for Cuba said the embargo imposed on her country by the United States is detrimental in this regard.
“It is imperative that AI be used to unite and not divide humanity,” said Cecilia Bailliet, Independent Expert on human rights and international solidarity, who presented her report on international AI solidarity (document A/79/170). Observing a lack of equitable sharing of the benefits and risks of AI, she said that international AI solidarity is crucial for its expanded use. However, AI surveillance disproportionately affects the poor, resulting in “overpolicing” and the denial of conditional welfare benefits, she noted. Moreover, AI can violate the rights to privacy and non-discrimination through either facial recognition or the rejection of women and minorities’ job or housing applications.
Moreover, “there is a concentration of power among the technology companies and AI developers that heightens the risk” of AI worsening the digital divide between countries and within societies, she said. Stressing the need for Governments and technology companies to implement external audits and human rights impact assessments identifying biases in algorithms and decision-making, she said that the companies must also create reactive mechanisms to address AI-related disinformation campaigns resulting in societal violence and harassment.
Experts also highlighted:
- The right to participate in sports is a cultural right but is infringed in many countries
- The role of religion in war and peace
- The vicious cycle of poverty and poor mental health
Among other experts briefing the Committee was Alexandra Xanthaki, Special Rapporteur in the field of cultural rights, who presented her report “The right to participate in sports” (document A/79/299). She noted that while sports are a cultural activity, the right to participate is not seen as part of States’ commitment to cultural rights. States often divert difficult decisions to sporting associations, which may leave human rights aside — meaning that, for many, the right to participate is overlooked, with dire overall consequences. The report clarifies that participation in sports is “by no means a privilege”, she stated. Raising unresolved questions, she noted the Federation Internationale de Football Association has yet to explain why they allow the Israeli Football Association to include clubs on Palestinian occupied territory, when the UN and the ICJ have established that this annexation is illegal.
Meanwhile, neither the International Olympic Committee nor the French Government addressed that the Afghanistan Olympic team had no woman athlete living in Afghanistan. Further, World Aquatics has implemented a blanket ban on transgender athletes. “Is it for sports associations to decide who is to be considered a woman?” she asked. France has not explained why girls and women athletes who wear the hijab are excluded from sports events, while Iran has not explained why Iranian women cannot ride bicycles, attend male sports or be coached by men. “Now is the time for a major reset in sports,” addressing ongoing violations, she stressed.
Nazila Ghanea, Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, presenting the report “Peace and freedom of religion or belief” (document A/79/182), noted a recent 40 per cent increase in conflict, with one in six people living in an area of active conflict. Whether religion contributes to war or peace, it has long been recognized that religion is “ambivalent” on this question. It can inspire and advance non-violence, conflict resolution and peace — or violence, conflict and war. Also, while scholars indicate that religiously inspired violence is more deadly than violence justified by other means, it rarely stands alone as a factor determining the resort to violence, but, rather, exists in conjunction with other factors and grievances. She emphasized that after a conflict that has involved religion, religious repression is more likely to ensue, creating a cycle of restrictions generating further conflict.
Highlighting how freedom of religion or belief can contribute to peace, she emphasized that where freedom of thought, religion or belief is respected, alternative movements and pro-peace narratives are more likely to emerge, and the public is less likely to be captured by political instrumentalization of division, hatred and othering on the basis of religion or belief. Further, she cited allegation letters concerning treatment of religious minorities in eight countries: Bangladesh, China, France, Guatemala, Iran, Philippines, Turkmenistan and Viet Nam.
“Increasing the gross domestic product (GDP) is a distraction from what really matters — to improve well-being, to ensure basic needs are satisfied and to reduce inequalities,” said Olivier De Schutter, Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, presenting his report (document A/79/162). With 11 per cent of the world’s population experiencing a mental health condition, he noted that economic inequality — due to 40 years of privatizing public assets, giving tax breaks to the wealthy and weakening unions — exacerbates poor mental health for people with low incomes, who are three times more likely to develop anxiety and depression, than those with the highest incomes.
A “vicious cycle” occurs where poverty and inequality cause mental distress, which in turn perpetuates poverty, as mental distress hinders job seeking, he continued, proposing that States establish unconditional basic incomes, ensure access to green spaces for those in impoverished areas and dedicate more of their national healthcare expenditures to mental health — which represents only 2.1 per cent currently.
Also addressing the Committee, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health, Tlaleng Mofokeng, presented her report (document A/79/177) that explored the model of harm reduction — applied in areas such as HIV prevention, drug use and sex work — in a context of sustainable peace and development. While “do no harm” has been a guiding principle in healthcare for thousands of years, States can cause harms by criminalizing individual behaviours. “Law and policy can themselves become a conduit to harm,” she said.
Criminalizing drug use not only negatively impacts the user, but also prevents them from seeking health care, she said. Similarly, laws criminalizing sex work — which seek to eradicate the industry — endanger sex workers themselves, leading to rushed transactions and working in high-risk environments. Harm reduction better aligns with the right to health, including in contexts of conflict and climate change, she said.
NEW – Follow real-time meetings coverage on our LIVE blog.