Blockchain technology, as originally intended, offers decentralisation, transparency, and immutability. These properties, extolled by supporters, render blockchain immune to censorship and intervention, allowing for financial transactions and governance independent of centralised authority. However, the same characteristics can be used to circumvent legal and ethical guidelines.
Decentralised Autonomous Organisations (DAOs), which are central to blockchain governance, can operate outside of existing accountability mechanisms, allowing for human rights violations. Anonymity protects negative actors, ranging from rogue regimes committing cryptocurrency theft to dangerous algorithms damaging social and economic stability. These issues reflect early concerns, such as Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin’s warning about blockchain in 2014, which might enable nightmarish situations similar to Terminator’s Skynet.
Beyond neutrality: the call for blockchain Accountability
The dominant philosophy among crypto enthusiasts highlights blockchain’s “neutrality”—its ability to facilitate transactions without intervention. Critics, such as journalist Rebecca MacKinnon, say that neutrality is a harmful illusion. History demonstrates that technology neutrality frequently absolves innovators of responsibility for negative effects. For example, Facebook, under the pretext of impartiality, allowed for homicidal speech in Myanmar and disinformation during the COVID-19 outbreak.
MacKinnon and others encourage blockchain designers to foresee and actively avert damage. Recognising the sociopolitical implications of technology, they argue for including human rights safeguards in blockchain protocols. In summary, blockchains must go beyond being transaction facilitators and become enablers of social justice.
A rights-Driven Blockchain Ecosystem
A transformational vision is necessary for blockchain—a system that incorporates human rights directly into its protocols. Drawing inspiration from Isaac Asimov’s “laws” for robots, blockchain might contain fail-safes to protect humans and the environment. For example: Rights-Based Protocols: Blockchain protocols might be created to assure ethical compliance by detecting and removing persons or companies involved in exploitative behaviours, including modern slavery, human trafficking, and other abuses. These guidelines might potentially disperse confiscated assets to victims or reinvest them in social projects that promote rehabilitation and prevention. By incorporating such rules into the system, the blockchain sector may actively prohibit destructive activity while also supporting human rights and ethical accountability.
Fair Governance Standards: Certifying firms that follow fair employment practices might be an effective method to align blockchain with ethical norms. These certificates might serve as a standard for responsible governance, showcasing companies that provide safe working conditions, equitable treatment, and fair remuneration to their employees. Leveraging market incentives, such as customer demand for certified ethical companies, may drive wider adoption of these standards and build an environment in which ethical conduct is rewarded and valued.
Environmental Accountability: Protocols might include methods to mitigate the environmental effect of blockchain technology, particularly energy-intensive activities such as bitcoin mining. Projects that consume an excessive amount of energy may face penalties. At the same time, incentives such as lower transaction costs or awards might be offered to projects that have smaller carbon footprints or use sustainable techniques. Furthermore, mandated carbon offsets for blockchain operations might accelerate decarbonisation by guaranteeing that the technology advances in accordance with global climate goals.
Integrating human rights with blockchain technology has the potential to transform global government. Unlike the existing system, which relies on territorial nations to enforce laws, blockchains have the potential to build decentralised, enforceable agreements. For example, a blockchain mortgage contract linked to green energy adoption would enforce compliance through automated incentives and penalties. Similarly, governments may suffer inevitable consequences for breaking global rules, such as war crimes.
While blockchain’s ability to bypass governments is frequently criticised, its ability to enforce rights autonomously provides an alternative to failing international systems. It has the potential to fill gaps in state-led governance by creating accountability mechanisms in contexts where traditional legal frameworks fall short.
Decentralisation and universality
Implementing human rights on blockchain involves both intellectual and practical obstacles. Rights are context-dependent, with differences among cultures and nations. Blockchain protocols, with their universal logic, must carefully balance this conflict. Advocates offer flexible and tiered approaches:
Protocol-Level Rights: Core blockchain systems may include generally accepted rights, such as those mentioned in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, into their fundamental protocols. This adoption would ensure that the system respects fundamental human rights, such as freedom, equality, and non-discrimination, across all applications. Embedding these principles at the protocol level would establish a worldwide norm for ethical blockchain use and increase user confidence.
Contextual Rights: Individual blockchain applications may complement these universal rights by including extra, specialised rights appropriate to their use cases. For example, a supply chain application may contain employment standards or environmental impact rights, whereas a hospital application may emphasise data protection and informed consent. Using common libraries for these extensions will provide uniformity throughout the ecosystem, making it easy for developers to apply these rights and for users to comprehend their safeguards.
Grievance Mechanisms: Blockchain systems may empower users by including built-in grievance procedures that allow them to report and settle conflicts directly on the platform. These techniques might use decentralised juries—groups of unbiased peers chosen via smart contracts—to provide transparent and enforceable outcomes. By combining decentralisation and accountability, these grievance mechanisms might increase trust and justice in blockchain ecosystems.
The path forward
The creation of a rights-driven blockchain ecosystem necessitates coordination among stakeholders, including developers, users, governments, and advocacy organisations. Key tactics include:
Industry Self-Regulation: Blockchain engineers might organise professional guilds to define and enforce ethical norms similar to those found in medicine and law. These guilds might encourage best practices, ensuring that blockchain designs include protections against abuses such as exploitation and privacy infringement. Self-regulation that promotes accountability and prioritises human rights safeguards has the potential to steer the sector towards ethical innovation.
User Activism: Communities can demand rights-respecting protocols, similar to artist-led campaigns for decarbonised NFT markets. By rejecting immoral platforms and supporting ethical ones, consumers may put pressure on developers to prioritise transparency, fair practices, and human rights safeguards. Grassroots campaigning may provide ethical design a competitive advantage in the blockchain ecosystem.
State Intervention: Governments can regulate blockchain use by mandating respect to human rights standards, such as transparency and equal access while preserving decentralisation. Targeted laws might enforce accountability while respecting the unique structure of blockchain, creating a regulatory framework that connects blockchain innovation with social and environmental concerns.
A new era of governance
Blockchains are the cornerstone of a new global order. Blockchain technology has the potential to undermine old power hierarchies by using decentralised enforcement mechanisms, empowering people over nation-states. It describes scenarios in which blockchains dissuade military aggression or enforce environmental obligations, demonstrating their ability to overcome systemic global problems.
However, this promise is contingent on proactive, rights-centered design. Without it, blockchains may exacerbate current imbalances and injustices. The issue remains: will blockchain proponents rise to the task of creating systems that promote, not weaken, humanity’s hard-won rights?
