Digital governance represents the newest and most rapidly evolving challenge for international institutions, with technology development outpacing regulatory frameworks. This webinar brought together academic researchers and civil society practitioners to examine how AI and cyberspace governance can integrate democratic values while managing increased fragmentation and an unstable multilateral context.
The panelists included:
- Federica Marconi, Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Wade Hoxtell, Global Public Policy Institute
- Matteo Bursi, Istituto Affari Internazionali
- Nadia Tjahja, Brussels School of Governance
- Esther Meester, European Center for Not-for-Profit Law
Moderator: Andrew Firmin, CIVICUS
Key Frameworks and Developments
Federica outlined how 2025 represented a critical juncture, with both the UN Open-Ended Working Group and Internet Governance Forum approaching mandate renewals. A new permanent UN Global Cybersecurity mechanism started in March 2026, shifting focus from norm-setting to implementation through dedicated thematic groups on ICT security and capacity building. However, major divergences remain, with EU and US favouring the application of existing international law to cyberspace, while Russia and China advocate for new treaties enshrining cyberspace sovereignty.
Wade presented the Council of Europe's Framework Convention on AI as the first legally binding global AI regulation, signed by 45 countries. While requiring AI development consistent with human rights, it has critical gaps: it doesn't automatically bind private companies and excludes national security uses. The US pushed for the private sector exemption while EU member states insisted on exemption for national security issues.
Regarding cryptocurrency regulation, Matteo described a paradox: For over a decade, multilateral bodies have developed restrictive rules treating cryptocurrency as a threat, with the US leading this approach. But Donald Trump's re-election transformed US policy to one that is more pro-cryptocurrency, refusing to adopt the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision (BCBS) standards. This created “huge confusion” globally as countries questioned whether to maintain strict regulation or follow the US-led shift.
Check out ENSURED's research reports on these topics:
- Regulating Cyberspace: UN Consensus-Building in a Fragmented Digital World
- The Shifting Sands of Cryptocurrency Regulation: A Path Towards Global Cooperation
- Global AI Regulation at a Time of Transformation: The Council of Europe’s Framework Convention on Artificial Intelligence
Participation Barriers
Esther detailed severe limitations in the Framework Convention on AI negotiations. States created a separate drafting group open only to state parties, with texts shared only days before discussions. From a civil society perspective, “we didn't know the position of individual member states, we didn't always understand the rationale behind certain draft texts,” making it “very difficult to have a meaningful contribution.” Wade noted civil society was excluded from drafting entirely, with classified documents preventing consultation. “The effect was that a process described as multi-stakeholder produced a text shaped almost entirely by state interests.”
Nadia also highlighted participation barriers for youth, with many processes being on an “if-you-know-you-know” basis, with short consultation windows of ten days to two weeks. The UN Global Mechanism allows civil society to sign up for only ten days once every 5 years, which can be problematic since advocacy groups typically last 2-3 years. Varying definitions of “youth” across regions create further unnecessary barriers, while self-identification issues exclude young parents and professionals who don't always consider themselves to be youth.
From a civil society perspective, “we didn't know the position of individual member states, we didn't always understand the rationale behind certain draft texts,” making it “very difficult to have a meaningful contribution.”
Esther noted that there is an important trade-off regarding consensus and standards, as the “search for consensus led to watering down” of some standards. Data protection rights became principles rather than directly guaranteed rights. But regional influence can have spillover effects, such as when the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) led to regulatory adaptations globally due to desired interactions with EU member states. “In some cases, we should stick to higher standards at the cost of fragmentation” she concluded.
Strategies for the Future
Matteo remained cautiously optimistic despite US policy shifts. Common rules on anti-money laundering and terrorism financing are likely to continue but will be “less ambitious than what it wasinitially thought.” He noted cryptocurrency enthusiasm appears to be waning even within the US’s Republican Party due to commercial bank lobbying as they view it as a threat to their business.
Esther advocated for shifting “from advocacy to enforcement” on cyberspace issues, which would include monitoring implementation, creating guidelines and pursuing strategic litigation. At the global level, organisations must examine benchmarks and evaluation outcomes of principles like the UN Global Digital Compact. She stressed building global coalitions to ensure diverse populations’ needs are addressed.
Wade emphasised that the treaty’s survival depends on diverse ratifications beyond Europe, serious domestic implementation and an ambitiously designed Conference of the Parties with meaningful civil society participation and real accountability mechanisms. Even without broad ratification, “a legally binding instrument that embeds human rights, democracy and the rule of law sets a good baseline.”
“If we are starting to ban platforms without a strong understanding of why and how and to protect, then digital citizenship will suffer.”
Nadia called for focusing on “digital citizenship at all ages”, especially given increasing social media bans. “If we are starting to ban platforms without a strong understanding of why and how and to protect, then digital citizenship will suffer.” She encouraged including governance processes in education curriculums to empower people to actively shape the digital world.
On a final note, Federica emphasised civil society’s crucial role in bringing attention to transparency, human rights, inclusion and accountability especially in spaces where the discussion can otherwise become dominated by states or by private sector interests. Matteo stressed advocating for transparency in technical bodies like the Basel Committee and Financial Stability Board, noting “it was even difficult to have the chance to obtain an interview” with staff. The webinar concluded with calls for civil society to pool knowledge, build global coalitions, engage at both framework and company levels using appropriate language and maintain pressure across multiple levels to defend democratic governance in the digital age.
Missed the webinar? Watch it here:
About the ENSURED Webinars
In Conversation with Civil Society is a year-long webinar series exploring how global governance institutions can become more effective, robust, and democratic. Each session brings together ENSURED researchers, policymakers and civil society leaders to discuss practical reform pathways across seven key policy areas. Through a conversational format, the series connects ENSURED’s research with the experience of civil society actors, identifying political opportunities for institutional change and highlighting where advocacy can have the greatest impact — especially across fragmented governance landscapes and persistent North–South divides.
The webinar series is coordinated and facilitated by CIVICUS.
Photo: Chris Yang / Unsplash
.png)
