Digital Rights and the State of Exception. Internet Shutdowns from the Perspective of Just Securitization Theory

Abstract

Addressing cases from Cameroon, Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Indonesia, Iran, Nigeria, Pakistan, Spain, Togo, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Zimbabwe, this article discusses the global phenomenon of internet shutdowns (ISs) from the normative perspective of Just Securitization Theory (JST). It focuses on the conflict between arguments used to justify ISs and the negative impact of ISs regarding fundamental and human rights. This article develops strict criteria for when ISs might be legitimate as extraordinary security measures in emergency situations. Following JST, these criteria are based on citizens' right to physical integrity, the expectation of reasonable success, proportionality, harm minimization, and specificity. I argue that it is not legitimate to use ISs to enact collective punishment, preemptive censorship, or hamper legitimate political protests. While denying the legitimacy of the vast majority of ISs on these grounds, I sketch four exceptional scenarios ("WhatsApp lynchings,""US Capitol 2021,""Computer virus,"and "False alarm") in which ISs can be legitimate. JST also includes states' duty to desecuritize once a threat has been neutralized. In this way, a balanced discussion of ISs as an exceptional measure from the perspective of JST contributes to the establishment of a customary positive human right to digital connectivity in the normal situation.