MECM90002 · Global Data Policy And Governance
IGOs and the Future
When a problem is genuinely transnational, governance climbs above the nation-state to the intergovernmental organisation (IGO) — bodies that rarely command and mostly coordinate, standardise and persuade. The chapter maps who owns which lever and how old it is: the ITU (1865, the oldest, spectrum and orbital slots), the OECD (influential soft law, the AI Principles), UNESCO (platform/AI guidelines, home of the McBride Report), the WTO/GATS (data as ‘trade in services’ — the institutional anchor of the market philosophy) and WIPO (IP). The central tension is soft law vs hard law: non-binding norms (the OECD AI Principles — flexible, fast, but toothless) against binding treaties (the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime — enforceable, but slow and rigid). On top sits Gorwa’s typology of intervention by who acts — governments, platforms, IGOs, civil society. The course closes on a single diagnosis — technology is outpacing the regulators (‘Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0’) — and five future issues (algorithmic bias, data divides, AI scraping, personal data sovereignty beyond GDPR) that are the richest seam for an essay because the law is still being written.
What this chapter covers
- 01The IGO layer — ITU, OECD, UNESCO, WTO/GATS, WIPO
- 02Why the ITU's age (1865) matters
- 03Soft law vs hard law — the trade-off at the heart of global governance
- 04The OECD AI Principles vs the Budapest Convention
- 05Gorwa's four-level intervention typology (who acts)
- 06The 'Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0' diagnosis
- 07Five future issues — bias, data divides, scraping, data sovereignty beyond GDPR
Worked example: choose the instrument — soft law or hard law? (the case-study pivot)
- +1State the trade-off. Soft law is quick, cheap and flexible but toothless; hard law is enforceable but slow, rigid and entangled in ratification politics — flexibility without teeth, or teeth without speed?
- +1Match the harm to the instrument. Fast-moving AI disinformation favours soft law’s pace — the OECD AI Principles model (the first intergovernmental AI standard, 47 adherents, a common vocabulary that makes national rules interoperable).
- +1Note when hard law is reached for. Binding treaties appear where the harm is grave and enforcement essential — the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is the named example.
- +1Place the actor in Gorwa’s typology. Identify the level — governments, platforms, IGOs, or civil society — and the matching toolkit (here, an IGO acting through soft law).
- +1Frame against the future diagnosis. Concede the ‘Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0’ gap: whichever instrument you choose, technology is outpacing it — so argue for the one that can keep pace.
Key terms
- Intergovernmental organisation (IGO)
- A body of member states that governs transnational problems above the nation-state — it rarely commands, mostly coordinating, standardising and persuading. The course’s cluster: the ITU (1865, spectrum), the OECD (soft law / AI Principles), UNESCO (guidelines), the WTO/GATS (data as trade) and WIPO (IP).
- Soft law
- Non-binding norms — recommendations, guidelines, codes, standards. Quick, cheap and flexible enough to keep pace with technology, but with no teeth: compliance is voluntary. It is the IGO’s natural register because it sidesteps the sovereignty objections that stall treaties; the OECD AI Principles (2019/2024, 47 adherents) are the model case.
- Hard law
- Binding instruments — treaties and statutes that create real legal obligations and remedies. Enforceable, but slow to negotiate, rigid, hard to update, and subject to ratification politics. Reached for where harm is grave and enforcement essential; the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime (ETS No. 185) is the named example.
- Gorwa's intervention typology
- R. Gorwa’s (2019) platform-governance typology organising every possible intervention by who acts: governments (laws, bans, taxes, infrastructure), platforms (self-governance and external governance), IGOs (soft law, hard law, forums), and civil society. It is the course’s map for locating any actor and its toolkit.
- 'Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0'
- The OECD’s shorthand for the course’s closing diagnosis: technological development is outpacing the regulators. It frames the five future issues — algorithmic bias, data divides, AI scraping, and personal data sovereignty beyond GDPR — as the richest seam for an essay, because the law there is still being written.
IGOs and the Future FAQ
Why does the IGO layer rely mostly on soft law?
Because soft law is the IGO’s natural register. It can be drafted, agreed and revised far faster than a treaty, keeps pace with technology, and sidesteps the sovereignty objections that stall binding instruments. The OECD AI Principles are the model: the first intergovernmental AI standard, voluntarily adhered to by 47 jurisdictions, providing a common vocabulary that makes national rules interoperable even though none is compelled.
When is hard law worth the cost?
Where the harm is grave and enforcement is essential. Binding treaties create real obligations and remedies — the Budapest Convention on Cybercrime is the named example — but you pay for that with slow negotiation, rigidity, difficulty updating, and ratification politics. The case-study pivot is choosing deliberately: flexibility without teeth, or teeth without speed?
Why does it matter that the ITU dates from 1865?
Because age maps to entrenched power. The ITU began as the International Telegraph Union and still allocates spectrum and orbital slots — first-come-first-served advantages that locked in early incumbents. It lets you place any contemporary measure in a long institutional lineage, and it connects to the W5 thesis that ‘those in power stay in power’.
Why are the 'future issues' the best material for an essay?
Because the law is still being written, so there is genuine argument to make rather than settled doctrine to summarise. Algorithmic bias (Buolamwini, Noble), data divides, AI scraping, and personal data sovereignty beyond GDPR are live, contested and under-regulated — the ‘Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0’ gap is exactly where a sharp, narrow, contestable thesis can earn the most marks.
Exam move
Learn the IGO cluster as ‘who owns which lever, and how old it is’ — the ITU (spectrum), OECD (AI Principles), UNESCO (guidelines), WTO/GATS (data as trade), WIPO (IP) — and tie the WTO to the market philosophy from Ch 2. Make the soft-law/hard-law trade-off your case-study pivot (OECD AI Principles vs the Budapest Convention), and use Gorwa’s four-level typology to locate any actor and its toolkit. Mine the five future issues for an essay: because the law is still being written, they are where a sharp, contestable thesis earns the most marks — frame them against the ‘Technology 4.0 vs Policy 1.0’ diagnosis and reach for the canonical bias scholars (Buolamwini, Noble) as load-bearing citations.
