New Technologies in International Law / Tymofeyeva, Crhák et al.

a state obligation to prevent from the risks, harms and effects of science that would be contrary to the enjoyment of human rights. Conversely, it has been argued that the duty of anticipation contained within the right to science is twofold. It does indeed include a duty to anticipate and protect from the risks of harm, but at the same time it contains a duty to identify the opportunities for the benefits of science and its applications. 774 It is noteworthy to consider how this can be applied to digital agriculture. First, we need to establish that digital agriculture falls under the protection guaranteed by the right to science. Digital agriculture may fall under the term “benefits” in the iteration of the right: “everyone has a right “to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications”. According to the CESCR, “benefits” include both “material results of the applications of scientific research” 775 but also to the derivatives of scientific activity i.e. scientific knowledge and information. 776 Thus, both the hardware and software that are used in the context of digital agriculture are covered by the term “benefits of scientific progress and its applications”. Moreover, under the obligation to fulfil the right to science, and according to the CESCR, states are under the obligation to remove hurdles that persons may face in accessing the benefits of science. 777 This merits our attention as it would mean that additionally, states have an important role to play with regard to the hurdles that farmers may face in accessing digital agriculture technology. These include for example the digital divide, with access to internet, smartphones and other useful equipment not being available to all, especially not in the less developed countries. 778 Furthermore, hurdles also include the issue of digital literacy of the population, with the rural poor being at a disadvantage. 779 Thus, in order to comply with their obligations under the right to science, states will have to aim to also address the underlying prerequisites that will affect the access to digital agriculture technology since accessibility is part of the right to science, with the CESCR underlining that “scientific progress and its applications should be accessible for all persons, without discrimination”. 780 This is particularly important given the power imbalances and inequalities that have been mentioned in relation to the diffusion of digital agriculture, which has so far focused on industrialized big farms. Concludingly, our takeaways from an analysis of the human right to science state obligations should be that it is for the states to uptake measures to protect from the negative effects that digital agriculture might have on the enjoyment of human rights. 774 Müller A, ‘Anticipation under the human right to science (HRS): sketching the public institutional framework. The example of scientific responses to the appearance of SARS-CoV-2’ (2024) 28(3) The International Journal of Human Rights 439, p. 445. 775 GC 25 (n 766), para 8. 776 Ibid. 777 GC 25 (n 766), para 47. 778 Ye L and Yang H, ‘From Digital Divide to Social Inclusion: A Tale of Mobile Platform Empowerment in Rural Areas’ (2020) 12 Sustainability 1, p. 1. 779 Hackfort S, ‘Patterns of Inequalities in Digital Agriculture: A Systematic Literature Review’ (2021) 13 Sustainability 1, p. 6. 780 GC 25 (n 766), para 17.

189