Many thanks, Sara 🎉

Thanks a lot, Flavia! 💫

This gives rise to a “decentred dereliction”:

The ethics discourse cascades PeaceTech's adverse effects downwards to affected communities, increasing the chances that the objectives of digital peacebuilding will be abandoned.

This matters for practitioners, policymakers & IR scholars alike.

5/5

In this cascade:

Higher-level actors handle abstract and systemic risks.

Lower-level actors—often with fewer resources—face personal, tangible risks. They must choose: accept risks to keep PeaceTech running, or reduce risks and undermine peacebuilding objectives.

4/5

Based on an in-depth document analysis, we uncover how the discourse frames risks, suggests responses, and attributes responsibilities.

This leads to a cascading of moral responsibility from the international to the local, from the public to the private sector, and from orgs to end users.

3/5

PeaceTech holds promise—but also poses risks.

In recent years, many practice-oriented publications have explored how to use digital technologies ethically in peacebuilding.

But beyond what it says, what does this ethics discourse actually do?

2/5