Lightning Talk #143 Fundamental Rights in Metaverse

Summary

This discussion focused on the need for constitutional frameworks and governance structures to regulate the emerging metaverse and virtual reality environments. The speakers argued that as society transitions from 2D to 3D virtual worlds, with predictions that 70% of UK students will spend at least one hour daily in virtual environments by 2026, new regulatory approaches are necessary. They emphasized that traditional physical-world laws, which rely on geographical boundaries and physical presence, may be inadequate for governing virtual spaces where crimes like sexual assault and harassment are already occurring without physical contact.

The panelists highlighted significant human rights concerns in digital spaces, noting that current protections established in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not fully address modern challenges like algorithmic decision-making, data privacy violations, and digital identity protection. They provided examples of real-world cases, including a 2024 incident in England where police investigated a reported sexual assault of a digital avatar in the metaverse, demonstrating the practical challenges courts face in determining jurisdiction and applying existing laws to virtual crimes.

The speakers proposed developing international frameworks similar to existing UN covenants on civil and political rights, specifically tailored for metaverse governance. They suggested a hybrid regulatory model combining centralized oversight with decentralized blockchain-based mechanisms to protect rights while avoiding monopolistic control. The discussion emphasized that as human experience increasingly shifts toward virtual environments, the psychological and social impacts of virtual interactions require the same legal protections as physical-world activities. The panelists concluded that while existing legal institutions could address approximately 90% of virtual world issues with proper adaptation, new international dialogue and cooperation are essential to establish common ethical standards and governance principles for the metaverse.

Keypoints

## Major Discussion Points:

– **Evolution and necessity of constitutions for the metaverse**: The speakers argue that as society transitions from 2D to 3D virtual worlds, traditional constitutional frameworks developed for physical spaces may be inadequate for governing virtual environments, necessitating new constitutional thinking for metaverse governance.

– **Human rights protection in virtual spaces**: Discussion of whether existing human rights frameworks (like the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are sufficient to protect individuals in digital spaces, or if new rights need to be established for virtual identities, digital personas, and protection from AI-driven decision making.

– **Legal jurisdiction and enforcement challenges**: Examination of how traditional laws based on geography and physical presence struggle to address crimes in virtual spaces (such as virtual sexual assault), and the complexities of determining which courts have jurisdiction over metaverse-related offenses.

– **Regulatory approaches and governance models**: Debate over whether the metaverse should be regulated through centralized control (like a single company), decentralized blockchain-based systems, or a hybrid model that combines both approaches while maintaining oversight from real-world legal systems.

– **Psychological and social impacts of virtual experiences**: Recognition that virtual experiences can cause real psychological trauma and that the distinction between physical and virtual harm is becoming increasingly blurred, requiring new ethical frameworks to address these impacts.

## Overall Purpose:

The discussion aims to explore the need for constitutional and legal frameworks specifically designed for the metaverse, examining how traditional governance structures must evolve to address the unique challenges posed by immersive virtual environments while protecting human rights and maintaining social order.

## Overall Tone:

The discussion maintains an academic and thoughtful tone throughout, with the speakers presenting complex legal and philosophical concepts in an accessible manner. The tone is collaborative and exploratory rather than prescriptive, with speakers building upon each other’s points. There’s a sense of urgency about addressing these issues proactively, but the overall approach remains measured and scholarly. The speakers demonstrate mutual respect and engage constructively with audience questions, maintaining the academic discourse style from beginning to end.

Speakers

– **Avinash Dadhich**: Professor of law, expertise in constitutional law and governance

– **Anurag Vijay**: Legal expert with focus on human rights and digital rights

– **Utkarsh Leo**: Teacher/academic in England, expertise in law and metaverse regulation

– **Audience**: Conference attendee asking questions about jurisdiction and criminal cases in virtual worlds

– **Sofransky Octavian**: Works with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg, involved in metaverse ethics and human rights research

Additional speakers:

None identified beyond the provided speakers names list.

# Constitutional Frameworks for Metaverse Governance: A Comprehensive Discussion Report

## Introduction

This report presents a detailed analysis of a scholarly discussion held at the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) on the urgent need for constitutional frameworks and governance structures to regulate emerging metaverse and virtual reality environments. The panel brought together speakers to examine how traditional legal systems must evolve to address the unique challenges posed by immersive 3D virtual worlds.

The discussion was prompted by the rapid adoption of virtual environments, with observations that more than 70% of students in the UK will spend at least one hour daily in virtual worlds. This technological shift from 2D internet interactions to immersive 3D experiences has created unprecedented legal and ethical challenges that existing governance frameworks struggle to address.

## Key Participants and Their Perspectives

**Professor Avinash Dadhich**, a constitutional law expert, opened the discussion with “Om, may God bless everyone, bring peace, wisdom and harmony” before providing extensive historical context for constitutional evolution. He noted that Greek civilizations had “more than hundred types of constitutions” and that humanity survived “without constitutions for almost like half of our civilization.” His perspective emphasized that existing legal institutions could handle approximately 90% of metaverse issues if society adjusts its mindset to recognize virtual experiences as equally real to physical ones.

**Anurag Vijay**, specializing in human rights and digital rights, began with an anecdote about a child asking a former U.S. president about surveillance, highlighting digital privacy concerns. He focused on the inadequacy of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights for addressing modern digital complexities and advocated for developing new categories of digital rights, including “right to be forgotten by any website, the right to disconnect from the digital platforms, to erase one digital’s footprint.” He shared a personal example of discussing Rado watches and subsequently seeing targeted advertisements, illustrating current privacy challenges.

**Utkarsh Leo**, an academic with expertise in metaverse regulation, referenced Jesse Valente’s work and Eleanor Rostrom’s polycentric governance concept while presenting practical legal challenges through real-world case studies. He highlighted an incident in England where an influencer reported sexual assault of a digital avatar to police, demonstrating the fundamental differences between virtual and physical legal frameworks.

## Major Discussion Themes

### Constitutional Evolution and Historical Context

Professor Dadhich established that constitutions have evolved throughout history and now require another evolutionary step to address 3D virtual worlds. He distinguished between formal constitutional documents and the actual spirit of constitutional governance, emphasizing that “constitution is not supreme, the people’s will is supreme.”

Dadhich provided crucial historical perspective, noting that Greek civilizations experimented with numerous constitutional forms and that humanity functioned without formal constitutions for much of its existence. He predicted that current mobile devices “will be museum, maybe next 10, 15, 20 years” as virtual reality becomes dominant, mentioning that Meta is already offering free Rayburn experiences.

This philosophical foundation established that effective metaverse governance would require not just written rules, but genuine legitimacy derived from popular acceptance. The speakers agreed that traditional constitutional frameworks, developed for physical spaces with geographical boundaries, face fundamental challenges when applied to borderless virtual environments.

### Human Rights in Digital Spaces and New Categories of Rights

A significant portion of the discussion focused on whether existing human rights frameworks adequately protect individuals in virtual environments. Anurag Vijay argued that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not be comprehensive enough for digital complexities and AI-driven environments.

Vijay identified several emerging categories of digital rights that require recognition and protection:

– The right to be forgotten by any website

– The right to disconnect from digital platforms

– The right to erase one’s digital footprint

– Protection from automated decision-making

– Digital identity protection

– Protection of virtual personas

The discussion revealed that people have both physical and digital personas requiring simultaneous protection in virtual environments, highlighting the complexity of protecting individuals who exist across multiple reality layers. This dual existence creates unprecedented challenges for rights protection, as harm in virtual spaces can cause real psychological trauma while traditional legal frameworks focus primarily on physical harm.

### Legal Jurisdiction and Virtual Crime Enforcement

The discussion revealed significant practical challenges in applying existing legal frameworks to virtual crimes. Utkarsh Leo presented a compelling real-world case where an influencer in England reported sexual assault of a digital avatar to police, raising fundamental questions about whether current laws are adequate for regulating virtual spaces.

This case highlighted several unresolved legal questions:

– Which courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed in virtual spaces that span multiple countries?

– How should legal systems define and prosecute crimes like sexual assault when no physical contact occurs but psychological trauma results?

– Are traditional legal definitions of crimes adequate for virtual environments?

The speakers noted that current laws based on geography and physical presence struggle to address these challenges, revealing significant gaps in documented legal precedents for handling metaverse-related crimes.

### Governance Models and Hybrid Approaches

The discussion explored various approaches to metaverse governance, with speakers proposing different models for effective regulation. Utkarsh Leo, drawing on Eleanor Rostrom’s polycentric governance concept, advocated for hybrid governance models combining centralized oversight with blockchain-based distributed consensus mechanisms.

Anurag Vijay emphasized that international cooperation is needed to develop common standards while respecting national sovereignty. This perspective recognized that effective metaverse governance requires coordination across traditional jurisdictional boundaries while maintaining respect for existing legal systems.

Professor Dadhich offered a more optimistic view of existing institutions, suggesting that current legal frameworks could handle most metaverse issues if society adjusts its mindset to recognize virtual experiences as real. This position advocated for adaptation rather than wholesale replacement of current frameworks.

## Areas of Agreement and Key Tensions

The speakers demonstrated consensus on several fundamental issues. All participants agreed that existing governance frameworks are inadequate for fully regulating the metaverse and that new approaches are necessary. They unanimously recognized that virtual experiences can cause real psychological harm requiring legal protection.

There was strong agreement on the necessity of international cooperation for effective metaverse governance, with speakers emphasizing collaborative approaches that balance centralized coordination with distributed mechanisms.

However, significant disagreements emerged regarding implementation strategies. The primary tension was between adaptation and innovation approaches. Professor Dadhich believed existing institutions could handle most metaverse problems with appropriate mindset changes, while Utkarsh Leo argued that the metaverse’s fundamental differences require separate governance frameworks.

Another disagreement concerned the scope of rights evolution. While some suggested that rights might need clarification and extension rather than complete reinvention, Anurag Vijay advocated for creating entirely new categories of digital rights.

## Audience Engagement and Additional Perspectives

The discussion included meaningful audience participation. Sofransky Octavian from the Council of Europe contributed insights on metaverse ethics and the challenge of extending ethical boundaries in virtual environments while maintaining societal regulation. His question highlighted the tension between allowing freedom of virtual experience and maintaining social order.

Other audience members raised questions about existing criminal cases in virtual worlds, revealing gaps in established procedures for handling metaverse-related legal issues.

## Unresolved Challenges and Future Directions

The discussion identified several critical unresolved issues requiring further attention. Jurisdictional questions remain paramount: which courts have authority over crimes committed in virtual spaces across international boundaries? How should legal systems prosecute crimes when no physical harm occurs but psychological trauma results?

Definitional challenges also persist. Current legal definitions of crimes may be inadequate for virtual environments, and societies must balance allowing people to experience things in virtual worlds that they cannot in real life while maintaining ethical boundaries.

Technical and governance questions remain unresolved, including how to ensure effective governance while preventing monopolistic control of metaverse spaces and determining the extent to which virtual experiences should be treated as equivalent to physical experiences in legal frameworks.

## Key Insights and Paradigm Shifts

Several observations during the discussion provided particularly profound insights. Professor Dadhich’s statement that “constitution is not supreme, the people’s will is supreme” established a philosophical foundation emphasizing legitimacy over formal structures, crucial for understanding how governance might work in virtual spaces.

His prediction that “the biggest achievement of AI would be how to bring human experience in the 3D world” identified that real transformation will come from truly immersive virtual experiences rather than current AI applications.

Utkarsh Leo’s concrete example of virtual sexual assault grounded the abstract discussion in urgent practical reality, demonstrating that virtual harm can cause real psychological trauma and challenging traditional legal definitions requiring physical presence.

As Professor Dadhich observed, “in the 21st century now, the entire game is the mind. The physical world is diminishing,” highlighting a fundamental paradigm shift that demands new approaches to governance and rights protection.

## Conclusion

This comprehensive discussion demonstrated that metaverse governance represents one of the most significant legal and ethical challenges of the contemporary era. The speakers’ analysis revealed that while existing legal institutions may be adaptable to address many virtual world issues, the fundamental nature of immersive 3D environments requires new approaches to rights protection, jurisdiction, and international cooperation.

The urgency of these issues is underscored by the rapid adoption of virtual environments and the emergence of real legal cases involving virtual crimes. The discussion’s combination of historical context, theoretical insights, and practical examples provides a foundation for future policy development, while the areas of both agreement and disagreement among experts highlight the complexity of challenges ahead.

Success in developing effective metaverse governance will require continued dialogue among legal experts, technologists, policymakers, and civil society to create frameworks that protect human dignity while enabling the beneficial potential of virtual environments. The transition from physical to virtual-dominant experiences demands proactive development of governance frameworks that can maintain social order and protect rights across both physical and virtual realms.

Avinash Dadhich: You can start, you can start, yeah, so who will start now, I think, yes, go ahead, okay, Om, may God bless everyone, bring peace, wisdom and harmony. I think these are more required things than intelligence and knowledge now. Today we are going to talk about constitution for metaverse, because we like constitutions. Constitution is not a new concept. If you go back in history and you will find that the Greek civilization, they used to have more than hundred types of constitutions. So it was always a very fancy idea that can we govern our people through constitution. Then it failed. Then it failed. In Roman Empire, we didn’t see much influence of the constitution. And then after 4th century, I think the first constitution we became in quite late, 18th, 19th century. So we survived without constitutions for almost like half of our civilization. But then we got this idea, yes, we need constitution. Then we designed our constitutions, and our constitutions are based on some very liberal idea like the democracy, rule of law, and it worked very well. In physical world, more or less, many people might feel, oh, it’s not working because still we are seeing a lot of wars and this war, that war, but they need to go back in history and see that we used to have maybe 10 to 20 times more war. Countries are still going for war and they will keep going, but within that country, people can resist, people can protest that we don’t want to go for war or we support this war because of the constitutional provisions. Constitution gives them right to say yes or no, and constitution gives them right to change the government in most of the countries. But then when we move from the physical world to virtual world, from 2D to 3D, then things started changing because we are very used to have the experience of 2D. We know what is 2D, but when we move to 3D, we love it, we like it, but still we don’t know how to react, how to behave, and what are the psychological, social, and political consequences of 3D world. This is a new development, but we are all excited. So research says that by 2026, more than 70% of students in UK, they will be in the virtual world, in the 3D world for at least one hour in a day. And I think if you want to experience the 3D world, please go to Meta, I think they are giving you free experience of Rayburn, it’s a very good marketing. So it’s everywhere, and that’s the future. I think the mobile or devices which we are having right now, very soon they will be museum, maybe next 10, 15, 20 years we will be a museum of mobiles, and then there will be a virtual world where people will be interacting. This is the future, whether we like or not. So we are moving to 3D, this is certain, no doubt. And the biggest achievement of AI would not be generative AI, people are losing interest in generative AI. But the biggest achievement of AI would be how to bring human experience in the 3D world. Can you touch and feel? Can you have the same experience of 2D in 3D? That would be the biggest achievement of AI. It’s going to happen. Now we want to regulate it, this is like normal human reaction, you know, whenever something new comes we say let’s regulate it. And then for the regulation, we have different types of ways, all well-tested formulas which we started developing in 19th century, then we did very perfection in the last century where we were able to make some very good laws and regulations at the international and regional level. And we want to try the same formula for 3D world. But I don’t think that it’s going to work because 21st century, I’m talking about 2030 when we will be in real 3D world and most of us will be living in that 3D world for at least few hours in a day. At that time, I think this idea will be very relevant, maybe not now, but this idea is getting momentum that do we need constitution for the metaverse. And when I say constitution, it’s not about laws and regulations. Please let me know when it’s only one minute left. I’m a professor of law so it’s very difficult to stop, you know, like we like to give lecture for one hour, two hours, and you guys are listening me so this is more dangerous. You know, if you keep watching your mobile, then I say, oh, they are not interested, but you are listening me. Thank you very much. Please let me know when it’s one minute. So constitution, first we need to understand the meaning of constitution. The meaning of constitution in Greek civilization was very different. When the Plato, Aristotle and the Greek philosophers, they talked about what is the best way of governing the people. And then they started designing constitution. And when the Plato studied around 200 constitutions in small states. But that meaning was not like it would be binding on the king. It’s more guiding factor for the king. But now the modern constitution, at least in most of the countries, is about that constitution is supreme. The political forces or any force within the state is not about the constitution. And it means that constitution is not a book because we have constitution in some very interesting countries. I don’t want to name them, you know them. So having an election or having a written constitution or having some press or some media doesn’t make someone a country having real constitution. So it’s more about the spirit of constitution. The spirit of constitution is nothing but human, people. If people are buying that constitution, then constitution sustains. If people are not giving respect to that constitution, then other forces will prevail. So constitution is not supreme, the people’s will is supreme. So when I talk about this globalization, and definitely we are moving back now. So I’m sorry to say this is IGF and I have great respect for IGF because why I love this organization or this conference because I meet good people. They are normal people. They are the people who are working on ground. They are not people who are working at top. There are some 10, 20 percent. We also need them, you know, for some symbolic reasons. But we have most of the people who are on ground, they are working for the people, with the people. It’s done? I will stop here.

Anurag Vijay: So taking from my friend, whatever he has to say, the constitution, the constitution itself, the fundamental law of any country and in most of the civilized countries now. But I’d start with an anecdote. A few years ago, I saw a meme on Facebook where a child was talking to a former U.S. president. The child had a question for the former U.S. president. snooping on us. The president asked, who told you? The child said, my dad says so. Prompt came the lie, he’s not your dad. He’s not your dad. So this is what I’m going to talk about, the concerns arising out of the growing impact of information technology, artificial intelligence, and in the world of metaverse. Now eight decades have elapsed since the Universal Declaration on Human Rights have been declared. Now the very potent question to this day is that that Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which were declared in 1948, is it still all encompassing to this day? Now with the complexities that has arisen out of digitization, has those been responded by way of evolution of those universal human rights, the fundamental rights? Fundamental rights, what is so fundamental about it? Of course, the aspect of inalienability of the fundamental rights. They are not, they are inalienable, they cannot be deprived of. Certain essential elements of the natural rights, the human rights, the civil, political and economic rights inform these fundamental rights. A big question is before us, the digital space, of course, is not a lawless zone, but it is enough to safeguarding those fundamental rights. Are we all protected in the age of AI? The answer is no. Now as our involvement in metaverse is deepening, safeguarding human rights is becoming increasingly critical. Our privacy, freedom of expression, identity, access to information is being affected by it. To my mind, it comes that human rights should be unaffected by the nature of technology. Physical space intersect with the rights in the virtual environments. But what if each country tries to control its own metaverse space? I think it will be problematic because some countries might differ on the definition of the metaverse, on the definition of freedom of speech and expression, on the definition of information. In this parallel world that we are living, we have our physical self, but we are also having our digital identity and digital persona. Now it is very important that by evolution or better interpretation of those universal declaration of human rights, we regulate, we ensure the protection of our digital identity, our digital persona, which are simultaneously protected in the virtual world as they are in our physical world. To name a few, the right to be forgotten by any website, the right to disconnect from the digital platforms, to erase one digital’s footprint, or the right to be shielded from automated decision-making by algorithms. I was speaking to my friend over phone about a Rado watch that I should get from here or maybe from Helsinki when I go back to India. The next day, ads were flashing all over my social media, Rado watches, Rolex watches, Omega. So what is this? We are being heard. Every now and then we are being heard. Do you think we need to be protected in that way? Because our decision is being influenced by the artificial intelligence. At this point of time, it is important for an intergovernmental forum, which does not affect the sovereignty of any nation. It is imperative that we develop an international dialogue. If we are doing it, we are not doing it enough. Maybe the nations should come together in terms of evolving a policy where a common ground is set and all those common grounds, common elements should inform our respective fundamental rights in our respective nations. So there is a need to develop a constitution for metaverse, constitution for interpersonal relationship for the public laws are very much in place, but there should be a constitution for metaverse. It is not new to United Nations to come with covenants. We have international covenants on civil and political rights. We have international covenants on child rights. So why not international covenants on regulation of fundamental rights? So certain aspects can be included in that, like informing those constitution, like setting up minimum privacy standards for virtual reality devices, requiring transparency about data use, whichever company or authority is soliciting your data, they should disclose that how your data is going to be used, and you should be apprised of it summarily, not in a big document where you tend to skip and tick agree at the end of it. So we have various stakeholders like this companies, civil society and international organization, they can come together and they can help us shape this common values as to the regulation of the metaverse. I would now hand over to my friend, colleague Utkarsh, who would be talking about the foundational principles that these rights should comprise of and some other aspects that he has to delve deep into it. Over to you, Utkarsh.

Utkarsh Leo: All right. Firstly, thank you so much for that. A very warm welcome, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Utkarsh Leo. You can call me Leo for the ease of pronouncing my name. The objective of this talk today is to give you an understanding about how the metaverse should be regulated. If you look at what the law is, the law is nothing but a set of rules that incentivizes behavior, right? In a way, law without sanctions has no value. We see that the society where we are living in, because of these rules and regulations, things tend to be in order, right? But now what’s happening is, firstly, after the internet revolution, once we are entering into Web 3.0, we have the metaverse, right? A 3D world which is interactive, a 3D world that is immersive. And if you’ve been following the news, what you will find is that there are offenses happening in this world. For instance, a few months ago, there was a person who was pinned down by digital avatars and was violated in the metaverse, right? So this does raise questions about whether the laws that we have right now, are they fit for regulating the metaverse? Because if you look at real world laws, they are based on geography. They are based on some form of physical presence. Consider murder. If murder happens, there is generally a dead body. There is a crime scene, perhaps a weapon, et cetera, et cetera. Can we replicate a same scenario in the metaverse? Well, technically, no one has died. So is the current world law fit enough to regulate murder in the metaverse because no one is dying? But what if I say that if I destroy your digital identity altogether? If I harass you to a point where you suffer from grave psychological trauma, can that be replicated or mimicked to some real-world offense? Even, you know, think about sexual assault. A lot of that is happening in the metaverse. If you look at any definition of sexual assault, it does require some form of physical proximity or some kind of physical contact. But in the metaverse, that is not there. So there is a need to question on how should this be regulated. Are current world laws enough to regulate it? If yes, which laws are? Which court has jurisdiction? I’m not sure if everyone here has a law background, but anyone who’s done conflict of laws understands that claiming jurisdiction has been quite a battle. I come from a commonwealth nation and judges often are innovative in terms of finding ways to get jurisdiction in a case. So step one is to look at whether the metaverse can be regulated with the current set of laws. Well, if that’s the case, I would like to draw a parallel to how the internet was regulated or was proposed to be regulated. When the internet was launched, or as it was called the cyberspace at that point, the idea was to make it a free place. A place that is free from the sovereign restrictions of countries. A place that has its own set of rules. But as we have started to use the internet more and more in our day-to-day lives, we all know that the internet is not completely free. It’s not operating in legal vacuum. It does operate under a set of laws. For instance, I’m basically from India, so if you say something against the government, then perhaps that message can be taken down. Because servers and other forms of infrastructure are present in the real world, and laws do play a critical role in terms of making sure that the internet is governed by a set of rules. If I say that if the internet is already being governed, why do we need a separate governance for the metaverse? Well, the real answer is because the metaverse is different from what the internet was. The internet was mostly 2D, whereas the metaverse is 3D, more immersive because of haptic technology. Even though sexual assault is not really happening in person, but with haptic technology, the person can definitely undergo psychological trauma. If a person is undergoing psychological trauma, then there has to be a set of laws that regulates that very behavior. A lot has been written on this topic, and I think Jesse Valente has done some very good work in terms of proposing how the metaverse should be regulated. He argues that if you look at the metaverse, and if you consider that it should be regulated in the very same way the internet was regulated, that argument falls flat because the internet and the metaverse are two separate things. Even though we are interacting over the internet, for instance, over Twitter or over LinkedIn, but that interaction is nothing in comparison to the immersive experience authored by the metaverse. So he says that there is a need to treat the metaverse as a separate jurisdiction. And this separate jurisdiction is, again, not completely lawless, but it needs to form a model which governs the relationship in a manner that works best for everyone. So, for instance, if you look at a more centralized-based model wherein there is one company, let’s just for the sake of saying, let’s say if meta has all control over the metaverse, then in a way we’re leading towards a more monopolistic form of a world where perhaps suppression can happen, right? Even though it could be good from a unified standpoint, let’s say perhaps because of a unified vision and also having access to infrastructure, but then it can create problems. Other proposals say that let’s have a very decentralized world which focuses on blockchain technology and a distributed consensus-based model to make sure that rights in the metaverse are regarded and respected. But both of them have their own positives and negatives. So the approach that is suggested is that it’s better to have a hybrid model wherein you may have a central entity, but at the same time certain rights are recognized through blockchain and distributed consensus-based mechanisms. And all of this, remember, is not happening in the vacuum of laws because you definitely need code supervision or domestic jurisdiction in the regular world to make sure that if, let’s say, some sort of sexual assault is happening in the metaverse, then there has to be actions in the real world because they’re both interconnected. Right. So I think with better dispute resolution methods incorporated in the metaverse, what Eleanor Rostrom mentioned in terms of polycentric governance, I think the way is right, but then we must be sure that to create this model we need a hybrid structure with respects, rights, and at the same time is different from how the Internet is regulated.

Avinash Dadhich: Absolutely. Perfect. If we have some questions, we can take questions for the next five minutes. Six minutes.

Audience: It was a very, very interesting presentation from all three of you. And I have a question specifically with regard to the challenge of jurisdiction but also potential crimes happening in the metaverse. Do you already have knowledge or examples of criminal situations that have happened in the virtual world and have been brought before judges and how they have been solved in practice? Because I’m intrigued as to the decisions on jurisdictions, control, I really do see effectively the need for clarification, at least in the regulation, specifically affecting the metaverse. But when it comes to rights, I mean, and you say the same rights that apply offline, apply online, obviously it’s a matter of adapting them to the new reality the same way as when the right to privacy was established. There were no computers, so eventually we had to elaborate on data protection. But it wasn’t, now it is coded, but it wasn’t a new right. It was a natural evolution of the previous right. So I would question that in terms of rights, we probably need to clarify and extend. But specifically, yes, I’m interested to hear if there are cases, practical cases, that have been brought to justice or are being investigated that you know of and that pose these questions. Thank you.

Utkarsh Leo: All right. Firstly, brilliant question. So my response to that has an answer and has a clarification. So with your question regarding offenses happening in the metaverse that is being investigated, I can give you an example from England where I teach. I think in 2024, there was this influencer who came down to the police and said that my digital avatar in the metaverse was sexually assaulted by a group of other avatars in the metaverse. And right now, I think the police is investigating this dimension. Because let’s face it, real world laws right now, I mean, the very definition of sexual assault requires some form of physical proximity. If you do a quick search on what sexual assault is, it will definitely say that. So that is currently being investigated. Additionally, there are a bunch of other crimes also, perhaps financial-related crimes that happen in the metaverse connected to money laundering, or let’s say for tax evasion purposes or for stealing digital identity. A lot of them are available and have been reported. I can’t give you a name on the top of my head, but I definitely do know that in 2024, the police in England are investigating a case wherein an avatar claimed that she was sexually assaulted by a group of people and the impact was so realistic that she still suffers from PTSD. So that was the response. I hope I have answered it. If you want some more information, perhaps I can research and give it to you. The second clarification, just one second, I think the second part of the question was what you mentioned in quotes that what laws are online should also remain, what laws remain offline should also be available online. Rights. What rights are offline should also remain online. Well, I never said that. I think what’s interesting is that the EU through the Digital Services Act has made that clear that if there are certain rights which are available in the offline world, they should also be available in the online world. I tend to disagree and in fact I’m corroborated by Jesse Volante who also tends to make a similar argument. While those rights are similar, they’re not exactly the same. So for instance, look at murder, right? If a person dies in the real world, the person does die. So that person’s existence is gone. Even though I completely agree that in this digital environment, when a person dies, his digital avatar dies. But is it possible that that avatar comes back to life again? Well, unless and until we fully believe in reincarnation, I mean in the real world it’s not possible, but I think in the digital world it is. You can, for instance, think about email addresses. One’s gone, I’ll have the next one. Now additionally to this point, we have another question. So regarding virtual identity verification, a lot is being done.

Avinash Dadhich: It’s difficult to stop professors, I know, that’s why I’m doing it, please don’t mind.

Sofransky Octavian: My name is Octavian Shafranski, I’m with the Council of Europe in Strasbourg. Very, very important topic you are bringing to the stage of IGF, the regulation actually and broader the ethics of the metaverse, the future virtual reality that is being built. Many of these questions that you are raising have been also reflected in a recent report that the Council of Europe together with IEEE published last year, entitled The Metaverse Impact on Human Rights, Democracy and the Rule of Law. So I’m coming closer to the question. Of course, people will probably go more and more to the metaverse to experience things that they cannot otherwise experience in the real world. For instance, massive traveling. But also other things that they might want to do, like violence, which they cannot do in this world. And of course, in terms of impact, a war in the real world produces a lot of loss of lives and destruction. A war in the metaverse doesn’t lead necessarily to the loss of life. The question is, how do we extend the limits of ethics in the virtual world to accommodate this need of people to go for experiences that they cannot experience in the real world into the metaverse and still have society regulated by norms and some kind of extended ethics?

Avinash Dadhich: Okay. So, okay. Can I respond? Yeah. One minute, then you respond. Okay. See, I think in the 21st century now, the entire game is the mind. The physical world is diminishing. So maybe you will see less and less physical crime in the next 25 years, 30 years, when people won’t go out, they will do less physical activities, then definitely crime will reduce over there. First, we need to understand the changing nature of the world. So far, we believe that the world is only real, like the physical world. Once we accept that there is a virtual world, and there are a lot of things are happening in the virtual world, as they happen in the physical world, then this difference will not be there. Okay. Second point, the psychological, the biggest issue in next 20, 30 years would be how to keep people happy, away from depression, anxiety, suicide, and all these, you know, mental issues. So I believe that until and unless we don’t appreciate that the mind, that virtual world, the mind, mind is virtual, you know, it’s not physical. What I think, what I speak is very virtual. It’s not physical. Physical is my body. Okay, you can see my body, but not my mind. You can see my brain, but not my mind. So brain is physical, mind is non-physical. So once we accept, admit, then I think we can follow more or less same type of rules. I don’t think that we need to create some different animal. We have very settled rules, regulations, organizations. We just need to change our mindset. Then I believe our existing rules and institutions can take care of at least 90% problems, 10% problems we will see in future.

Anurag Vijay: Yeah, you talked about ethics. It’s the common values that we come into a consensus that we develop. A thing that is wrong in any country is equally wrong in another country. It may not be so possible in the physical world because the definition of the crime varies. But there is the good thing about this metaverse and the information technology is that there are certain things which is evil in particular domain is evil elsewhere as well. So I don’t think there will be much of a challenge to come up with common values. So once we identify that these are the dimensions or the facets that we are intent to regulate by way of common laws or coming up with a common consensus, then it would be very easy to frame or inform or include those laws in our respective countries. So the first step should be the identification of all those common values, common goals that we intend to protect like privacy, the use of the information, your digital identity, your digital persona, right not to be impersonated. So these are certain common things, common values that we need to have a consensus upon and I think that would set the task easier to come up with common laws. May I just add an additional thing? Thank you. I think the time is up and of course some of us, we can continue this conversation over a cup of coffee and we have a lot to discuss and a lot to share and hear from you as well. Thank you so much for being a patient audience. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

Agreement points

Need for new governance frameworks for metaverse regulation

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Anurag Vijay
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

Constitutions have historically evolved from Greek civilization through modern times, and now we need new governance frameworks for the 3D virtual world

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights may not be comprehensive enough for digital complexities and AI-driven environments

The metaverse requires separate governance because it’s fundamentally different from the 2D internet – more immersive and interactive

Summary

All three speakers agree that existing governance and legal frameworks are inadequate for regulating the metaverse and that new constitutional or regulatory approaches are needed to address the unique challenges of 3D virtual environments

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Digital standards

Virtual experiences can cause real psychological harm requiring legal protection

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

Existing legal institutions can handle 90% of metaverse issues if we adjust our mindset to recognize virtual experiences as real

Current laws based on geography and physical presence are inadequate for regulating metaverse crimes like virtual sexual assault

Summary

Both speakers acknowledge that virtual experiences can have real psychological impacts and that legal frameworks must recognize and address the mental health consequences of virtual interactions

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Cybercrime

International cooperation is essential for effective metaverse governance

Speakers

– Anurag Vijay
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

International cooperation is needed to develop common standards while respecting national sovereignty

A hybrid governance model combining centralized oversight with blockchain-based distributed consensus mechanisms would be most effective

Summary

Both speakers emphasize the need for international collaboration and hybrid governance models that balance centralized coordination with distributed mechanisms to effectively regulate the metaverse

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Jurisdiction | Digital standards

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the rapid adoption and integration of virtual worlds into daily life, emphasizing the urgency of developing appropriate governance frameworks to protect people’s digital existence alongside their physical lives

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Anurag Vijay

Arguments

By 2026, over 70% of UK students will spend at least one hour daily in virtual worlds, making this regulation urgent

People have both physical and digital personas that need simultaneous protection in virtual environments

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers provide concrete evidence of the need for new digital rights and legal frameworks, with Vijay outlining specific rights needed and Leo providing real-world cases demonstrating these needs

Speakers

– Anurag Vijay
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

New digital rights are needed, including the right to be forgotten, right to disconnect, and protection from automated decision-making

Real-world legal cases are emerging, such as a 2024 England case where police investigated virtual sexual assault causing PTSD

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Cybercrime

Unexpected consensus

Existing institutions can be adapted rather than completely replaced

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Anurag Vijay

Arguments

Existing legal institutions can handle 90% of metaverse issues if we adjust our mindset to recognize virtual experiences as real

Common values like privacy protection and digital identity rights can be more easily established across countries in virtual spaces than in physical jurisdictions

Explanation

Despite arguing for new governance frameworks, both speakers surprisingly agree that existing institutions and international cooperation mechanisms can be adapted and may even work better in virtual spaces than in physical jurisdictions, rather than requiring completely new systems

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Virtual environments may facilitate better international cooperation on rights protection

Speakers

– Anurag Vijay
– Sofransky Octavian

Arguments

Common values like privacy protection and digital identity rights can be more easily established across countries in virtual spaces than in physical jurisdictions

The metaverse allows people to experience things impossible in the real world, requiring extended ethical frameworks to maintain social order

Explanation

Unexpectedly, both speakers suggest that virtual environments might actually make it easier to establish common ethical standards and international cooperation, as certain behaviors are universally recognized as harmful across cultures in digital spaces

Topics

Human rights | Legal and regulatory | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The speakers demonstrate strong consensus on the fundamental need for new governance frameworks for the metaverse, the reality of psychological harm from virtual experiences, and the necessity of international cooperation. They agree that existing legal frameworks are inadequate but can be adapted rather than completely replaced.

Consensus level

High level of consensus with complementary rather than conflicting perspectives. The speakers build upon each other’s arguments, with Dadhich providing historical context, Vijay focusing on human rights evolution, and Leo offering practical legal analysis. This strong agreement suggests a mature understanding of the challenges and potential solutions for metaverse governance, indicating that policy development in this area may benefit from broad stakeholder support.

Different viewpoints

Whether new legal frameworks are needed or existing ones can be adapted

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

Existing legal institutions can handle 90% of metaverse issues if we adjust our mindset to recognize virtual experiences as real

The metaverse requires separate governance because it’s fundamentally different from the 2D internet – more immersive and interactive

Summary

Dadhich believes existing rules and institutions can handle most metaverse problems with a mindset change, while Leo argues the metaverse needs separate governance frameworks due to its fundamental differences from current internet regulation

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Digital standards

Scope of rights adaptation versus creation of new rights

Speakers

– Audience
– Anurag Vijay

Arguments

Questions about which courts have jurisdiction and how to prosecute crimes that occur in virtual spaces remain unresolved

New digital rights are needed, including the right to be forgotten, right to disconnect, and protection from automated decision-making

Summary

The audience member suggested rights may need clarification and extension rather than complete reinvention (similar to privacy evolving into data protection), while Vijay advocates for creating entirely new categories of digital rights

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Legal and regulatory

Unexpected differences

Fundamental nature of virtual versus physical experiences

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

Existing legal institutions can handle 90% of metaverse issues if we adjust our mindset to recognize virtual experiences as real

Current laws based on geography and physical presence are inadequate for regulating metaverse crimes like virtual sexual assault

Explanation

This disagreement is unexpected because both speakers acknowledge the reality of virtual harm, yet they reach opposite conclusions about legal solutions. Dadhich sees virtual and physical experiences as fundamentally similar (both affecting the mind), while Leo emphasizes their fundamental differences requiring separate legal treatment

Topics

Legal and regulatory | Human rights | Sociocultural

Overall assessment

Summary

The main disagreements center on whether to adapt existing legal frameworks versus creating new ones, the scope of rights evolution versus creation, and the fundamental nature of virtual experiences compared to physical ones

Disagreement level

Moderate disagreement with significant implications – while all speakers agree on the need for metaverse governance, their different approaches (adaptation vs. creation of new frameworks) could lead to vastly different regulatory outcomes. The disagreement reflects deeper philosophical differences about the nature of virtual experiences and their relationship to existing legal concepts, which will be crucial for determining the future direction of metaverse regulation

Partial agreements

Similar viewpoints

Both speakers recognize the rapid adoption and integration of virtual worlds into daily life, emphasizing the urgency of developing appropriate governance frameworks to protect people’s digital existence alongside their physical lives

Speakers

– Avinash Dadhich
– Anurag Vijay

Arguments

By 2026, over 70% of UK students will spend at least one hour daily in virtual worlds, making this regulation urgent

People have both physical and digital personas that need simultaneous protection in virtual environments

Topics

Development | Sociocultural | Human rights

Both speakers provide concrete evidence of the need for new digital rights and legal frameworks, with Vijay outlining specific rights needed and Leo providing real-world cases demonstrating these needs

Speakers

– Anurag Vijay
– Utkarsh Leo

Arguments

New digital rights are needed, including the right to be forgotten, right to disconnect, and protection from automated decision-making

Real-world legal cases are emerging, such as a 2024 England case where police investigated virtual sexual assault causing PTSD

Topics

Human rights | Privacy and data protection | Cybercrime

Key takeaways

The metaverse requires new constitutional and legal frameworks because existing laws based on geography and physical presence are inadequate for governing 3D virtual environments

By 2026, over 70% of UK students will spend at least one hour daily in virtual worlds, making urgent regulation necessary

The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights needs evolution to address digital complexities, AI environments, and protection of digital personas

New digital rights are emerging as essential, including the right to be forgotten, right to disconnect, and protection from automated decision-making

Real-world legal cases involving virtual crimes are already occurring, such as virtual sexual assault cases causing PTSD being investigated by police

A hybrid governance model combining centralized oversight with blockchain-based distributed consensus mechanisms would be most effective

International cooperation is needed to develop common standards and values for metaverse regulation while respecting national sovereignty

The psychological impact of virtual experiences can be as real as physical experiences, requiring similar legal protections

Resolutions and action items

Develop international dialogue and cooperation to establish common ground for metaverse regulation

Create international covenants specifically for fundamental rights in virtual environments, similar to existing UN covenants

Establish minimum privacy standards for virtual reality devices with transparency requirements for data use

Identify and reach consensus on common values like privacy protection, digital identity rights, and protection from impersonation

Continue conversations among stakeholders including companies, civil society, and international organizations to shape common values

Unresolved issues

Which courts have jurisdiction over crimes committed in virtual spaces across international boundaries

How to prosecute and define crimes like murder or sexual assault when no physical harm occurs but psychological trauma results

Whether current legal definitions of crimes are adequate or need complete redefinition for virtual environments

How to balance allowing people to experience things in virtual worlds that they cannot in real life while maintaining ethical boundaries

The extent to which virtual experiences should be treated as equivalent to physical experiences in legal frameworks

How to prevent monopolistic control of metaverse spaces while ensuring effective governance

Suggested compromises

Use existing legal institutions and frameworks for 90% of metaverse issues while developing new approaches for the remaining 10%

Adopt a hybrid governance model that combines centralized authority with decentralized blockchain-based mechanisms rather than purely centralized or decentralized approaches

Extend and adapt existing rights rather than creating entirely new categories of rights, similar to how privacy rights evolved to include data protection

Focus on identifying common values that transcend national boundaries in virtual spaces, which may be easier to establish than in physical jurisdictions

Constitution is not supreme, the people’s will is supreme… So constitution is not a book because we have constitution in some very interesting countries… So having an election or having a written constitution or having some press or some media doesn’t make someone a country having real constitution. So it’s more about the spirit of constitution.

Speaker

Avinash Dadhich

Reason

This comment reframes the entire discussion by distinguishing between formal constitutional structures and their actual effectiveness. It challenges the assumption that written constitutions automatically create governance, emphasizing that legitimacy comes from popular acceptance rather than formal documents. This philosophical insight is crucial for understanding how governance might work in virtual spaces.

Impact

This comment established the foundational framework for the entire discussion, moving it beyond technical regulation toward deeper questions of legitimacy and governance. It set up the conceptual foundation that other speakers built upon when discussing how rights and laws might function in virtual environments.

The biggest achievement of AI would not be generative AI, people are losing interest in generative AI. But the biggest achievement of AI would be how to bring human experience in the 3D world. Can you touch and feel? Can you have the same experience of 2D in 3D?

Speaker

Avinash Dadhich

Reason

This comment is prescient in identifying that the real transformation won’t come from current AI applications but from creating truly immersive virtual experiences. It anticipates the technological convergence that will make metaverse governance urgent and necessary, moving beyond current superficial virtual interactions.

Impact

This observation shifted the discussion from theoretical constitutional principles to practical implications of immersive technology, setting up the later detailed discussions about virtual crimes and psychological trauma in virtual spaces.

A few months ago, there was a person who was pinned down by digital avatars and was violated in the metaverse… So this does raise questions about whether the laws that we have right now, are they fit for regulating the metaverse?

Speaker

Utkarsh Leo

Reason

This comment grounds the abstract discussion in concrete reality by providing a specific case study. It demonstrates that virtual harm can cause real psychological trauma, challenging traditional legal definitions that require physical presence or contact. This bridges the gap between theoretical governance and practical legal challenges.

Impact

This comment fundamentally shifted the discussion from abstract constitutional theory to urgent practical legal questions. It prompted deeper examination of how existing legal frameworks fail to address virtual crimes and sparked discussion about jurisdiction and enforcement challenges.

While those rights are similar, they’re not exactly the same. So for instance, look at murder, right? If a person dies in the real world, the person does die… But is it possible that that avatar comes back to life again? Well, unless and until we fully believe in reincarnation, I mean in the real world it’s not possible, but I think in the digital world it is.

Speaker

Utkarsh Leo

Reason

This comment reveals the fundamental ontological differences between physical and virtual existence. It challenges the assumption that virtual and physical rights should be identical, highlighting how the reversible nature of virtual actions creates entirely new categories of harm and protection that don’t map neatly onto existing legal frameworks.

Impact

This observation deepened the complexity of the discussion by showing that simple translation of existing rights into virtual spaces is insufficient. It pushed the conversation toward recognizing the need for entirely new legal and ethical frameworks rather than mere adaptations.

In the 21st century now, the entire game is the mind. The physical world is diminishing… Once we accept that there is a virtual world, and there are a lot of things are happening in the virtual world, as they happen in the physical world, then this difference will not be there.

Speaker

Avinash Dadhich

Reason

This comment presents a paradigm shift in how we conceptualize reality itself. By arguing that the distinction between physical and virtual is becoming meaningless, it suggests that virtual experiences deserve equal moral and legal consideration. This philosophical position has profound implications for how we approach virtual governance.

Impact

This comment provided a unifying philosophical framework that helped reconcile the tension between treating virtual and physical spaces differently. It offered a path forward for the governance discussion by suggesting that once we accept virtual experiences as equally real, existing frameworks become more applicable.

Overall assessment

These key comments transformed what could have been a technical discussion about internet regulation into a profound philosophical examination of reality, governance, and human experience. The speakers successfully elevated the conversation from practical regulatory questions to fundamental questions about the nature of harm, reality, and legitimate authority. The progression from Dadhich’s constitutional philosophy, through concrete examples of virtual harm, to the ontological questions about virtual versus physical existence, created a sophisticated framework for understanding metaverse governance. The discussion demonstrated that regulating virtual spaces requires not just new laws, but new ways of thinking about law, reality, and human experience itself. The interplay between theoretical insights and practical examples made the abstract concepts tangible while showing their real-world implications.

Do you already have knowledge or examples of criminal situations that have happened in the virtual world and have been brought before judges and how they have been solved in practice?

Speaker

Audience member

Explanation

This question seeks concrete examples of how legal systems are currently handling metaverse-related crimes, which is crucial for understanding practical implementation of existing laws in virtual environments

Which court has jurisdiction when crimes occur in the metaverse?

Speaker

Utkarsh Leo

Explanation

This addresses a fundamental legal challenge in metaverse governance – determining which legal authority has the right to prosecute crimes that occur in virtual spaces that may span multiple jurisdictions

Are current world laws enough to regulate offenses in the metaverse?

Speaker

Utkarsh Leo

Explanation

This question is central to determining whether new legal frameworks are needed or if existing laws can be adapted for virtual environments

How do we extend the limits of ethics in the virtual world to accommodate people’s need for experiences they cannot have in the real world while still maintaining societal regulation?

Speaker

Sofransky Octavian

Explanation

This addresses the complex ethical challenge of balancing freedom of virtual experience with the need for moral and legal boundaries in metaverse environments

How can we develop common values and consensus across different countries for metaverse regulation when definitions of crimes and rights vary?

Speaker

Anurag Vijay

Explanation

This explores the challenge of creating international standards for metaverse governance despite varying national legal systems and cultural values

What are the psychological, social, and political consequences of transitioning from 2D to 3D virtual worlds?

Speaker

Avinash Dadhich

Explanation

This identifies a critical research gap in understanding the broader societal impacts of immersive virtual environments

How can AI achieve bringing authentic human experience to 3D virtual worlds, including touch and feel sensations?

Speaker

Avinash Dadhich

Explanation

This addresses a key technological challenge that will significantly impact how metaverse experiences are regulated and governed

What specific research and case studies exist on metaverse crimes and their legal resolution?

Speaker

Utkarsh Leo (in response to audience question)

Explanation

This indicates a need for more comprehensive documentation and analysis of existing metaverse-related legal cases to inform future policy development