By: Ishan Singh
“To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as the speaker” – Frederick Douglass
In September 2025, Nepal experienced a significant youth-led uprising. Gen Z protesters took to the streets to challenge the country’s entrenched political elite and demand change. Their nonviolent initiatives were encountered nationwide by social media shutdowns, curfews, and lethal force. The use of power and authority to suppress the youth led to significant tension and struggle between the young voices fighting for their demands and Government of Nepal.
International human rights law guarantees many rights to individuals, but in the digital age, these rights can be oppressed by various methods. Online platforms can be easily blocked and regulated by governments which can greatly impact online communication between individuals. The Gen Z protest in Nepal has revealed a serious issue which is, the enforcement of International human rights law in this digital era depends heavily upon the government, although there are Legal frameworks such as the ICCPR and UN standards, they frequently fail when governments use force to stifle dissent.
In this article, we will explore how international human rights law are unable to protect people’s freedom in the modern digital world. Nepal’s case highlights the pressing need for more accountability and legal frameworks that safeguard both offline and online freedom of expression. This article examines how the Nepalese government responded to the demands of their citizens by using force, suppressing digital rights, and toying with human rights legislation. It also demonstrates how citizens are left vulnerable by weak enforcement and also suggests the ways by which contemporary protests can be better protected by international law.
Immediate Causes of the Gen Z Protests in Nepal
The immediate cause of Nepal’s Gen Z protests was the government’s decision to ban 26 popular social media platforms. However, the deeper issues emerged from years of corruption carried out by those in power, high unemployment rate and a stagnant economy.
On 4th September 2025, the government suddenly banned social media platforms such as Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram, YouTube, and X, citing non-compliance of these platforms with the required registration. Young people in Nepal use digital platforms to communicate, to engage in learning, to do business, and to participate in civic life, and this decision was not received well in the public.
This digital crackdown revealed a broader frustration. For years, people have accused Nepal’s political class of corruption and poor governance. They enrich themselves while ordinary citizen’s struggle. Anger intensified with the viral “Nepo Kids” campaign, where politician’s children showcased their lavish lifestyles online. For many young Nepalis, this became the ultimate symbol of inequality. The privileged elite enjoy unchecked benefits while the majority face hardship.
Economic hardships had further increased the discontent among the young workforce, and on top of that the government did not show any efforts to address this. According to the World Bank, the unemployment rate for youth aged between 15 to 24 reached around 21% in 2024, one of the highest rates in South Asia. With few opportunities at home, many people depend on migration to neighbouring countries such as India because this became the only way to keep the wolf from the door. Remittances make up a large share of Nepal’s GDP, leaving the economy built on shaky ground and heavily reliant on money sent by workers abroad. This situation highlights the lack of real development within the country.
In this context, the ban on social media was not just a technical imposition of a new policy; it was the final blow for the youth to come out and call the government. To an entire generation that had grown up using social media platforms, it felt like an attack on their last bastion of resistance. Platforms that had been used to reveal corruption, voice concerns, and organize protests were suddenly blocked. Thus, the Gen Z uprising was not a reaction to a single government policy but rather a series of longstanding frustrations related to corruption, elite privilege, youth unemployment, and economic inequality, which had been made worse with time by the government which seemed to oppress the opinion of common people in both physical and digital spaces.
International Law Framework: Rights at Stake
The right to peaceful assembly is stated in Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), yet in Kathmandu and elsewhere, protesters faced curfews and reports of violent crackdowns. While international law allows restrictions on assembly, they must be necessary and proportionate. The UN Human Rights Committee has specifically warned states against blanket bans and to avoid the use of excessive force, since it attacks the basis of democratic participation. In Christians against Racism and Fascism v. the United Kingdom (1980), the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) clarified that peaceful assembly encompasses not merely static gatherings but also participation in marches and processions.
Article 19 of the ICCPR protects freedom of expression. This includes the right to seek, receive, and share information through any media of choice. Nepal government’s ban on major social media platforms directly impacted the young citizens ability to express criticism and mobilize. The Human Rights Council has confirmed that rights in the real world must also be protected online. By shutting down the channels where people voice dissent, Nepal effectively silenced free expression. The ECOWAS Court in SERAP v. Federal Republic of Nigeria looked at Nigerian government’s decision to ban the social media platform ‘Twitter’. The court pointed out that modern technology allows for the sharing of ideas, views, and opinions, which supports freedom of expression. It also stated that access to Twitter is a “derivative right” that complements the enjoyment of the right to freedom of expression.
Internet shutdowns represent a new challenge where international law is having trouble keeping up. Nepal’s reasoning that platforms did not register with authorities reflects a wider global pattern where governments use technical reasons to limit access, but their motives are clearly political. In Amnesty International v. Togo, the Court ruled that internet shutdowns implemented by the Togolese government in 2017 were illegal and held it as an unjustifiable violation, stating that online access improves expression and therefore needs legal protection.
Together, these episodes show how fragile protection of rights are in the digital age. The ICCPR and UN’s frameworks offer strong guarantees on paper, but enforcement is often depended on the government and to silence people, they usually don’t comply with these standards. Nepal’s case is a clear example that there is an urgent need for a binding global enforcement of fundamental human rights.
Enforcement Gap and Accountability Challenges
The ICCPR guarantees rights of freedoms of expression, assembly, and association to individuals, but their protection often rests on the state’s goodwill, leaving citizens at the mercy of governments. The concerned stakeholders can suggest solutions, yet their words are not binding and thus, carry no real weight. This gap between law on paper and rights in practice shows that promises without enforcement are useless.
Digital activism is a great medium to express dissent against governments, however, by pulling the plug on online platforms, governments can easily silence dissent against them. This tug-of-war between state sovereignty and global norms shows how vulnerable human rights are in 21st Century and without sharper regional and global safety measures, states will continue to oppress both online and offline expression with little fear of consequences.
It is important to address these gaps and doing so will not only protect the rights of young people today but also stop states from using technology to undermine fundamental civic freedom. Nepal’s situation is a warning, showing the importance of respecting the autonomy of individuals and protect their basic rights, otherwise not doing the same could lead to dire consequences.
Recommendations and Forward-Looking Analysis
In order to address the gaps revealed by the Gen Z protests in Nepal, states should create clear legal protections for both online and offline expression. For instance, a guideline can be framed that would require any state-imposed digital restriction to be time-bound depending upon the situation like – Internet shut down for a period of maximum 3 months. Virtual restrictions should also be publicly justified – They should be implemented only in view of protecting public order, national security, preventing internal instability, etc.
These restrictions should also be subject to independent judicial review by an Independent and fair Judiciary and should be minimally restrictive which means that the government’s actions limit rights only as much as necessary to achieve a legitimate goal, without unnecessarily silencing basic human rights. This would ensure that genuine criticism is being heard by the government. International and regional institutions, such as the UN Human Rights Council, ASEAN or SAARC could each help hold states accountable in case of violation of rights.
Encouraging young people’s engagement must go beyond mere promises. Policies and programs should be open for young people in policymaking (subject to limitations) to create safe platforms for debate, thus providing young people a voice at the table and protection on the ground. This would ensure that young people have an opinion in the policies being made concerning them and would increase trust between them and the government. Understanding digital rights as a necessity and building participatory structures, would uphold human rights obligation.
Conclusion
Nepal’s scenario highlights the sharp gap between digital-age civic action and the enforcement of international human rights on the ground level. Online restrictions and violent crackdowns show how fragile freedom of expression and assembly really are today. Legal protections, recognition of digital rights, and creating spaces for youth to be involved will be critical to solving these issues. Nepal’s experience is a reminder that international law must evolve to keep fundamental freedoms of concerned individuals relevant in this increasingly interconnected world.
