Social media is increasingly embedded within peace and conflict processes, holding the potential to both support and destabilise peace efforts.
Celeste Popoff examines attempts to regulate social media use through peace agreements, arguing that its pervasiveness demands further attention and references in peace agreements must be effectively implemented.
This blog was produced for the Future Voices Series and is the first of two in a series on social media and peace agreements.
Social Media in Peace Agreements: From Risk to Regulation
It is estimated that as of 2024 there are 5.25 billion social media users, equating to 64% of all people on Earth. Beyond influencing daily life, the widespread and rapidly expanding use of social media has had a profound impact on the dynamics of conflict and peacebuilding. Social media platforms shape how armed conflicts are fought, how actors communicate with one another and the wider public, how information is disseminated, and how the international community perceives conflict.[1] This blog explores how these dynamics are being recognised within peace processes, with a particular focus on the inclusion of social media provisions in peace agreements.
In the context of peace and conflict, social media functions both as a facilitator of political participation and social cohesion, and as a vehicle for polarisation, hate speech, and violence. Its role as an ‘actor’ in conflict is evident in the deployment of disinformation campaigns, targeted messaging, and the propagation of harmful narratives. For example, after the contested 2018 presidential election in Cameroon, both pro and anti-government activists used Facebook to spread inflammatory language, hate speech, and misinformation, including calls for violence against specific ethnic groups. These negative narratives are often amplified by social media algorithms, which are designed to maximise engagement and tend to prioritise emotionally charged and, in some cases, divisive content. In response, mediators have begun to engage more directly with conflict parties on the role of social media, recognising its potential to both support and destabilise peace efforts. This evolving awareness has informed the gradual inclusion of social media-related provisions in peace agreements, reflecting a broader effort to address its influence more systematically within formal peace processes.
Regulating Social Media in Peace Agreements
References to media and communication are not uncommon in peace agreements, although explicit regulation of social media remains limited. Between 1990 and mid-2024, a quarter (541 agreements) of the 2,144 peace agreements signed globally included provisions on media and communication.[2] Traditional media forms such as radio (108 references), television (63 references), and newspapers (34 references) are commonly cited. In contrast, social media, first mentioned in 2014, appeared in only 14 agreements. Importantly, this includes all references to media types, and not just media provisions agreed by the parties.
Where online activity is addressed, peace agreements have increasingly sought to regulate both the constructive and harmful dimensions of social media use by specifying areas for proactive engagement as well as restraint. For example, the 2020 Agreement for a Complete and Permanent Ceasefire in Libya contains a clause in which the parties commit to combatting hate speech, with a specific attention to social media. In Article 5 of Section II of the agreement, the parties made a commitment to:
“Halt the currently rampant media escalation and hate speech by audio-visual broadcasting channels and websites. The judicial and competent authorities shall be called upon to take the necessary measures to ensure serious and deterrent prosecution of these channels and websites. [The UN Support Mission in Libya] also calls for necessary measures to be taken to ensure that the administrations of social media applications shall take the necessary action regarding these platforms. To this end, the Joint Military Committee (JMC) decided to establish a sub-committee to follow up on hate speech and pursue the necessary actions. The JMC also decided to address a direct message to all audio-visual broadcasting channels not to broadcast any media material that includes such type of rhetoric.”
This provision both prohibits harmful conduct through punitive measures – such as prosecution and direct warnings to websites – and promotes compliance through positive measures, including cooperation with social media platforms and the creation of a monitoring sub-committee.
Beyond provisions that are integrated into broader peace agreements, mediators have also employed stand-alone social media agreements and codes of conduct to govern online behaviour during peace processes. A pertinent example is the 2023 election in Nigeria, during which a dedicated Code of Conduct on social media was signed by political parties, candidates, and influencers in Kaduna State. The agreement stipulated:
“Standards for party leaders, candidates and influencers: ‘Refrain from using language on social media that threatens or incites violence against any person(s), group(s) or institution(s). Refrain from posting content that targets or harasses any person(s), group(s) or institution(s), particularly women. Refrain from posting disinformation about political opponents and the election process and commit to fact checking all information before posting online. Use only genuine and official accounts on social media and refrain from using fake accounts or inauthentic networks to mislead or undermine the election process.’”
This form of regulation allows for a broader range of actors to be addressed, including those not traditionally considered parties to a conflict (and thus typically excluded from peace agreements), such as digital influencers. Stand-alone instruments may also provide more opportunities for detail, flexibility, and context-specific norms regarding digital conduct.[3] Conversely, including social media regulation within the main text of a peace agreement can elevate its visibility and validity by placing it alongside other core components of the peace process. While this may limit the space for detailed commitments, it ensures that social media governance is not marginalised during implementation or monitoring. Regardless of the type of agreement that social media is found in, caution should be exercised to ensure that any reference is inclusive, respects existing obligations, and does not benefit one party over another.
Conclusion
As social media becomes increasingly embedded in the dynamics of conflict and peace, its role in peace processes demands greater attention. Ensuring that social media references in peace agreements are clear, inclusive, and context-specific will be vital to their effective implementation. Whether through formal clauses or separate codes of conduct, regulating online activity within peace processes must evolve in parallel with the technologies it seeks to govern.
Celeste Popoff is an LLM Human Rights candidate at the University of Edinburgh Law School. Her research focuses on gender, conflict and peacebuilding practice, freedom of expression in the digital sphere, and human rights law.
The Future Voices Series
This blog was produced for the Future Voices Series. The Future Voices Series supports the publication of innovative research by emerging scholars. The series cuts across regions and themes while drawing on work relevant to academics and policymakers engaged in peace and security. Authors are drawn from exceptional students in PeaceRep courses. The research is unfunded but reviewed and mentored by PeaceRep staff, who provide guidance to support the development of high quality, policy-relevant scholarship.
Endnotes
[1] David Lanz and others, ‘Social Media in Peace Mediation: A Practical Framework’ (DPPA Mediation Support Unit; Swisspeace 2021).
[2] Bell, C., & Badanjak, S. (2019). Introducing PA-X: A new peace agreement database and dataset. Journal of Peace Research, 56(3), 452-466. Available at https://pax.peaceagreements.org/; Tim Epple, ‘Peace Agreements, the Media, and Communication (PSRP Research Report)’ (Global Justice Academy: University of Edinburgh 2021).; This data is based on the PAX Peace Agreements Database, which defines a ‘peace agreement’ as a formal, publicly available document produced following discussions with conflict protagonists and mutually agreed to by some or all of them, addressing conflict with the intention of ending it. This definition excludes political documents that are merely conflict-adjacent (e.g. the Nigeria Code of Conduct).
[3] Govinda Clayton, Sean Kane and Maude Morrison, ‘Including Digital Technologies in Peace Agreements’, Still time to talk: adaption and innovation in peace mediation, Accord 30 (London: Conciliation Resources 2024).