CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
Background of Study
The phrase “social media” is often used to refer to new forms of media that allow for interactive participation. The broadcast period and the interactive epoch are frequently used to divide the evolution of media. During the broadcast era, media was practically fully centralized, with one institution delivering messages to a large audience, such as a radio or television station, newspaper firm, or film production studio. Feedback from the media was frequently indirect, delayed, and impersonal. Individual interaction was usually mediated on a much smaller scale, either through personal letters, phone calls, or, occasionally, photocopied family newsletters. People’s individual contact on a large scale became easier than ever before as a result of the development of digital and mobile technologies; as a result, a new media age was born, with interactivity at the center of new media functions. One individual could now communicate with a big number of others and receive quick feedback. Citizens and customers used to have limited and sometimes muffled speech options, but now they may share their opinions with a big group of people. People now have more media consumption options than ever before, thanks to the low cost and accessibility of modern technology. Instead of relying on just a few news outlets, they may now seek information from a number of sources and discuss it with others via message boards. This ongoing shift is centered on social media. We’ll look at the characteristics, forms, and applications of social media in this article. Whether mobile or fixed, all types of social media use a digital platform. However, not all digital information is social media-friendly. Two characteristics describe social media. To begin with, social media permits some kind of interaction. Despite the fact that social networking platforms like Facebook allow for passive viewing of what others are sharing, social media is never completely passive. At the very least, a profile must be created that allows for the prospect of engagement. That feature alone sets social media apart from traditional media, which does not permit personal accounts. Second, because of their interactive nature, social media encourages participation. This interaction could be with long-time friends, relatives, or acquaintances, as well as new people with similar interests or who are in the same acquaintance group. Although many social media platforms were or are perceived as new at first, as they get increasingly integrated into people’s personal and professional lives, they become less visible and less useful.
The ‘international community’ has become a prominent topic in political and public discourse in terms of rhetoric. Whenever global peace and security are threatened in the age of globalization, the international community appears to be at the forefront, whether it’s human rights protection, the fight against global terrorism, crisis management and response to environmental disasters and humanitarian emergencies, or international negotiations with regimes like Iran and North Korea. While there is speculation that the “international community” is some form of cohesive and long-lasting actor, it is unclear who or what it represents. The origins, function, and character of the notion have been disputed by international attorneys and theorists of International Relations, but no clear, agreed-upon explanation has evolved. From two separate disciplinary perspectives, the term “international community” has been investigated. The first is a legal perspective that looks at the nature and scope of the rules and principles that make up the constitutional core of international law. An international legal community (Voelkerrechtsgemeinschaft) is formed when states agree to create particular constitutional components that lay out the essential prerequisites for global lawmaking. This position is most famously advocated by Mosler (1980), although it may also be found in Tomuschat (1993) and Fassbender’s writings (2009). According to Mosler (1990: 15), the constitution, as society’s ultimate law, “transforms a society into a community regulated by law.” He claimed that every society “must have one essential constitutional standard without which it would cease to exist as a community” (Mosler 1980: 16).
The United Nations Charter, as well as the substantive rules and normative aims included within it, are frequently linked to today’s concept of an international legal community, which is firmly linked to progressive moral principles, most notably human rights and equality. Bruno Simma’s 1994 book, From Bilateralism to Community Interest in International Law, captures the essence of how both the formation and character of international law have changed. “International law is, and should be, building on and evolving from its foundations in a minimal statist system based on a series of consent-based bilateral legal relations of opposability between States (‘bilateralism’), toward a legal order of what he [Simma] called “international community,” as Kingsbury and Donaldson (2011: 79) put it. He envisioned a “socially conscious legal system” that is more responsive to community concerns. Rather than being solely a legal body, this suggests that the phrase “international community” refers to and is a vital reflection of current international law’s growing cosmopolitanism. Its evolution not only represents the new purpose, moral and political purposes, and moral and political ideals that support global normative order-making, but also “grounds international law’s promise of universalism.” 79 in Kingbury and Donaldson (2011).
The type of ‘international community’ that can result in collective action and internationally accepted ethical norms can be extended both through and against international law, but it also transcends and presupposes any normative structure based on state consent and individual interests. Even if the phrase “international community” is defined as a legal entity with a purely prudential constitution, the development of such a constitution must be motivated by certain shared interests and social goals. To put it another way, community interests do not emerge from a normative vacuum, and questions about a legal system’s normative purposes naturally arise before it is organized. When seen from a sociological perspective, the word “international community” takes on a more abstract meaning. It’s less about the law’s role and the rule of law here than it is about the degree of human connection, a sense of belonging, and the formation and perception of what distinguishes “Us” from “Others.” This position is popular in English School debates on global society and culture, stemming from Ferdinand Tönnies’ fundamental difference between “society” and “community” (Tönnies, 2002). (Buzan 2004: 74-76). Tönnies’ differentiation (2002: 33-37) is based on the type of social group relationship that exists. A group of people that have a natural affection for one another is referred to as a “organic community.” Society, on the other hand, is’mechanic,’ having been designed to suit its members’ rational interests. David Ellis (2009) focuses on the concept of an organic community in the international environment. The presence of a sufficiently developed common ethos, according to Ellis (2009: 7), is the crucial aspect in the distinction between an international society based on interdependence and an international community: The ideals and conventions that make up the community’s collective identity make up the common ethos. States match their self-presentations with the community ethos and take their frames from it (Schimmelfennig cited).
A concept of “international community” founded on a shared ethos has two significant corollaries. The first is how making some preliminary contrasts between the two conceptions helps to understand the connection between international society and international community. The formation of a common ethos is thought to be analytically prior to the presence of a rational, contractual organization such as the society of states (Tönnies 2002; Conklin 2012). The existence of international society can be inferred from the presence of distinct constitutional principles for the formation and implementation of legal norms, as well as governmental consensus and consistent practices. However, from a sociological standpoint, it does not presume the kind of biological oneness essential for the creation of a worldwide society. The English School’s viewpoint on this subject is crystal clear. International law is considered as the bedrock of international society, meaning the kind of rule-governed interaction that is central to Bull and Watson’s basic definition (1984: 1). Laws and procedural procedures, on the other hand, do not develop or reflect the organic “we” feeling that binds members of a community together. This raises a slew of tricky questions about the relationship between “international community” and “international society.” As previously said, society is the more fundamental and unquestionably prior idea from an anthropological standpoint. This viewpoint is supported by English School literature, which claims that in order to develop an international society, there must be a degree of shared interest and cultural unity (Bull 1977: 16, Wight 1977: 33). In his analysis of the international system/international society dichotomy, Barry Buzan (1993) claims that historical evidence supports this position, citing Wight’s case studies of classical Greece and early modern Europe, as well as Gong’s (1984) genealogy of the standard of “civilization.” Nonetheless, he acknowledges that, in principle, ‘international society may emerge functionally from the logic of anarchy without antecedent cultural links’ (Buzan 1993: 334). David Ellis (2009: 8) goes even further, asserting that the density of contact generated and pushed by international society is a necessary condition. This would indicate a derivational relationship, with international society arriving first and providing the normative backdrop structures necessary for the creation of socio-cultural relationships. This presents a plethora of tricky questions about the relationship between “international community” and “international society.” As previously said, society is the more fundamental and unquestionably prior idea from an anthropological standpoint. This viewpoint is supported by English School literature, which claims that in order to develop an international society, there must be a degree of shared interest and cultural unity (Bull 1977: 16, Wight 1977: 33). In his analysis of the international system/international society dichotomy, Barry Buzan (1993) claims that historical evidence supports this position, citing Wight’s case studies of classical Greece and early modern Europe, as well as Gong’s (1984) genealogy of the standard of “civilization.” Nonetheless, he acknowledges that, in principle, ‘international society may emerge functionally from the logic of anarchy without antecedent cultural links.’ 334 (Buzan 1993). Even further, David Ellis (2009: 8) claims that the density of contact generated and pushed by international society is a necessary condition for the establishment of a shared ethos. This would indicate a derivational relationship, with international society arriving first and providing the normative backdrop structures necessary for the creation of socio-cultural relationships. My unsatisfactory intuition is that both logics are at work, and the relationship between international society and international community is reticular rather than derivative: continuous interaction, enabled and facilitated by international society’s fundamental institutions like diplomacy, great power management, and international law, leads to and is generated by international community.
Statement of research problem
On Saturday, June 4th, 2021, Emmanuel Alumona, a front-end developer in Lagos, noticed he couldn’t access Twitter on his phone. The Nigerian government earlier warned that Twitter’s operations in the country would be halted indefinitely owing to “the ongoing use of the platform for actions that are capable of causing damage to Nigeria’s business life.” The restriction comes just two days after Twitter erased a tweet from President Muhammadu Buhari’s account for violating its terms of service. “I thought Twitter’s restriction was a joke,” Alumona, 24, who now accesses Twitter through a VPN, said. “I didn’t expect the government to sink so low.” Twitter reminds me of my neighborhood newspaper. When I want to check what’s going on in the country, I refresh my timeline. When I woke up on Saturday, my website was not loading,” Alumona told Al Jazeera. The government’s plan to regulate social media includes a Twitter ban, a tool that helped the ruling party win the presidential election in 2015. Lai Mohammed, Nigeria’s communications minister, blasted social media in 2017 for “the flood of misinformation and false news.”
The National Body on Information (NCI) was founded shortly after, with the recommendation of forming a council to regulate social media usage. Senator Mohammed Sani Musa of the ruling APC party’s anti-social media bill, titled Protections against Internet Falsehood and Manipulation, received support from the information minister in 2019. The government also required internet companies like WhatsApp, Zoom, Netflix, and Skype to obtain licenses from the National Broadcasting Commission in order to operate in the country. “Clearly, the registration is a pretext for regulation,” said Joachim MacEbong, a senior analyst with SBM Intelligence in Lagos. “They are proving their willingness to limit democratic freedom.” The coming two years will be difficult.” President Buhari, who seized power in a 1983 coup and imprisoned hundreds of people, embraced social media as part of his fourth presidential campaign in 2015, portraying himself as a “converted democrat.” After being toppled in another coup in 1985, Buhari was elected president in 2015. Analysts say Buhari’s regime is reminiscent of his military dictatorship from 1984. He passed severe legislation that permitted the government to arrest any journalist or civil society member who “embarrassed” the country’s military leader. During his leadership, some journalists have been imprisoned or charged with treason. The Reporters Without Borders (RSF) World Press Freedom Index placed Nigeria 120th out of 180 countries in 2021. Nigeria has been praised for being one of the few African countries to attract investment into its tech economy, but it was recently neglected when Twitter chose Ghana as the site of its first African headquarters. The foreign community, however, has chimed in on Nigerians’ situation, emphasizing that Nigeria is a democratic country where freedom of speech is safeguarded. Several reporters have In its own contribution, the US government said, “The Biden State Department called on Nigeria to restore its citizens’ access to Twitter after the government stopped the site in retribution for deleting a tweet written by the Nigerian president.” According to a statement from the State Department, the US “condemns the Nigerian government’s ongoing suspension of Twitter and threats to arrest and prosecute Nigerians who use Twitter.” Freedom of speech and access to information, according to the agency, are “essential to prosperous and safe democratic society.” Nigeria’s government should “respect its citizens’ right to freedom of expression by lifting the restriction,” according to the department. During his presidency, he has been imprisoned or charged with treason. The Reporters Without Borders organization (RSF)
Objectives of the Study
Several reporters have In its own contribution, the US government said, “The Biden State Department called on Nigeria to restore its citizens’ access to Twitter after the government stopped the site in retribution for deleting a tweet written by the Nigerian president.” United States of America “denounces the Ni The following is the study’s principal goal:
To discover the causes for the Twitter ban
To learn how the international community views Nigeria following the Twitter ban.
To determine how Nigeria’s internal problems encroach on the rights of its citizens.
To learn how Nigeria’s democratic image in the international community has changed.
The Nigerian government’s continuous suspension of Twitter, as well as threats to arrest and imprison Twitter users, “according to a press release from
Research questions
The following study questions have been prepared.
- What are the reasons behind the Twitter ban?
- What is the foreign community’s opinion of Nigeria following the Twitter ban?
- How does Nigeria’s internal affairs affect the rights of its citizens?
- What does Nigeria’s democratic image in the international community look like?
Significance of the study
The importance of this research cannot be overstated:
- This research will look at how career women in Lagos, Nigeria, deal with stress.
- The outcomes of this study will surely provide much-needed information to government agencies, career women, businesses, and academic institutions.
Scope of the study
The impact of the Twitter ban on Nigeria’s foreign image is examined in this study. As a result, the scope of this research would be confined to Twitter users in Nigeria’s federal capital territory (FCT).
Limitations of the study
A variety of variables limited this study, including the following:
just like any other research, there are challenges, such as a lack of appropriate information on the issue under study and the inability to obtain data.
The researcher faced financial constraints in obtaining pertinent materials as well as printing and collating surveys.
Time constraint: Another constraint is time, which makes it difficult for the researcher to balance writing the research while simultaneously doing other academic tasks.
Operational definition of terms
Making a judgment about anything is referred to as assessment.
Give a call consisting of gentle tremulous noises that are repeated.
In art, an image is a portrayal of a person’s or thing’s exterior shape.
The world’s countries are grouped together as the international community.
Reference
https://www.arise.tv/twitter-ban-nigeria-governments-communication-in-disarray-as-agencies-return-to-old-ways-of-sharing-information/
The International Community: Conceptual Insights from Law and Sociology, DENNIS R. SCHMIDT, NOV 27 2015 Buzan mosler, 1980 cited in, tomuschat, 1993 cited in, fassbender, 2009 cited in, bruno simma 1994 cited in, ferdinand tonnies 2002 quoted in, and david ellis 2009 cited in
Leave a Comment