Dan Banik speaks with Cecilia Marcela Bailliet about what solidarity truly means in a world increasingly turning inward. Together, they explore how solidarity, human rights, and peace intersect—and why real solidarity requires action, inclusion, and a renewed commitment to our shared humanity.
In this episode, Dan Banik speaks with Cecilia Marcela Bailliet, the UN Independent Expert on Human Rights and International Solidarity and Professor at the University of Oslo’s Faculty of Law about what solidarity truly means in an era of geopolitical tension, shrinking aid budgets, and growing inward-looking politics. Cecilia argues that solidarity is far more than a political catchphrase. It is an enabling right that links human rights, peace, and development, and demands concrete action to include those who are excluded.
Together they explore how solidarity can take shape locally and globally, how civil society continues to push back despite tightening restrictions, and how corporations, technology, and even artificial intelligence can either strengthen or undermine our collective responsibilities. The conversation also touches on double standards in international responses, the rise of exclusionary “nativist solidarities,” and why building a culture of peace remains essential in today’s fractured world.
This wide-ranging discussion invites listeners to rethink what we owe one another and why solidarity, properly understood, might be one of the most powerful tools we have for shaping a more just and humane future.
Dan Banik:
Cecilia, it’s lovely to see you. I wish you were in the studio, but at least we have Zoom. Welcome to the show.
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Thank you. It’s great to be here.
Dan Banik:
I’ve been following your work as the UN Independent Expert on human rights and solidarity. In Norway’s election debates, “solidarity” comes up all the time—solidarity at home, solidarity with strangers. The word is used loosely. What does it actually mean, and how do we operationalize it?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Solidarity—like peace and development—is a universal value. You find it in constitutions and regional human rights instruments worldwide. We drafted a Declaration on International Solidarity to articulate a human rights–based solidarity: an enabling right, the positive corollary to non-discrimination. It asks people—and states and non-state actors—to take action that includes others in the enjoyment of rights. Instead of only calling out violations (a negative duty), solidarity moves us toward positive duties: What have you done to include those excluded?
Dan Banik:
So it’s not just “don’t interfere with me and I won’t interfere with you.” It’s active support—using free expression, mobilizing NGOs, even concrete assistance. Where do the disagreements lie about this positive idea of solidarity?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
We’ve read human rights with a bias. Article 1 of the Universal Declaration doesn’t stop at freedom; it calls on us to act “in a spirit of brotherhood.” You cannot safeguard freedom unless people create space for others. The UN Charter aspires to equality of peoples and sexes, yet social hierarchies persist. Solidarity is about countering those hierarchies through inclusion.
Dan Banik:
Let’s zoom out. In a geopolitically fragmented world, it sometimes feels like everyone has their own version of human rights, and criticisms are dismissed as bias or lies. We once spoke a lot about a human rights–based approach to development; I hear less of that now. Is the human rights discourse advancing—or just UN-speak?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Look at demand: applications to the University of Oslo’s human rights master’s are skyrocketing. In our draft declaration we linked implementation to the Universal Periodic Review and invited best practices, not top-down definitions. Solidarity should reflect unity through diversity. Different societies will show it differently—protecting refugees, tackling climate change, empowering women—but the point is bottom-up practice and pluralism.
Dan Banik:
We’re also seeing inward-looking politics: aid cuts, “fix our roads first,” prioritize our elderly, our students. International solidarity can be framed as a luxury. How do you see this trend?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
We should face reality and seek out local solidarities that work—community responses to security, environment, wetlands, rivers. Top-down fixes alone aren’t delivering; the global indicators show rising poverty and inequality. We need to flip perspective: empower communities and aggregate those actions to global effect.
Dan Banik:
The inward turn shows up sharply in aid budgets, which also affects civil society organizations that practice transnational solidarity. In your report you map the types of CSO solidarity. Highlights?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Researching indigenous peoples, I found many acting in solidarity beyond their own communities—defending migrants and minorities, asserting rights to remain. They also teach us to show solidarity with Mother Earth and to resolve disputes through listening and mutual respect, not zero-sum litigation. The counter-trend is nativistic solidarity: xenophobic, exclusionary, often networked transnationally and supercharged by AI. That’s why we must promote a human rights–based solidarity that never denies others’ rights.
Dan Banik:
Globalization enabled networked solidarity—cheap tech, Zoom, social media—but states can block and throttle those channels. I’ve seen governments press platforms to silence protest. In parts of Africa, foreign funding bans squeeze CSOs. What do you recommend to UN member states?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
My first report called for protected digital civic space and accessible platforms. Repression backfires: if people are denied peaceful expression, they may resort to violence. States should treat CSOs as partners. For example, sea-rescue groups saving migrants are too often surveilled, defunded, or prosecuted—counterproductive in a world where migration won’t disappear. Partnering for safe rescue and sustainable policy is smarter than punishment.
Dan Banik:
We’ve seen decentralized climate protests like Fridays for Future. Today, Gaza has become the most polarized arena of solidarity—activists surveilled, deterred, yet highly visible. Are you hopeful?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Presenting my indigenous report at the Human Rights Council, many states pivoted to war and Palestine. It was clear: my next report needed to be on peace. The normalization of violence and diversion of funding to militarization are eroding universities, schools, health systems—and democracy itself. We need a global peace movement that treats peace not as capitulation but as seeking the best for all parties. I’m working on that report, updating a research handbook on the law of peace, and teaching a course on it. We need to spread this mindset.
Dan Banik:
There’s also the charge of double standards: we spotlight some crises and ignore others—Sudan, for example. Consistency matters.
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
And sometimes the system hinders communication. The UN now bars visual imagery in special procedures’ reports after a widely downloaded cartoon report on starvation in Palestine triggered objections. I argued visuals are vital for accessibility, especially for communities who won’t read in UN languages—yet the rule stands. I even self-censored a “Greenland is not for sale” T-shirt because celebrating solidarity there, while Western Sahara remains unresolved, risked replicating double standards. It’s a constant ethical tension.
Dan Banik:
Let’s talk corporate solidarity. Multinationals shape communities and ecosystems; debates center on taxation, environmental harm, and accountability. Can corporations practice solidarity, or do they simply outsource it to NGOs?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
After the indigenous report, I focused on corporations because they’re often the most impactful actors—welcome to the post-Westphalian age. Our declaration recognizes states, IOs, and corporations, and it “opens the black box”: at minimum, firms should provide transparent procedures so affected groups can submit claims and receive responses. EU due-diligence rules help, and universities are training on business and human rights. But trickle-down to Latin America or Africa isn’t automatic; we need mechanisms to ensure procedures extend through supply chains.
Dan Banik:
An IEG chair at the World Bank told me the key is making it easy and safe to approach institutions. Yet corporate “sustainability” portals can feel like PR, with real risks for local complainants who may face community backlash. Beyond naming and shaming, what actually moves companies?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Assume a shared boat. Many firms know more than governments about local communities, biodiversity, and service gaps. That knowledge can be channeled to support solutions—while keeping the state responsible for public welfare. Problems arise when states are disinterested or corrupt. Strategically engaging companies and strengthening state duty is the path forward; many firms are more open to this than we assume, if the process is credible and respectful of roles.
Dan Banik:
Officials and executives often say development requires trade-offs—some groups lose so others gain. How does that land with a human rights and solidarity lens?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
It doesn’t. Human rights rest on a Kantian premise: every person is an end, not a means. Treating people as means leads to abuses—of humans and nature. With existential threats from climate change to AI, we need cooperation anchored in equality as the baseline, not a calculus of acceptable harms.
Dan Banik:
Speaking of AI: beyond misinformation and democratic manipulation, can AI advance solidarity and rights?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Absolutely—if public and private actors align it with inclusion. AI can deliver education in indigenous languages to remote communities, enable tele-diagnostics and care, and expand access to work and services. The point is to program toward enabling life projects—education, health, livelihood—and to reject uses that demean or exclude.
Dan Banik:
Final question. As academics we want impact. In your UN role, do you feel you’re making a difference?
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
I don’t claim to be changing the world. I’m reminding states, corporations, and civil society that they have the power—and the ability inside “responsibility”—to act. We’ve been too quick to point fingers at “the UN,” “the state,” or “the corporation.” It’s time for everyone to do something, starting locally. If your municipality won’t fix the potholes, perhaps your son can prototype a community solution. Small actions, multiplied, can meet great challenges.
Dan Banik:
Cecilia, this was a pleasure. Thanks for joining me.
Cecilia Marcela Bailliet:
Thank you for having me.