By laboring underneath the radar of formal law, using a diverse array of conceptual tools and working from material disregarded by mainstream legal scholarship, Fleur Johns’ research has consistently opened up novel ways of grappling with international legal problems. The article at the focal point of this symposium continues to push the envelope of international legal studies. It sheds light on how the rise of Big Data and algorithmic decisionmaking is transforming international authority. It also speaks to the increasing deformalization of international law. Examining the mundane practices of global governance may sound unrevealing to some. But Johns shows how this approach can yield important insights into international law's operations and effects.

In the last century, international law expanded to new domains that had traditionally fallen under exclusive governmental authority—such as human rights, environmental law, nonproliferation law, trade law, etc. This expansion of international rules coalesced into transnational legal fields, which not only include norms, rules, and procedures, but also monitoring systems designed to ensure compliance by member states and private actors. By assuming that all levels of a legal regime (from norms to rules and procedures, and then to monitoring systems and sanctioning mechanisms in case of observed violations) function in a harmonious and complementary way—as the apparatus of international law is supposed to—, some international law scholars may be tempted to avoid spending time analyzing the technical operations of monitoring agencies. The perusal of inspection and compliance manuals is less rewarding and more taxing than the analysis of preambles of treaties and conventions, where norms of good conduct, allocation of rights, and formal authority between institutions are usually delineated.

Fleur Johns' thesis about the increasing role of data in the verification of the condition of the world and how this impacts on international law is stimulating and bears reflection. This is an extremely interesting and innovative approach to the issue of data and its role in state engagement with mass migration. From the perspective of a scholar on international refugee law, a number of issues arise as a result of the analysis. One of the contested aspects of mass migration and refugee protection is the inherent inconsistency between two ways of thinking about human rights—the first is the duty of (some) international organizations to protect human rights in a manner which elides human rights and humanitarian law, and the second is the right of the individual to dignity, the basis of all human rights according to the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1949. The first enhances the claims of states to sovereign right to control their borders (mediated through some international organizations), while the second recognizes the international human rights duties of states and international organizations to respect the dignity of people as individuals (including refugees). Fleur is completely correct that human rights abuses are at the core of refugee movements. While there are always many people in a country who will stay and fight human rights abuses even when this results in their sacrifice, others will flee danger trying to get themselves and their families to places of safety; we are not all heroes. Yet, when people flee in more than very small numbers, state authorities have a tendency to begin the language of mass migration. The right to be a refugee becomes buried under the threat of mass migration to the detriment of international obligations. Insofar as mass migration is a matter for management, the right of a refugee is an individual right to international protection which states have bound themselves to offer.

One of the great strengths of Fleur Johns’ approach is her conceptual starting point: that sensing and knowing are intimately connected but distinct, and that therefore “sensing practice … encompasses those ways of knowing, or claims to knowledge, that are mobilized in the course of perception.” To borrow John Berger’s phrase, sensing practice is a “way of seeing” and whether we are viewing European oil paintings or the human-readable rendering of an algorithmic reading of data from a satellite, it is only possible to fully understand this process by recognizing that “sights” cannot be understood separately from society. Johns’ exploration of the questions of power and agency that are posed by an investigation into the implications of adopting new sensing technologies by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) is important and timely because it opens up a wider discussion about the role played by Machine Learning (ML) in a wide range of social contexts, prompting us to ask about the social relations through which the technology itself is produced and used.

Fleur Johns raises the alarm regarding the potential for algorithmic analysis of big data to change fundamentally the way international lawyers and their allies gather and interpret facts to which international law is applied. Johns invites her readers to join her in seeking ways to save the aspirations of law on the “global plane” from these disruptive forces. In what follows I take up Johns’ invitation, in the spirit of its advancing claims “in a speculative or polemical mode,” asking the reader to withhold for a moment demands for completeness, instead joining in exploration of how the world of international law might be viewed differently if a larger version of Johns’ argument holds.