HUMAN RIGHTS Evolution in the digital era

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Artificial Intelligence ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Interpersonal Communication ◽  
The United States ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Added Value ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Human Thinking ◽  
Individual Contact ◽  
The Right

This publication contains studies conducted by authors from several European countries that have cooperated with each other for many years in the field of human rights. The fruit of this cooperation are numerous conferences and publications in various languages. What is most important, however, is the exchange of experiences and opinions on understanding and application of individual human rights from the perspective of the experiences of societies living in the European cultural circle, and at the same time functioning in different historical and geographical conditions. This publication is an attempt to look at human rights from the perspective of the dynamic progress that is connected with the development of ICT tools. It is not only about digitization or automation of human work, but above all about creating a virtual society, in which artificial intelligence plays an important role. A significant part of human activity, especially interpersonal communication, takes place with the use of social media. Moreover, individual contact with public authorities are being gradually replaced by intelligent computer programs. In the United States, there is already an IT system, which adjudicates in minor misdemeanor cases. Modern researches in IT sector aim to build programs that allow to support human thinking through recommendation algorithms or suggesting automatically learned solutions, and even aim at autonomous decision-making. This last level of shifting responsibility for decisions to artificial intelligence is assessed extremely positive by many people, but also brings many fears. A virtual society built with the use of artificial intelligence changes the perception of many human rights, such as the right to good name, the right to freely express one’s opinion, the right to property, the right to state or national identity. Hence this publication contains various opinions on the artificial intelligence and its role in the functioning of society and importance for the life of an individual. The added value of this publication is the fact that it contains balanced views and assessments of authors from various European countries and academic societies conducting research on digital reality. This publication will certainly allow the reader to form his or her own opinion on human rights in the context of artificial intelligence.

The Post-Deportation Human Rights Project: Participatory Action Research with Maya Transnational Families

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Lykes ◽  
Erin McDonald ◽  
Cesar Boc
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
New England ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Immigrant Parents ◽  
Transnational Families ◽  
Southern New England ◽  
Immigrant Organizations ◽  
The Right

As the number of immigrants in the United States has increased dramatically in recent decades, so has the number of human rights violations against immigrants in the form of arrests without warrants, detention and deportation of parents without consideration of the well-being of their children, and incarceration without bail or the right to a public attorney. The Post-Deportation Human Rights Project (PDHRP) at Boston College was developed to investigate and respond to the legal and psychological effects of deportation policies on migrants living in or deported from the United States. This unique multidisciplinary project involves lawyers, social science faculty, and graduate students—all of whom are bilingual, one of whom is trilingual, and many of whom are bicultural—working together in partnership with local immigrant organizations to address the psychosocial impact of deportation on Latino and Maya families and communities. Our work includes psycho-educational and rights education workshops with immigrant parents and their children in southern New England as well as a cross-national project based in the U.S. and Guatemala supporting transnational families through participatory research, educational workshops, and legal resources.

scholarly journals The Right to Effective Management in the Practice of the European Court of Human Rights

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 29-31
Author(s):  
Andrey Yu. Klyuchnikov ◽  
◽  
Vladimir S. Kruzhilin ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Justice ◽  
Effective Management ◽  
Government Officials ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right

The article is devoted to the study of the right to effective management recognized by the international justice as a complex interdisciplinary institution affecting the functioning of public authorities and local self-government, officials and courts. The authors study the principles of the right to effective management, the powers granted to persons in connection with the action of the Institute, taking into account the practice of the ECHR.

scholarly journals A new paradigm of human rights in the context of the global threats development

2021 ◽  
Vol 118 ◽  
pp. 02011
Author(s):  
Georgy Borisovich Romanovsky ◽  
Olga Valentinovna Romanovskaya ◽  
Vladislav Georgievich Romanovsky ◽  
Anastasia Andreevna Ryzhova ◽  
Olga Aleksandrovna Ryzhova
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Homo Sapiens ◽  
The United States ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
New Paradigm ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
The Right To Privacy ◽  
Biomedical Technologies ◽  
The Right

The purpose of the research is to formulate the general guidelines for the transformation of human rights as a result of global threats. The methodological framework was the methods of comparative legal research, which showed the general trends in the development of the human rights legislation under the influence of global threats. By the example of the responses of states to the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, it is shown how legislative innovations expanding the powers of law enforcement agencies and special services have led to the revision of the content of such basic human rights as the right to privacy and/or the right to personal inviolability. Highlighted is the concept of the “war on terror” (formulated by the United States President in 2001), which allows terrorists to be treated as representatives of a belligerent but without providing any international guarantees enshrined in the provisions of the international humanitarian law. The consequences of the introduction of biomedical technologies, that are aggressive towards humans, are presented, namely the creation of chimeric organisms that contribute to blurring the interspecific boundaries; creation of a genetically modified organism – human embryo; the development of an artificial uterus capable of bearing a human fetus practically from the time the male and female reproductive cells join. The results consist in the identified trends in the development of legal institutions, such as the formulation of new human rights often replacing or distorting the content of basic recognised human rights enshrined in the key international documents and constitutions of the countries of the world; bypassing the legal prohibitions established over the past decades by introducing relativism and assessing any situation from the point of view of the conditions for its occurrence. The novelty of the research lies in the authors’ position and is formulated as follows: the modern system of human rights is facing a serious crisis. Failure to effectively respond to symbolic challenges and threats is one of the factors necessitating the need for monitoring many regulatory documents. But a significant reason for the backlash also lies in the fact that we are at the turn of an era when technology shows humanity the possibility of correcting the very nature of Homo sapiens.

Extradition Between European and African Countries: Overcoming the Challenges

2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 288-319
Author(s):  
Jamil Ddamulira Mujuzi
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
European Countries ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
African Countries ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Risk ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
The Right

Although EU states use the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) for the purpose of surrendering a person who is accused of committing an offence or who has been convicted of an offence, they use extradition when dealing with countries outside the EU. However, they use surrender when dealing with the International Criminal Court (ICC). Thus, extradition is one of the ways in which African and European countries (especially EU members) are cooperating in the fight against crime. Case law from courts in some African and European countries and from the European Court of Human Rights, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture, shows that extraditions between African and European countries have been delayed or hampered by allegations of human rights violations in the requesting state. These allegations have focused on mainly two rights: the right to a fair trial and the right to freedom from torture. The European Court of Human Rights has held that the extradition of a person should not go ahead if his or her trial was or will amount to a flagrant denial of justice or where there is a real risk of being subjected to torture. Although African courts and international human rights bodies have also held that extradition should not go ahead where there is a real risk that the person will be subjected to torture or where his/her trial will be unfair, they have not adopted the ‘flagrant denial of justice’ test. The case law also shows that some people have challenged the legal basis for their extradition. This article highlights this case law and suggests ways in which some of the challenges associated with extradition could be overcome. The article demonstrates that courts in some African and European countries have considered the nature of extradition enquiries. In some countries, such as Kenya, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings. However, in the United Kingdom, courts have held that extradition enquiries are criminal proceedings of a special type. There is consensus that extradition enquiries are not civil proceedings.

Global Application of Intersectionality Theory

2021 ◽  
pp. 27-53
Author(s):  
Johanna Bond
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Partner Violence ◽  
The United States ◽  
Black Girls ◽  
Human Rights Violations ◽  
Gender Based Violence ◽  
Gender Based ◽  
The Many ◽  
Inadequate Prenatal Care ◽  
The Right

This chapter delves into examples of global intersectionality to illustrate the need for a thorough and consistent intersectional approach to human rights violations around the world. Although it is impossible to provide an exhaustive analysis of the many and varied types of intersectional human rights violations, this chapter offers multiple examples of intersectional human rights violations, including (1) gender-based violence, including both non-state actors who commit intimate partner violence and sexual violence in armed conflict; (2) maternal mortality and inadequate prenatal care in Brazil; (3) coerced sterilization among the Roma in Europe; (4) disproportionate discipline and punishment of Black girls in the United States; and (5) inconsistent LGBTQI rights. These case studies implicate different human rights, including the right to be free from violence, the right to education, and the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Each example demonstrates how a more nuanced, intersectional lens is necessary to capture the rights at stake and to contemplate appropriate remedies for victims of human rights violations in full.

Forty years after Lau

2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 227-244 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Beatriz Arias ◽  
Terrence G. Wiley
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Minority Students ◽  
The United States ◽  
Language Minority ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Language Minority Students ◽  
The Us ◽  
Linguistic Human Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
Right Of Access

This article addresses the right to an education (including the right of access), and the right to an education in one’s native language, within the broader context of educational human rights, and language minority educational policy in the United States. Included in this discussion is an overview of educational and linguistic human rights as recognized in the US, followed by a review of the legal and historical background prior to the passage of the Lau v Nichols decision in 1974. The implications of demographic changes coupled with federal policy for language minority students forty years after Lau are discussed.

scholarly journals Aproximación a la regulación y contenido del derecho a una alimentación adecuada

2018 ◽  
pp. 183 ◽  
Author(s):  
Juan Manuel Goig Martínez
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
National Level ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Right To Food ◽  
The Public ◽  
Guiding Principle ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Adequate Food ◽  
The Right

La alimentación adecuada constituye un derecho humano. Así lo han reconocido oficialmente la gran mayoría de los Tratados Internacionales sobre derechos humanos. Pero existe una gran diferencia entre que un Estado reconozca oficialmente la alimentación como un derecho fundamental en su constitución, o lo haga como un principio rector, puesto que ello dotará al derecho a la alimentación adecuada de una mayor protección, o lo convertirá en un principio de actuación de los poderes públicos. Se puede exigir a los gobiernos garantizar el ejercicio efectivo del derecho a la alimentación de conformidad con las disposiciones constitucionales para otros derechos humanos. Pero, la capacidad de la invocación indirecta de otros derechos humanos para lograr la protección efectiva del derecho a la alimentación en el plano nacional dependerá, en definitiva, de la interpretación jurídica que se haga de la Constitución.Adequate food is a human right. Thus the vast majority of treaties have officially recognized it human rights. But there is a big difference between that a State officially recognizes food as a fundamental right in the Constitution, or do it as a guiding principle, since this will provide the right to adequate food of greater protection, or the It will become a principle of action of the public authorities. You may require Governments to ensuring the effective exercise of the right to food in accordance with the constitutional provisions for other human rights. But the indirect invocation of other human rights capacity to achieve effective protection of the right to food at the national level will depend, ultimately, of the legal interpretation that is made of the Constitution.

Benign Discrimination and the Right to Equality

1974 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gareth Evans
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
The United States ◽  
Preferential Treatment ◽  
Apparent Paradox ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Formal Expression ◽  
Gareth Evans ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Right

Governments have been increasingly preoccupied with the task of reconciling claims to preferential treatment with the principle of equality. The social and philosophical issues raised by this apparent paradox are considered, and the compatibility of benign discrimination with the concept of equality demonstrated by developing a complex normative notion of equality. An analysis is then undertaken of the various attempts made by lawyers, in nearly one hundred existing bills of rights, to give formal expression to these principles. Ultimately the problem of benign discrimination falls for resolution by the courts, and the jurisprudence developed in this respect by the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States is critically discussed and compared. Having exhaustively developed an appreciation of world experience regarding the interaction of bills of rights equality clauses and benign discrimination, consideration is given to the formulation of the Australian Human Rights Bill—a bill of which Gareth Evans was one of the principal draftsmen.

scholarly journals Information delayed is justice denied

2019 ◽  
Vol 52 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Jurij Toplak ◽  
Boštjan Brezovnik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Effective Protection ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
European Court ◽  
Disclosure Of Information ◽  
Access Information ◽  
The Right

European Court of Human Rights ruled in 2016 that the European Convention on Human Rights includes a right to access information held by public authorities. While according to international documents the procedures for accessing information should be ‘rapid’, the courts have yet to rule on what ‘rapid’ means and when the procedures are so long that they violate rights of those asking for information. This article analyses the length of proceedings in access to information cases in Slovenia and Croatia. It shows that these two countries do not have a system of effective protection of rights because the authorities can easily delay disclosure of information for several years. It argues that lengthy procedures violate the right to access the information and the freedom of expression. It then presents solutions for improving access to information procedures in order for them to become ‘rapid’

scholarly journals The True Meaning of Force: A Further Response to Tom Ruys in the Interest of Peace

AJIL Unbound ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 108 ◽  
pp. 153-154
Author(s):  
Mary Ellen O’Connell
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Security Council ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The United States ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Lethal Force ◽  
Intelligence Services ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Right

I very much appreciate the seriousness with which Tom Ruys read my comments on his article. Rather than convince me that his thesis about Article 2(4) is correct, however, his reply provides further support for the opposing view. Minor force is excluded from Article 2(4) but regulated under other legal principles. Here are some examples: •He accepts that there are many cases where states and courts have treated low level uses of force as regulated under rules other than Article 2(4). He also argues, and I agree, that some cases are unclear as to whether they support an Article 2(4) threshold or not. Yet, he fails to deal with the really important point in my comment that the great weight of authority clearly supports the threshold. In his reply he even cites with favor the recent report of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on the Conflict in Georgia, but the report supports the view that low level uses of force fall below the Article 2(4) threshold.•Ruys concedes that some low-level uses of force are outside Article 2(4). In his reply he provides a new hypothetical of such a minor use of force, a bar fight in Afghanistan between soldiers of different nationalities. He says it is a matter of common sense that such a use of force is excluded from Article 2(4). Yes, common sense is one of the reasons to conclude low-level force is excluded. Given that he agrees on this, his article should be about where the threshold is, not an argument that there is no threshold at all. I argue that various other rules of international law from the principle of non-intervention to human rights law to the law of countermeasures indicate where the threshold is. In his reply he takes up an example I provide on “targeted killing,” asking where is the legal distinction between knifing an individual and launching a Hellfire missile at an individual, as opposed to launching a Hellfire at a group of people—the example I used. I categorize all Hellfire attacks as covered by Article 2(4) because of the amount of firepower involved. The Hellfire was developed as a tank-killing weapon. The number of persons targeted is not as significant as the fact the Hellfire involves more too much firepower to conform to the rules governing lawful law enforcement (police) deployment of lethal force. Lawful deployment of a Hellfire must comply with one of the exceptions to Article 2(4).•Saying minor force is excluded from Article 2(4) is not the same as saying such force is lawful. The example just mentioned of knifing an individual, say by the intelligence services of one state acting on the territory of another state, implicates non-intervention, human rights, and countermeasures, among other rules relevant to regulating minor uses of force. In his reply, Ruys criticizes the adequacy of some of this law. No doubt some of the law is inadequate, but that is a different issue from the one he is examining, which is what law applies to minor uses of force.•If Article 2(4) included minor uses of force states could not lawfully employ countermeasures involving minor uses of force in, for example, rescue and arrest efforts. Using force under today’s law, which does not include Ruys’s proposal to expand the right to use force in self-defense, requires Security Council authorization. This is clearly a problem for his analysis. States simply do not do this. The United States did not go to the Security Council to get permission to try to rescue the American journalist, James Foley, beheaded by ISIL militants in Syria in August or to detain Abu Khattala in Libya in June. Both operations followed the rules regulating lethal force by police and were lawful in my view, but not in Ruys’s view of the current law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document