scholarly journals Securing the Future of Copyright Users’ Rights in Canada

2018 ◽  
Vol 35 ◽  
pp. 11-39 ◽  
Author(s):  
Saleh Al-Sharieh

The Copyright Act includes a set of copyright infringement exceptions that permit the unauthorized use of copyrighted works in order to serve public interest objectives. The Supreme Court of Canada liberally interpreted these exceptions as “users’ rights” by relying on the purpose of the Act, understood as a balance between the authors’ right to be rewarded for their works and the public interest in the dissemination and use of works. The utility of copyright balance to safeguard users’ rights is uncertain. The Act does not explicitly adopt “balance” as a purpose. National and international copyright law traditionally recognize the users’ side in the copyright law balance in copyright exceptions and limitations. And, in copyright law discourse, different stakeholders propose and defend conflicting forms of balance. Therefore, the paper argues that a human rights-based approach to copyright exceptions is more persuasive in justifying their interpretation as users’ rights. Copyright users’ rights mirror the content of the human rights to participate in culture, education, and freedom of expression, which Canada is obliged to implement as a State Party to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The proposed approach would align the discourse with key elements of Canadian jurisprudence: (1) human rights as reinforcers of the rule of law; (2) international human rights law as an interpretive tool for Canadian courts; and (3) the need to interpret Canadian legislation in a manner that does not breach international obligations.

Author(s):  
Nigel Rodley

This chapter considers the background to, and current developments concerning the manner in which international law has engaged with the protection of human rights, including both civil and political rights and economic, social, and cultural rights. It looks at historical, philosophical, and political factors which have shaped our understanding of human rights and the current systems of international protection. It focuses on the systems of protection developed by and through the United Nations through the ‘International Bill of Rights’, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the UN human rights treaties and treaty bodies, and the UN Special Procedures as well as the work of the Human Rights Council. It also looks at the systems of regional human rights protection which have been established.


2020 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 249-269
Author(s):  
Sarah Joseph

Abstract States have duties under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights to prevent, control and treat covid-19. Implementation of these three obligations is analysed, taking account of countervailing human rights considerations. Regarding prevention, lockdowns designed to stop the spread of the virus are examined. Control measures are then discussed, namely transparency measures, quarantine, testing and tracing. The human rights compatibility of treatment measures, namely the provision of adequate medical and hospital care (or the failure to do so), are then examined. Finally, derogations from human rights treaties in times of pubic emergency are discussed.


2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane F Frey

<p>The existence of a right to strike under international law has been challenged by the International Organization of Employers since the late 1980s. The employer group claims that no such right exists under international law and has been moving to undermine recognition of the right at the International Labour Organisation (ILO). This article examines the right to strike in international human rights law. It considers specifically the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and finds that the right to strike exists in both of these treaties. Further, the article demonstrates that while the ILO employers group may challenge the existence of the right to strike, its government members have overwhelmingly ratified international human rights treaties contradicting the employer group's position that there is no such right.</p>


2020 ◽  
Vol 43 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Azadeh Dastyari

Michaela Banerji was a Commonwealth public servant when she was fired for sending up to 9000 messages on the public platform twitter criticising her employer; Australia’s human rights record; politicians; and public servants. The tweets did not disclose Ms Banerji’s name or occupation and all (except for one) tweet was sent in Ms Banerji’s private time. In 2019, the High Court confirmed that Ms Banerji’s tweets were not protected by the implied freedom of political communication in the Australian Constitution. Ms Banerji is not alone in having her ability to communicate her political views limited by her employment with the Australian public service. All Commonwealth public servants are bound by a legal framework that curtails their ability to criticise government policies. This article argues that the current regime restricting political communication by public servants in Australia is excessive and is not consistent with Australia’s international obligations under article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.


Author(s):  
Emilie M. Hafner-Burton

This chapter reviews scholarly research on international human rights law, focusing on systematic studies that are based on historical statistics and carried out by social scientists. The systematic, scholarly study of international human rights law can be grouped into two main categories. First are studies on the process of international law, such as on how judges in human rights tribunals make decisions. Second are studies that look for relationships between the presence of law (and laws of different types) and actual changes in human behavior. The chapter concentrates on the second category of research and highlights its main weaknesses. It also discusses some of the findings of statistical research regarding civil and political rights as well as economic, social, and cultural rights. Finally, it examines the mechanisms of influence of the international human rights legal system.


2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-56
Author(s):  
Aisha Jadoon ◽  
Ali Asghar Chusti

The ICCPR 1966 is an important international human rights treaty that provides a number of protections for civil and political rights. The Charter was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1966 and came into force in 1976. July 2020 So far, the agreement has been ratified by 171 countries. The newly liberated states of Africa and the Caribbean, together with the ICCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, are considered international human rights bills. The ICCPR obliges countries that ratify the agreement to ensure the protection of fundamental human rights, such as the right to life and human dignity, equality before the law, freedom of expression, the right to assembly and other rights also. ICCPR guarantees the fair trial for the accused in three stages i.e. Rights before trial, during trial and after trial. This article appraises the analytical study of the rights granted to the accused during the trial.


Author(s):  
Sarah St. Vincent

This chapter is intended as a basic reference guide for lawyers, legislators, and advocates approaching the issue of mass surveillance—or surveillance more generally—through the lens of international human rights law for the first time. It focuses on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the human rights treaties that apply in Europe and the Americas, with a particular emphasis on the rights to privacy, freedom of expression and opinion, and an effective remedy for violations. Although the exact parameters of the right to privacy are still being decided, it appears increasingly clear that state interferences with any kind of communications data will generally be subject to a standard of strict necessity applied on an individualized basis, and there is presently a trend toward finding that mass surveillance—including systematic state access to data held or transmitted by the private sector—violates the human rights treaties.


2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-60
Author(s):  
Neville Cox

AbstractIn its General Comment No. 34 dealing with freedom of expression, the United Nations Human Rights Committee (UNHRC) rejected the idea that a blasphemy law could ever be human-rights compliant, unless its function was to prevent incitement to religious or racial hatred. This is a widely shared view that is consistently endorsed when any international blasphemy controversy (such as that involving the Danish Cartoons in 2005) arises. This article assesses the legitimacy of this view. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) permits freedom of expression to be limited inter alia in the name of public morality, provided that the law in question is also necessary to achieve this end. This article argues that because a blasphemy law can be a response to a public moral vision; therefore a blasphemy law can serve a legitimate purpose insofar as human rights law is concerned. It is further submitted that whereas some blasphemy laws are unacceptably draconian, it is not inherently impossible for such a law to represent a proportionate response to a public morals concern. Thus, the conclusion from the UNHRC is not warranted by the text of the ICCPR. Moreover, there is a risk that, in reaching this conclusion the committee is evincing an exclusively secularist worldview in its interpretation of the ICCPR that undermines its claim to universality.


2014 ◽  
Vol 9 (2-3) ◽  
pp. 151-180 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeroen Temperman

This article ventures into the contentious question of whether the denial of historical atrocities is per se removed from the protection of freedom of expression and the related question if states may under international human rights law proactively combat, through criminal legislation (‘memory laws’), such types of extreme speech. In so doing, the article compares and contrasts approaches employed by the un Human Rights Committee that monitors the un International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights with that of the European Court of Human Rights, regional watchdog of the European Convention on Human Rights. It is argued that both approaches are shifting—though not quite in converging directions. The article makes a case for a contextual rather than exclusively content-based approach. An approach in which the question of ‘likelihood of harm being done to the targeted group’ is guiding, best resonates with the necessity principle.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document