scholarly journals Self-regulation of fundamental rights? The EU Code of Conduct on Hate Speech, related initiatives and beyond

2020 ◽  
pp. 197-229
Author(s):  
Teresa Quintel ◽  
Carsten Ullrich
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Self Regulation ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

scholarly journals Impartiality in the EU Asylum Procedure

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 338-356
Author(s):  
Pieter van Reenen
Keyword(s):  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Court ◽  
Common European Asylum System ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Right To Good Administration ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The Asylum Procedures Directive stipulates that asylum applications are examined ‘impartially’ by the national authorities. This paper explores the meaning of the term impartiality in administrative settings in EU asylum law focussing on three levels: the Common European Asylum System, the administrative organisational level and the level of the individual immigration officer. CEAS does not provide for a definition of impartiality. The article connects impartiality to the right to good administration as in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU. It includes jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights as well as the approach of the EU Ombudsman and EASO in its scope. These sources provide more concrete aspects of impartiality. The article is finalized with recommendations for a code of conduct.

scholarly journals Digital platforms and the rise of global regulation of hate speech

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 282-304
Author(s):  
Paolo Cavaliere
Keyword(s):  
Hate Speech ◽  
Code Of Conduct ◽  
Global Regulation ◽  
Digital Platforms ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Global Trend ◽  
Scope Of Protection ◽  
The Eu

The EU Code of Conduct on hate speech requires online platforms to set standards to regulate the blocking or removal of undesirable content. The standards chosen can be analysed for four variables: the scope of protection, the form of speech, the nature of harm, and the likelihood of harm. Comparing the platforms' terms of use against existing legal standards for hate speech reveals that the scope of speech that may be removed increases significantly under the Code's mechanism. Therefore, it is legitimate to consider the platforms as substantive regulators of speech. However, the Code is only the latest example in a global trend of platforms' activities affecting both the substantive regulation of speech and its governance. Meanwhile, States' authority to set standards of acceptable speech wanes.

Online Radicalisation: Current Debates and State Responses

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 87-91
Author(s):  
Reem Ahmed
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Research ◽  
Hate Speech ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Internet ◽  
Online Content ◽  
Member States ◽  
State Responses ◽  
The Eu

The Internet has long been recognised as a space where extremists can disseminate propaganda, recruit, and spread hate speech. However, whilst more (empirical) research is required to fully understand the contours and scale of the issue of online radicalisation, the EU and its Member States are taking significant action to remove illegal online content. Takedowns raise a number of issues concerning the safeguarding of fundamental rights and the measure is potentially counter-productive. This article presents an overview of the debates surrounding online radicalisation and examines the use of takedowns, highlighting the specific issues that arise.

The EU Fundamental Rights Landscape after Opinion 2/13

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johan Callewaert ◽  
Marc Joseph Bossuyt ◽  
Emmanuelle Bribosia ◽  
Christophe Hillion ◽  
Martin Kuijer ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

EU Health Law & Policy

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anniek de Ruijter
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Human Health ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Health Issues ◽  
Division Of Powers ◽  
Legal Principle ◽  
Legal Competence ◽  
The Eu

This book describes the expansion of EU power in health care and public health and analyses the implications of this expansion on EU health values and rights. The main conclusion of the book is that the EU is de facto balancing fundamental rights and values relating to health, implicitly taking on obligations for safeguarding fundamental rights in the field of health and affecting individuals’ rights sometimes without an explicit legal competence to do so. This brings to light instances where EU health policy has implications for fundamental rights and values without the possibility to challenge the exercise of power of the EU in human health. This begs the question of whether subsidiarity is still the most relevant legal principle for the division of powers and tasks among the Member States, particularly when EU policy and law involves the politically sensitive areas of health care and public health. This question draws out the parameter for continuing the debate on the role of the European Union in promoting its own values and the wellbeing of its peoples, in light of its ever-growing role in human health issues.

The Democratic Costs of Constitutionalization— The European Case

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dieter Grimm
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
Economic Integration ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Political Implications ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the democratic costs of constitutionalization by focusing on the European case. It first considers the interdependence of democracy and constitutionalism before discussing how constitutionalization can put democracy at risk. It then explores the tension between democracy and fundamental rights, the constitutionalization of the European treaties, and the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) two separate judgments regarding the relationship between European law and national law. It also assesses the impact of the ECJ’s jurisprudence on democracy, especially in the area of economic integration. The chapter argues that the legitimacy problem the EU faces is caused in part by over-constitutionalization and that the remedy to this problem is re-politicization of decisions with significant political implications.

The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Human Rights Law

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Intellectual Property ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Cultural Rights ◽  
Core Subject ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines the human rights system and the way it deals with human creations and innovations that are the traditional core subject matter of intellectual property (IP) rights. It begins by reviewing the scope for protection under Article 27 (2) Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and Article 15 (1) (c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The chapter moves on to the protection of property in human rights law, especially on the regional, European level. It examines how IP can be protected as property under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR) and under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (EU Charter). Finally, the chapter looks at some of the overlaps with international IP rules and the conflict norms in the human rights system to address such overlaps.

Human rights and the rule of law in judicial cooperation in criminal matters under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement

2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442199593
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Schomburg ◽  
Anna Oehmichen ◽  
Katrin Kayß
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Cooperation Agreement ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Human Rights Protection ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
The Eu

As human rights have increasingly gained importance at the European Union level, this article examines the remaining scope of human rights protection under the EU–UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. While some international human rights instruments remain applicable, the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union did not become part of the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA). The consequences, especially the inapplicability of the internationalised ne bis in idem principle, are analysed. Furthermore, the conditionality of the TCA in general as well as the specific conditionality for judicial cooperation in criminal matters are discussed. In this context, the risk that cooperation may cease at any moment if any Member State or the UK leave the European Convention of Human Rights is highlighted. Lastly, the authors raise the problem of the lack of judicial review, as the Court of Justice of the European Union is no longer competent.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document