Transparency as a Human Right

2006 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrick Birkinshaw
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Access To Justice ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Government Information ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

‘Transparency’, ‘openness’, and access to government-held information are widely applauded as remedies for the deficiencies and operations of government where government claims to be democratic but falls short of its rhetoric. This chapter examines whether transparency is a human right, focusing on one of its specific features: access to government information, or freedom of information (FOI). It explains what is meant by FOI and argues that within the framework of internationally agreed concepts of human rights, FOI deserves to be listed with those rights. Not only is FOI instrumental in realizing other human rights such as freedom of speech and access to justice, or other desiderata such as accountability, it is intrinsically important: the right to know how government operates on our behalf. The chapter also discusses constitutionalism and the struggle for information in the United Kingdom.

The Right to Know in Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States

2016 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
The United States ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Freedom Of Information Act ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

It was acknowledged in the 1997 White Paper Your Right To Know that the United Kingdom could learn much from the experience of other countries with established FOI regimes. The draftsman of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 had regard to the statutory schemes of five such countries whose jurisprudence has precedent value in our courts: Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, and the United States. Chapter 25 looks at their different approaches to the fundamental elements of any FOI regime, and gives examples of how their courts have interpreted and applied the respective statutes. The chapter notes common themes and recurrent sources of controversy, notably delays in responding to requests, charges for access, and the position of affected third parties. It traces how the legislation in each country has been adapted over the years, and where there is pressure for yet further reforms.

Deferring Citizens' “Right to Know” in an Information Age

2019 ◽  
pp. 264-286
Author(s):  
William Edward Heuva
Keyword(s):  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Information Age ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Access To Information ◽  
Human Right ◽  
Emerging Democracies ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Policy Frameworks ◽  
Constitutional Right ◽  
The Right

Namibia is one of the emerging democracies that have not yet enacted the Access to Information legislation. While the country has guaranteed freedom of expression and media in its constitution, it has not provided for Access to Information as a constitutional right. This chapter seeks to examine Namibia's reluctance to adopt an Access to Information legislation. It interrogates views that locate the omission of this fundamental human right in the country's constitutional (legal) and policy frameworks. It underscores the failure by Namibia to reverse the information black-out suffered under the Apartheid dispensation. The chapter starts with a theoretical/philosophical rationale for the right to know to elicit an understanding of this discourse and its relevance to emerging democracies, such as Namibia. It then examines attempts by state and civil society to introduce the legislation in the country. Predicted on praxis, the chapter in conclusion provides some suggestions that may help resolving the impasse in adopting the Access to Information legislation in the county.

9. Freedom of Expression

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard Clements
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Freedom Of Expression ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Freedom Of Speech ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Free Expression ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Obscenity Law ◽  
Right Of Privacy ◽  
The Right

The Q&A series offers the best preparation for tackling exam questions. Each chapter includes typical questions; diagram problem and essay answer plans, suggested answers, notes of caution, tips on obtaining extra marks, the key debates on each topic and suggestions on further reading. This chapter moves on from the previous one to examine the freedom of expression. Under common law, freedom of speech is guaranteed unless the speaker breaks the law, but this is now reinforced by the right of free expression under the European Convention on Human Rights. The questions here deal with issues such as obscenity law and contempt of court; the Official Secrets Act; freedom of information; breach of confidence and whether there is a right of privacy in English law.

La spinta verso una legislazione europea comune sul diritto di conoscere le proprie origini genetiche / The push towards common European legislation with respect to the right to know one’s genetic origins

2018 ◽  
Vol 66 (6) ◽  
pp. 747-761
Author(s):  
Gianluca Montanari Vergallo ◽  
Natale Mario Di Luca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Legislation ◽  
Anonymous Birth ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
Genetic Origins ◽  
The Right

A venti anni dalla sua approvazione, la Convenzione di Oviedo necessita di un aggiornamento. Infatti, non affronta la questione del diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa di conoscere l’identità dei donatori di gameti. La Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo ha recentemente stabilito che: a) il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini biologiche è tutelato dall’art. 8 della Convenzione dei diritti dell’uomo; b) tale diritto deve essere bilanciato con quello della madre biologica di rimanere anonima (c.d. parto anonimo). Al fine di trovare tale bilanciamento, una possibile soluzione consiste nel richiedere ai giudici di convocare la madre per chiederle se intende revocare l’anonimato. Se la madre ribadisce la propria originaria intenzione di rimanere sconosciuta, il Tribunale non può consentire al figlio di conoscere la sua identità. Gli autori analizzano anche altre due questioni non prese in considerazione dalla Corte europea: a) l’equilibrio tra il diritto di conoscere le proprie origini e quello dei donator di gamete all’anonimato; b) se tale diritto dei bambini nati da fecondazione eterologa vincoli i genitori legali a rivelargli le modalità del concepimento. Tali problemi e l’importanza degli interessi in gioco inducono gli autori a sostenere che la scelta di usare il citato art. 8 come criterio di giudizio non è affatto ottimale. Appare preferibile affrontare queste questioni attraverso un aggiornamento della Convenzione di Oviedo o comunque con modalità tali da arrivare ad una regolamentazione che sia uniforme all’interno dell’Unione europea. ---------- Twenty years since it was opened for signature, the Oviedo Convention needs updating. It does not deal with the issue of the donor-conceived children’s right to know the identity of the gamete donors. The European Court of Human Rights has recently stated that: a) the right to know one’s biological background is protected by article 8 of the Convention on Human Rights; b) such a right must be balanced with the biological mother’s right to anonymity (anonymous birth). In order to find such balancing, a possible solution might be to require judges to summon mothers to ask them whether they would like to reverse their decision to be anonymous. If the mother reaffirms her intention to remain unknown, the court may not allow the child to learn of her identity and contact her. The authors also analyze two other issues not taken into account by the European Court: a) the balancing between the right to know one’s origins and the gamete donors’ right to anonymity; b) whether the donor-conceived children’s right to know would make it mandatory for legal parents to disclose conception procedures. These problems and the importance of the interests at stake induce the authors to argue that the choice to keep using the above mentioned article 8 as yardstick is far from ideal. It appears to be far preferable to deal with these issues while updating the Oviedo Convention or in such a way as to incentivize the enactment of legislation that would be uniform throughout the European Union.

Part II The Right to Know, A General Principles, Principle 2 The Inalienable Right to the Truth

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Groome Dermot
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Truth Commissions ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
International Courts ◽  
International Convention ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right ◽  
International Instruments

Principle 2 is concerned with the inalienable right to truth, a right that arises from the right to know and obliges governments to establish mechanisms to facilitate the revelation of the truth about serious violations of human rights. The right to truth has been explicitly incorporated into several international instruments and, in 2010, became expressly guaranteed in the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (ICPPED). In practice, the right to truth is realized through laws enabling requests for state-held information; archives; truth commissions; national and international courts; and human rights commissions. After providing a contextual and historical overview of Principle 2, this chapter describes its normative (legal/ethical) foundation, focusing on how its interpretation is influenced by international law and how it relates to notions of transitional justice. It also analyzes the applications of the Principle in practice.

scholarly journals Keterbukaan Informasi Publik Data Pertanahan

Widya Bhumi ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-64
Author(s):  
Nur Rahmanto
Keyword(s):  
Information Disclosure ◽  
Spatial Planning ◽  
Public Information ◽  
Right To Know ◽  
Public Officials ◽  
Human Right ◽  
The Public ◽  
Government Administration ◽  
The Right To Know ◽  
The Right

In essence, every citizen has the right to know about all activities or policies carried out by public officials, this is in addition to the right to obtain information, it is a human right as well as a means of public control over government administration, but the right to obtain this information is often There are obstacles both in terms of regulations and unsupportive behavior of public officials. Law Number 14 of 2008 (UU KIP) which regulates the issue of public information disclosure in its implementation conflicts with Permenagraria / Ka BPN Number 3 of 1997, in which the regulation of the Minister of State for Agrarian Affairs regulates restrictions on restrictions in providing information on land data which are often inconsistent with with the regulation of public information disclosure regulated in the KIP Law, so that the public does not immediately get information on land data which in turn will lead to a lawsuit from the public to the Ministry of Agrarian Affairs and Spatial Planning / BPN at the Information Commission and State Administrative Court. By using the desk study method, this paper will examine the information disclosure arrangements stipulated in the two regulations referred to as well as the conflicts that occur both in the articles of the contents of the regulations and in their implementation practices so that solutions or recommendations will be obtained so that public information disclosure can run properly in Indonesia country.Keywords: public information disclosure, data sharing, land data . Intisari: Setiap warga masyarakat pada hahekatnya adalah berhak untuk tahu mengenai semua kegiatan atau kebijakan yang dilakukan oleh pejabat publik, hal ini selain hak untuk memperoleh informasi itu adalah hak asasi setiap manusia juga sebagai sarana kontrol publik terhadap penyelenggaraan pemerintahan, akan tetapi hak untuk memperoleh informasi ini sering ada kendala baik dari sisi regulasi maupun perilaku petugas publik yang tidak mendukung. Undang Undang Nomor 14 Tahun 2008 (UU KIP) yang mengatur masalah keterbukaan informasi publik dalam pelaksanannya berbenturan dengan Permenagraria/Ka BPN Nomor 3 Tahun 1997, dimana di dalam peraturan Menteri Negara Agraria dimaksud diatur mengenai pembatasan pembatasan dalam memberikan informasi data pertanahan yang seringkali tidak sejalan dengan pengaturan keterbukaan informasi publik yang diatur di dalam UU KIP, sehingga masyarakat tidak serta merta bisa mendapatkan informasi data pertanahan yang pada akhirnya akan memunculkan gugatan dari masyarakat kepada Kementerian Agraria dan Tata Ruang/BPN di Komisi Informasi  dan Pengadilan Tata Usaha Negara. Dengan menggunakan methode desk study tulisan ini akan mengkaji pengaturan keterbukaan informasi yang diatur di dalam kedua peraturan dimaksud serta pertentangan yang terjadi baik di dalam pasal pasal isi peraturan maupun di dalam praktek pelaksanaannya untuk selanjutnya akan diperoleh solusi atau rekomendasi sehingga keterbukaan informasi publik dapat berjalan dengan baik di Negara Indonesia.Kata Kunci: keterbukaan informasi publik, berbagi data, data pertanahan.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document