Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles) ISSN (Print) 1461-7781 - ISSN (Online) 1744-1021 Published by Oxford University Press[413 journals]
Authors:Dias Oliva T. Pages: 607 - 640 Abstract: AbstractWith the increase in online content circulation new challenges have arisen: the dissemination of defamatory content, non-consensual intimate images, hate speech, fake news, the increase of copyright violations, among others. Due to the huge amount of work required in moderating content, internet platforms are developing artificial intelligence to automate decision-making content removal. This article discusses the reported performance of current content moderation technologies from a legal perspective, addressing the following question: what risks do these technologies pose to freedom of expression, access to information and diversity in the digital environment' The legal analysis developed by the article focuses on international human rights law standards. Despite recent improvements, content moderation technologies still fail to understand context, thereby posing risks to users’ free speech, access to information and equality. Consequently, it is concluded, these technologies should not be the sole basis for reaching decisions that directly affect user expression. PubDate: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa032 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Griffith A; Smit L, McCorquodale R. Pages: 641 - 673 Abstract: ABSTRACTThe business and human rights framework is based on pillars in which states should act to protect against the human rights impacts of business enterprises and the business enterprises should act in ways that do not lead to human rights impacts. Yet there is a gap in this framework in situations where a business enterprise may be willing to act but faces challenges in doing so due to the laws and practices of a state in which it operates. This international framework nevertheless places an expectation on businesses that they should still respect international human rights law as far as possible in these circumstances. No methods are offered for how this can be done in any coherent manner. This makes it very difficult for business enterprises, regulators and civil society to determine the type of compliance required. In this article, we explore this gap in the international framework and, based on empirical research, offer ways in which it can be closed. We propose a typology to assist in understanding the different conflicts between business practices and state laws that may occur, and recommend methods as to how to deal with these conflicts. PubDate: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa033 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Jovanovic M. Pages: 674 - 703 Abstract: AbstractThe modern slavery discourse has brought attention to the idea of ‘human exploitation’, which underpins a range of practices comprised by this popular umbrella term. Despite its extensive use, the concept of exploitation has never been defined in international law. This article articulates the necessary and sufficient conditions for the notion of exploitation in the context of the human rights prohibition against slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking. This is done by examining international legislation, jurisprudence and the philosophical discussions of this concept. Articulating the parameters of exploitation sets firm boundaries of this right while leaving enough room for its further refinement in light of the new and emerging forms of modern slavery. Such analysis is a pioneering effort at elucidating the theoretical foundations of the prohibition of slavery, servitude, forced or compulsory labour and human trafficking. PubDate: Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa023 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Wang D. Pages: 704 - 724 Abstract: AbstractThere is a growing consensus that fair priority-setting and the right to health contribute to achieving universal health coverage. The right to health creates legal entitlements to receive care and fair priority-setting promotes efficient and just health systems. However, there can be tension between them, particularly when the right to health is judicially protected. This article analyses three approaches to understanding this tension: the first minimises the conflicts between them to emphasise their synergies; the second admits the tension and considers it positive as rights create and protect substantive entitlements against priority-setting decisions; the third also recognises that this tension exists, but sees these substantive entitlements as obstacles for fair priority-setting. Building on the analysis of these approaches, this article argues that the involvement of courts in allocative decisions can be more comprehensively evaluated by assessing whether they promote or impair fair priority-setting rather than by focusing on the direct beneficiaries of judicial decisions. If this argument is correct, then courts using the right to health to create and enforce substantive entitlements to health treatments becomes very questionable. PubDate: Sat, 05 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa035 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Farcy J. Pages: 725 - 744 Abstract: AbstractThe aim of this article is to discuss why the principle of equality and non-discrimination, although foundational to international human rights law, remains an unfulfilled promise in the context of immigration. Nationality is now widely considered as a suspect ground of discrimination, yet contemporary immigration and citizenship laws increasingly use meritocratic criteria to distinguish among migrants. Although framed in universal terms, these criteria create differences of treatment among migrants based on their income, level of education and economic worth. However, from a legal perspective such differences of treatment rarely amount to prohibited discrimination. Looking at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this article argues that the normative content of the equality and non-discrimination principle fails to challenge such differences of treatment. Moreover, the proportionality test is used as a judicial restraint mechanism which prevents the effective enforcement of the equality requirement by international and domestic courts in the context of immigration. PubDate: Tue, 01 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa037 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Sormunen M. Pages: 745 - 768 Abstract: AbstractAccording to Article 3(1) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the best interests of the child have to be a primary consideration in all cases concerning children. The Committee on the Rights of the Child understands Article 3(1) as a ‘threefold concept’: a substantive right, an interpretive principle and a rule of procedure. This article argues that the provision is best understood as a procedural obligation. Understanding Article 3(1) as a procedural obligation remedies key problems that originate from interpreting the provision as a substantive right. A significant strength of the procedural approach is that it can be consistently applied in different case groups. This article illustrates the argument with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights related to children, in which the article detects three layers of a procedural approach to the best interests of the child. PubDate: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa034 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Wallace S. Pages: 769 - 796 Abstract: AbstractThis article examines State practice on derogations from human rights protection during states of emergency under Article 15 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The article presents statistical data on the use of derogations, offers analysis of the data and practice and advances a series of reform proposals. It is argued that Article 15 is being misused by States to derogate for protracted periods of time for entrenched emergencies and that emergency measures are remaining in place after declared emergencies have ended. Equally, States are not derogating in circumstances where they should for military operations, particularly extra-territorial military operations. It is argued that the European Court of Human Rights has been deferential in enforcing Article 15 and that reform is needed to address the problems identified. Reforms should include review procedures for emergency measures, enhanced procedures for notifying derogations and an amendment to facilitate extra-territorial derogations. PubDate: Thu, 26 Nov 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa036 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Eekelaar J. Pages: 797 - 809 Abstract: human rightsgenderbirth registrationR (on the application of TT) v Registrar General for England and Wales PubDate: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa038 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Authors:Minervini G. Pages: 810 - 828 Abstract: genocideprinciple of legalityArticle 7 European Convention on Human RightsDrelingas v Lithuania PubDate: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 00:00:00 GMT DOI: 10.1093/hrlr/ngaa031 Issue No:Vol. 20, No. 4 (2020)
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
[413 journals]
