Friday, June 28, 2013
Wednesday, June 26, 2013
Just published: European Yearbook on Human Rights 2013
 |
ISBN: 978-3-7083-0925-5
|
Wolfgang Benedek/Florence Benoît-Rohmer/Wolfram
Karl/Matthias C.
Kettemann/Manfred Nowak (eds.)
European Yearbook
on Human Rights 2013
on Human Rights 2013
In terms of human rights 2012 was the year of coherence:
The EU adopted the first Strategic Framework and Action Plan on Human
Rights and Democracy and appointed its first Special
Representative for Human Rights. At the Council of Europe, the importance
of coherence in executing judgments and in improving the efficiency of justice
remains high. And the story of OSCE's human dimension proves to be one of
ensuring policy coherence.
Defining and
discussing key developments in human rights, the fifth edition of the European
Yearbook on Human Rights brings together 26 contributions by renowned
human rights experts that provide a much needed overview and sought-after
analysis.
Edited jointly by representatives of four major
European human rights research, teaching and training institutions, the Yearbook 2013 covers extensively all relevant
developments in the field of the three main organizations charged with securing
human rights in Europe: EU, Council of Europe and OSCE.
A further chapter contains contributions on the role of civil society in
human rights protection and on cross-cutting topics.
Pursuing a holistic
approach and containing detailed analyses, the European Yearbook on Human
Rights 2013 provides readers with both a comprehensive overview and deep
understanding of the events and issues that have shaped the human rights debate
in Europe in 2012 and will shape it in the future.
The impressive
array of authors – academics and diplomats, practitioners
and human rights experts – makes the book essential reading for anyone
interested in human rights in Europe and beyond.
Contributions
I Topics of the Year
Karen ABUZAYD, Carla DEL PONTE, Vitit MUNTARBHORN and Paulo Sérgio PINHEIRO: The Imperative of a Political Settlement in Syria: Perspectives of the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry
Engelbert THEUERMANN: The Review of the EU Human Rights Policy: A Commitment to Strengthened EU Action on Human Rights
Ulrike LUNACEK: Sticks and Carrots from Brussels to Pristina: An Inside Perspective on the Difficult but Rewarding Project of Kosovo’s EU Rapprochement
II European Union
Wolfgang BENEDEK: EU Action on Human and Fundamental Rights in 2012
Jeff KENNER: The Court of Justice of the European Union and Human Rights in 2012
Allan ROSAS: The Applicability of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights at National Level
Christian BEHRMANN and Davide ZARU: The External Promotion of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by the EU: Some Lessons for the Future
Peter VALANT: The EU Special Representative for Human Rights: Manager or Mastermind?
Theodor RATHGEBER: The EU at the UN Human Rights Council in 2012: Out of Touch with Human Rights Dynamics
José Luis BAZÁN: Freedom of Religion in the European Union
Aikaterini-Kaousar AMPOU-SALIM: The EU’s Involvement in the Democratization Process in Egypt and in Libya Before and During the Arab Spring
Sarah DERDELINCKX: Towards a More Effective Promotion of Human Rights and Democracy in Central Asia: the Need for a Paradigm Change in EU Policy
Silvia GÓMEZ MORADILLO: Ending the Detention of Irregular Migrants Prior to Removal in the EU’s Mediterranean Member States: A Proposal to Reform the Return Directive with a View to Alternatives to Detention
Marnix DE WITTE: The Case for a Solidarity- and Human Rights-Based Revision of the Dublin System
Paolo PAGOTTO: EU Trade Policy and Labour Standards: The Case of the Free Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru
III Council of Europe
Brigitte OHMS, Tatjana CARDONA, Elisabeth HANDL-PETZ, Leonore LANGE: The Human Rights Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in 2012
Jean Paul JACQUÉ: A propos de Nada contre Suisse: Les résolutions du Conseil de Sécurité devant la Cour européenne des droits de l’Homme
Dominika BYCHAWSKA-SINIARSKA: Why (and How) the Committee of Ministers Needs to Be Reformed in Order to Enhance Implementation of ECtHR Judgments
Georg STAWA: The Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) of the Council of Europe: Aims, Tools and Instruments to Measure and Provide Competence, Independence, Impartiality, Transparency and Efficiency to Judicial Systems
IV OSCE
Douglas WAKE: Is There Life after Astana? Recent Developments in the OSCE’s “Human Dimension” in Historical Perspective
Aleksandar LAZOVSKI and Aleksandar DIMISHKOVSKI: ODIHR’s Activities Against Discriminatory Practices in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: A Case-Study of Roma Integration
Snježana BOKULIC and Omer FISHER: ODIHR’s Human Rights Monitoring: Observing Public Events and Supporting Freedom of Peaceful Assembly
V Cross-cutting Issues
Manfred NOWAK: The European Master in Human Rights and Democratisation in Venice
Antonio PAPISCA: What Education for a Smart, Sustainable and Inclusive Growth in the EU? The Relevance of Human Rights Education
Lauri MÄLKSOO: The Human Rights Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church and its Patriarch Kirill I: A Critical Appraisal
Saturday, June 22, 2013
Call for Papers: Practices of Critique, 5-7 December 2013, Frankfurt
Fourth International Young Researcher's Conference
Practices of Critique
5-7 December 2013
Goethe-University Frankfurt am Main, Campus Westend
Two of the panels are of particular interest to those who engage with Internet and human rights issues:
- Von Shitstorms und Empörungswellen – Gründe und Abgründe der Internetkritik click here...
- Praktiken der Kritik nach dem Arabischen Frühling click here...
Deadline: 15 July 2013
Practices of critique are intertwined with normative orders in manifold ways. They contain and refer reflexively to critical contentions, and they can enable as well as suppress critique. On the one hand, critique can draw on the justificatory basis of normative orders. On the other, such an immanent critique always harbours the danger of contributing to the reproduction of the conditions it questions. Further, critical practices of social movements and theoretical interventions are often confronted with the argument that there is no uncontaminated position from which to formulate critique. Accordingly, the question arises as to what forms critique will assume and under what historical, political and social conditions critique will appear at all.
In this context it is essential to reconstruct the theoretical foundations of critique and power structures as well the practicesin which they are instantiated. Three aspects are crucial: firstly concrete forms of power and their application, which always emerge from a tension between normative claims and solidified systems of rule; secondly the purview of justice as the foundation for critical rationale; thirdly the aspect of representation. After all, justifications are carried via narratives as well as symbols such that they necessarily contain excess aesthetic content. Therefore the aesthetic facets of power, justice or legitimation also require attention. These terms of reference result in the following array of questions for the conference:
1) Conditions of possibility for critique
Under what circumstances do practices of critique emerge? To what extent are unjust conditions relevant? How do specific normative orders, power structures and representations of them by themselves and others affect the emergence of critique? How can we apprehend the (im-)possibility of the critique of normative orders? Are there spaces of critique that lie beyond the reach of the criticized, or is critique perpetually condemned to aporetic relations?
Under what circumstances do practices of critique emerge? To what extent are unjust conditions relevant? How do specific normative orders, power structures and representations of them by themselves and others affect the emergence of critique? How can we apprehend the (im-)possibility of the critique of normative orders? Are there spaces of critique that lie beyond the reach of the criticized, or is critique perpetually condemned to aporetic relations?
2) Realization of critique
In what forms does critique become manifest? What social practices are connected with critique, and how do they relate to each other, not least with regard to their respective interpretations of social reality? How can we grasp practices of critique – conceptually as well as empirically? What role do representations of critique and the criticized play in terms of its realization? Do particular forms of articulation further legitimize relations of dominance? Who is able to and who is entitled to express critique?
In what forms does critique become manifest? What social practices are connected with critique, and how do they relate to each other, not least with regard to their respective interpretations of social reality? How can we grasp practices of critique – conceptually as well as empirically? What role do representations of critique and the criticized play in terms of its realization? Do particular forms of articulation further legitimize relations of dominance? Who is able to and who is entitled to express critique?
3) Reactions to critique
What reactions to various practices of critique, such as social movements and theoretical interventions, can we observe? Do they lead to a stabilization of power structures through conservative retrenchment or to reflexive social change towards more just relations? How does the academic reconstruction of social struggles influence the reaction towards critique? How does the representation or the mode in which orders are justified and critiqued affect the reproduction of injustice, oppression and violence?
What reactions to various practices of critique, such as social movements and theoretical interventions, can we observe? Do they lead to a stabilization of power structures through conservative retrenchment or to reflexive social change towards more just relations? How does the academic reconstruction of social struggles influence the reaction towards critique? How does the representation or the mode in which orders are justified and critiqued affect the reproduction of injustice, oppression and violence?
Such questions shall be addressed from multidisciplinary perspectives at the international graduate conference “Practices of Critique” of the Frankfurt Cluster of Excellence “The Formation of Normative Orders” on the 5-7 December 2013. We invite abstracts from novice researchers (max. four years subsequent to receiving a PhD) until 15 July 2013. There are 23 panels (about half of them are in English) to which you may directly apply. You may also submit your abstract under the general conference theme should selecting a specific panel prove unfeasible. For further information concerning content and language of the panels please refer to the links below or visit the following website:
www.normativeorders.net/young-researchers-conference
www.normativeorders.net/young-researchers-conference
Please email proposed contributions to graduateconference@normativeorders.net, including ananonymized abstract and a short bio in two separate documents (doc or rtf). The subject heading of the email should include the panel of choice. The length of abstracts should be 400 - 700 words.
Child care services are available with advance registration. For further question on this and other issues, feel free to contact the organizers at the above email address. We are looking forward to your submissions!
Panels
(Non-)Compliance and Critique click here...
Coping with critique: The reaction of international organizations to normative contestation click here...
Crisis and critique in banking and finance click here...
Critical Theory and Global Justice click here...
Critique from beyond the Edge of the (Legal) Universe click here...
Democracy in theory and practice - or both? click here...
Die Kritik auf der Leinwand - Darstellungsformen von Rechtfertigung click here...
Die Schönheit der Chance: Das Internet als Ort utopischer Praktiken click here...
Dogmatik – Apologie oder Kritik von Normativität click here...
Freiheit und Kritik click here...
Indeterminacy in law and Critical Legal Theory click here...
Knowledge and Action click here...
Kritik der politischen Kunst click here...
Kritische Rechtsbetrachtungen: Wohin zielt ihre Kritik und worauf zielt die Kritik an ihnen? click here...
Normativität der Sozialkritik click here...
Other Voices, Other Critique? Critical Knowledges Otherwise click here...
Politics of Insecurity, Critique of Security click here...
Politische Gewalt und Aufstände als fundamentale Systemkritik: Transnationale Reaktionen im langen 19. Jahrhundert click here...
Von Shitstorms und Empörungswellen – Gründe und Abgründe der Internetkritik click here...
Praktiken der Kritik nach dem Arabischen Frühling click here...
Religion and Critique click here...
Revolution and Reflection: 1789 and beyond click here...
Transnationaler Konstitutionalismus zwischen Herrschaft und Kritik click here...
Presented by:
Cluster of Excellence "The Formation of Normative Orders" in cooperation with "100 Jahre Goethe-Universität" and the involvment of "Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach"
Cluster of Excellence "The Formation of Normative Orders" in cooperation with "100 Jahre Goethe-Universität" and the involvment of "Hochschule für Gestaltung Offenbach"
Wednesday, June 19, 2013
Surveillance under Scrutiny: Finally, the world is talking about human rights online
As more revelations
regarding PRISM and Verizon's metadata emerge, one key question arises:
Can something bad be actually good? Can the revelations on surveillance
practices that have galvanized global civil society lead to a broad discussion
on what privacy means, what the limits to surveillance should be, and how human
rights (and the proportionality requirement) limit state action?
Or, as the Economist
puts it (in an excellent summary here), "Will scrutiny spur change"?
It is ironic, but in
Obama's second term, change is indeed necessary. Change in the way that
Internet surveillance is conducted - in secret and without broad public
scrutiny. Of course, fighting terrorism is a key responsibility of governments,
but in that fight, human rights need to be respected - online and
offline.
What we have learned
about PRISM and Verizon suggests that human rights considerations did not play
to important a role in the formulation and implementation of surveillance
policies.
A lot of good can come
from this assessment. While two thirds of US citizens, in a poll reported by
the Economist, agreed that surveillance of their
telephone metadata did not bother them, and still half felt the same regarding
traffic data on their email communications, a number of global civil society organizations
with a keen interest in Internet policy energetically formulated new demands
and provided options for the way forward.
Best Bits, a coalition
of global civil society groups and individuals active in Internet policy, has
published a letter to the US Congress on Internet and
telecommunications surveillance. CDT, which signed the letter, argued that it "highlights how
the NSA’s surveillance activities not only threaten Americans’
constitutional rights but also the human rights of everyone."
Indeed, as the letter
points out:
"The introduction
of surveillance mechanisms at the heart of global digital communications
severely threatens human rights in the digital age."
While it is not easy
to pinpoint violations of US laws and particular human rights breached by
PRISM, the letter correctly identifies the troubling contradiction between US
commitments to Internet freedom and the surveillance practices.
"The
contradiction between the persistent affirmation of human rights online by the
US government and the recent allegations of what appears to be mass
surveillance of US and non-US citizens by that same government is very
disturbing and carries negative repercussions on the global stage. A blatant
and systematic disregard for the human rights articulated in Articles 17 and 19
of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), to which
the United States is signatory, as well as Articles 12 and 19 of the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights is suggested."
The law is very
complex and international law may not offer definitive answers but the
surveillance activities, at the very least, question whether consumer trust in
US companies is well placed.
The Coalition calls
upon the Obama administration and US Congress
- "to take immediate action to
dismantle existing, and prevent the creation of future, global Internet
and telecommunications based surveillance systems."
- "to allow involved or affected
companies to publish statistics of past and future Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) requests they have received or may receive."
- "to establish protections for
government whistleblowers in order to better ensure that the public is
adequately informed about abuses of power that violate the fundamental
human rights of the citizens of all countries, US and other."
- "[to create] an independent panel
with subpoena power and all necessary security clearances to examine
current practices and to make recommendations to ensure appropriate
protections for the rights to privacy, free expression, and association. The
results of this panel should be broadly published."
The letter to Congress is the second sent by Best Bits. The first went to the Human Right Council urging the UN body to
"act swiftly to prevent the creation of a global Internet based surveillance system by:
- convening a special session to examine
this case
- supporting a multistakeholder process to
implement the recommendation of Mr La Rue that the Human Rights Committee
develop a new General Comment 16 on the right to privacy in light of
technological advancements, and,
- requesting the High Commissioner to
prepare a report that:
- formally asks states to report
on practices and laws in place on surveillance and what corrective steps
will they will take to meet human rights standards, and
- examines the implications of
this case in in the light of the Human Rights Council endorsed United
Nations Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, the “Protect,
Respect and Remedy” Framework of A/HRC/RES/17/4.
Both policy approaches,
a US-centred one and a global approach, are important and well
placed. They are based on the same commitment ot human rights online as
the 11 June 2013 Declaration of the Committee of Ministers
on Risks to Fundamental Rights stemming from Digital Tracking and other
Surveillance Technologies.
The Council of Europe
recalls that Council of Europe member states have undertaken
"to secure to
everyone within their jurisdiction the right to respect of private and family
life, home and correspondence. Restrictions to this right can only be justified
when it is necessary in a democratic society, in accordance with the law and
for one of the limited purposes set out in Article 8, paragraph 2, of the
Convention. ... [Member] States have negative obligations, that is, to
refrain from interference with fundamental rights, and positive obligations,
that is, to actively protect these rights. This includes the protection of
individuals from action by non-state actors."
The NSA was no
non-state actor, of course, but the companies holding data for European
customers are. Again, legal questions are tricky, especially regarding the
extraterritorial application of European data protection and privacy rights.
The Council of Europe
finally identified the key challenge of weighing between
"the risks of
digital tracking and other surveillance technologies for human rights,
democracy and the rule of law and [...] the need to guarantee their legitimate
use which benefits individuals, the economy, society at large, and the needs of
law enforcement"
The revelations of
NSA's surveillance serve to put the role of human rights online squarely
in the focus of the international community. Thus it's truly an exciting
time as I head towards Lisbon for the EuroDIG where I will join as speaker
a workshop on human rights on the
Internet organized by IRP Coalition on Thursday and organize a flash panel on Internet surveillance on Friday. Stop by if you have
time or attend remotely.
NSA is committed to the value of "protect[ing] national security interests by adhering to the highest standards of behavior". This is commenable. And true, since only by adhering to human rights (as the yardstick against which state behavior can be measured) can the NSA (or any other agency or state actor) ensure security, ideally human security.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
Human Rights on the Internet: EuroDIG workshops and sesssions will look at rights, responsibilities - and surveillance
 |
| Internet surveillance will be among the key topics discussed at EuroDIG.Visitors in St. Gallen's Art Musuem (c) Kettemann 2013 |
I'm at EuroDIG (European Dialogue on Intenret Governance) in Lisbon next week. The conference promises to be very exciting in light of recent developments regarding human rights and Internet Governance.
In light of recent events I also organize a Flash Session on Friday, 21 June, 8:00 (pending confirmation) on human rights and Intenret surveillance. Details to follow but the planned outline is posted below. Stay tuned to this blog for further developments.
Human Rights
and Internet Surveillance: Standards, Principles and Lines of Action
Focal Point: Matthias
C. Kettemann
Surveillance has never been easier: a sharp increase
in stored data, better surveillance and data mining tools, and
security-oriented political priorities together threaten privacy, freedom of
expression and democratic participation worldwide.
In Resolution 20/8 (2012), the Human Rights Council
affirmed that “the same rights that people have offline must also be protected
online, in particular freedom of expression”.
As UN Special Rapporteur La Rue wrote in his 2013 report, Internet surveillance may not only violate privacy
but has serious chilling effects on a range of other human rights.
- What are the limits to Internet surveillance?
- What is worse: If the surveillance systems in place are illegal or if they are, in fact, legal under national legislation? What about international standards, as developed in the jurisprudence of e.g. the European Court of Human Rights?
- What role and responsibilities do the different actors – states, companies – in Internet surveillance have? What can civil society do? What about extisting standards, such as the IRP Charter on Internet Rights and Principles?
- What lines of action exist: Should the Human Rights Council convene a special session? What role can the High Commissioner for Human Rights play? Which organizations should be activated?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)