Gibt es ein "Recht auf Internet"?

(c) Völkerrechtsblog

Gibt es ein Recht auf Internetzugang? Diese für die Informationsgesellschaft zentrale Frage lässt sich bejahen. 

Zwischen Völkerrecht, Staatsrecht und Europarecht gibt es verschiedene normative Ansätze, die sich aufeinander beziehen und verstärken. 

Auf dem Völkerrechtsblog habe ich dazu einige Überlegungen veröffentlicht. Diese erscheinten in drei Teilen: gestern, heute und morgen.
  

Das Recht auf Internet zwischen Völkerrecht, Staatsrecht und Europarecht (I)

Von Matthias C. Kettemann

Die aktuellen Entwicklungen um die wachsende Anzahl von Flüchtlingen in Europa führen Debatten in nicht erwartete Richtungen. So dynamisiert die Frage, inwieweit Flüchtlingsunterkünfte mit WLAN, womöglich ‚Freifunk‘, ausgestattet werden können, die Diskussion um das Recht auf Internetzugang. Natürlich muss der Staat nicht jedem Flüchtling ein Smartphone zur Verfügung stellen. Das lässt aber das Grundrecht auf Internetzugang unberührt. Teil I des Beitrages widmet sich der völkerrechtlichen Begründung dieses Rechts; Teil II dem Leistungsanspruch, der sich aus dem der sich aus dem Verfassungsrecht auf Grundlage der höchstrichterlichen Rechtsprechung ergibt; Teil III zeigt, dass dieses Grundrecht ein Menschenrecht ist, das auch Asylwerbern zukommt und schließt mit einem Update zum Europäischen Recht.

„Wo kämen wir da hin?“

Zuletzt behandelten zwei Kommentare in der Süddeutschen und der FAZ das Thema aus unterschiedlicher Sicht. In einem Beitrag für die in der Süddeutsche Zeitung über Netzabschaltungen in Indien und Pakistan argumentierte der Politologe Ben Wagner (Frankfurt/Oder), dass Flüchtlinge, die nach Deutschland kämen, ein Recht auf Internetzugang hätten – und dies nicht nur um „nach Hause zu telefonieren“. Kritiker, so Wagner, würden verkennen, dass „Zugang zum Internet ein zentraler Weg ist, um Teil der deutschen Gesellschaft zu werden. Das Internet bedeutet Zugang zu Bildung, zu Unterhaltung und Kultur, es ist Grundlage für soziale Teilhabe. Zurzeit wird die oft vorhandene räumliche Trennung von Flüchtlingen zur Gesellschaft durch eine weitere digitale Abschottung verstärkt. So kann Integration nicht funktionieren.” Dies veranlasste Jürgen Kaube in der FAZ zu einer sehr kritischen Reaktion: „Wo kämen wir da hin?“, wenn der Staat Flüchtlingen Endgeräte zur Verfügung stellen müsste – noch dazu als Ausfluss eines Menschenrechts auf Internet.

Zwei Dimensionen des Internetzugangs

Ohne Zugang zum Internet (Infrastrukturdimension) und Zugang zu Internetinhalten (Inhaltsdimension) können Menschen nicht am Möglichkeitsraum des Internets teilnehmen. Alle Menschenrechte – zumal Zugang als Voraussetzung der Ausübung aller Menschenrechte online und die Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit als zentrale Freiheit im Internet –  werden unaufgeregt auf das Internet, das als technische Einrichtung selbst eine katalysierende Funktion für die Ausübung der Menschenrechte hat, übertragen.  Kurz: Was offline gilt, gilt auch online.

Dies bestätigt periodisch der Menschenrechtsrat der Vereinten Nationen, zuletzt in seiner Resolution aus 2014, in der er die Staaten auffordert, „to promote and facilitate access to the Internet”.

Ähnlich ist der Ansatz, den eine Resolution der Parlamentarischen Versammlung des Europarates zum Right to Internet Access verfolgt. Sie ruft die Mitgliedstaaten des Europarates dazu auf sicherzustellen, dass „everyone shall have the right to Internet access as an essential requirement for exercising rights under the European Convention on Human Rights”.

Inzwischen wird nicht mehr die Kodifizierung eines „Rechts auf Internet(zugang)“ gefordert. Warum auch: Es lässt sich dogmatisch sehr gut als Vorbedingung der Ausübung anderer Rechte konstruieren, wie dieser prägende UN-Bericht von 2011 aufzeigt: Das Internet sei ein „catalyst for individuals to exercise their right to freedom of opinion and expression”; es „facilitates the realization of a range of other human rights” (Abs. 22). Gleichzeitig sei die Meinungsäußerungsfreiheit “as much a fundamental right on its own accord as it is an “enabler” of other rights” (Abs. 22). Zugang zum Internet ist Voraussetzung zur Ausübung der Kommunikationsfreiheiten. Diese wiederum haben eine katalysierende Funktion für alle anderen Rechte.

In einer Gesamtschau lässt sich also mit guten Gründen argumentieren, dass ein Recht auf Internetzugang im Völkerrecht besteht. Artikel 19 Abs. 2 des Zivilpaktes kann in diesem Sinne ausgelegt werden. Er schützt die Verbindungstechnologien, indem er Meinungsäußerung durch „any […] media of [one’s] choice“ absichert. Der Menschenrechtsausschuss bestätigt zwar die abwehrrechtliche Dimension  der Artikels in seinem General Comment No. 34 zu Artikel 19 (zB Abs. 13), zeigt aber auch die Leistungsdimension auf. Dem Völkerrecht eigen ist die sachte Ausdrucksweise: „States parties should take all necessary steps to foster the independence of these new media and to ensure access of individuals thereto” (Abs. 15).

UNO: Internet ist entscheidend für die Entwicklung

Die Entwicklung des Völkerrechts schreitet voran und der Mensch rückt ins Zentrum: Staaten haben erkannt, dass das Recht auf Internetzugang in der Praxis zu verwirklichen entscheidend ist für die menschliche Entwicklung. In der Agenda for Sustainable Development für 2030 bekennen sich die Staaten der Vereinten Nationen dazu, bis 2020 universellen und leistbaren Internetzugang in Entwicklungsländern zu sichern (Ziel 9c). Wie wollen sie das erreichen? Die Global Connect Initiative der USA  ist hier beispielhaft. Auch Unternehmen ließen sich inspirieren: Anlässlich des UNO-Gipfels zur Agenda 2030 initiierte Facebook die „Connect The World“-Kampagne. Das ist mehr als ein Marketing-Gag.

Dominierende Technologieunternehmen kann aus dem Recht auf Zugang als Voraussetzung zur Ausübung anderer Menschenrechte eine „corporate responsibility to respect“ auferlegt werden,  wie sie sich insbesondere aus den Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework ergibt. Facebook entwickelt Solar-Drohnen, die Internetzugang in entlegenen Gebeten sichern sollten. Google hat mit Sri Lanka den ersten Staat für sein „Project Loon“ gewinnen können, das Internetzugang über Ballone bieten soll. Diese Projekte scheinen zwar vordergründig der Implementierung des Rechts auf Zugang zu dienen, doch werfen sie sowohl im Detail (Zero Rating) als auch dem Grunde nach Probleme auf: Sollen Staaten wirklich im Verzicht,  grundlegende Kommunikationsinfrastruktur selbst aufzubauen, bestärkt werden und auf die Gesetze des Marktes (oder die mittelfristige Freigiebigkeit multinationaler Unternehmen) setzen? Hier sind Zweifel berechtigt: Schon im Ruggie-Framework verbleibt bei Staaten die „duty to protection human rights.“

Ich komme zu einem ersten Fazit: Das Völkerrecht schützt den Zugang zum Internet in beiden Dimensionen als Menschenrecht. Die abwehrrechtliche Dimension des Zugangs zur Internet-Inhalten wirft wenig elementare Fragen auf. Schwieriger ist es, die positivrechtliche Dimension des Zugangs im Bereich der Infrastrukturdimension auzubuchstabieren. Dennoch kann im Lichte der herausragenden Bedeutung des Internets für die Realisierung aller Menschenrechte der physische Zugang zum Internet nur als völkerrechtlich geschützt gedeutet werden.

Um es einfach zu machen: Ohne Zugang keine Meinungsäußerung bei freier Wahl des Kommunikationsmediums. Konkrete Leistungsansprüche gegen Staaten gewinnen indes vor der Folie des nationalen Verfassungsrechts verstärkt an Kontur. Wie sich die Situation in Deutschland darstellt werde ich in Teil II behandeln.

Als Teaser: Ein Grund- und Menschenrecht auf Internetzugang kann als individueller unmittelbarer verfassungsrechtlicher Leistungsanspruch konzipiert werden.

Dr. Matthias C. Kettemann, LL.M. (Harvard), ist Post-Doc Fellow am Exzellenzcluster „Die Herausbildung normativer Ordnungen“ der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt am Main und arbeitet zu Recht und Macht im Internet und bloggt. Für den Europarat war er Mitverfasser Studie Freedom of Expression on the Internet (2014). Der Beitrag beruht auf einem Gutachten des Verfassers zum „Völkerrecht des Netzes“ für die Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, das bei der #DigiKon15 in Berlin am 25.11.2015 vorgestellt wird.

 

Version française de notre livre sur la liberté d'expression sur Internet publié

A year after Wolfgang Benedek's and my book on Freedom of Expression and the Internet was published with Council of Europe Publishing we are excited to announce that the French translation which has been in the making for some time has been completed earlier this year and the book is now available to any interested francophone readers. 

It is very import to make the book available to non-English speakers or those who prefer content in their native French. This should ensure that our approach to Freedom of Expression online based on the protection of the European Convention on Human Rights and the jurisprudence of the Strasbourg Court can now be read in the traditional language of international diplomacy. 

Liberté d'expression et internet (2014)
Wolfgang Benedek et Matthias C. Kettemann 

It's competitively priced and available as pdf,  epub, mobi - and of course in the traditional form.

From the publisher's website:

"L’expansion d’internet a engendré une croissance exponentielle des possibilités de s’exprimer, mais elle a aussi multiplié les dangers qui menacent la liberté d’expression. Du Printemps arabe au mouvement mondial Occupy, la liberté d’expression sur internet a une profonde incidence sur des débats décisifs pour notre avenir. Parallèlement, les États sont de plus en plus nombreux à recourir à internet pour espionner des journalistes et des citoyens journalistes, poursuivre et emprisonner des blogueurs, et exercer une censure en ligne. 

Cet ouvrage répond à des questions essentielles concernant la portée et les limites de la liberté d’expression en ligne. Il cherche à porter un éclairage sur un paysage souvent obscur : qu’avons-nous le droit de dire en ligne ? Comment sont protégés nos idées et le processus de diffusion et de réception des informations ? 

Il expose le large éventail des droits protégés par la liberté d’expression, dont la liberté des médias et le droit d’accéder à des informations par le biais d’internet. Il souligne aussi l’importance des initiatives d’organisations internationales et non gouvernementales visant à définir des règles, et à assurer leur suivi et leur promotion. Un chapitre consacré aux pratiques nationales rapporte les réactions de différents pays confrontés à la difficulté d’assurer la liberté d’expression pour tous à l’ère d’internet. Alors que la Toile occupe de plus en plus de place dans notre quotidien, ce livre est une ressource précieuse pour comprendre les droits et les obligations de chaque acteur d’internet : États, entreprises et société civile."

Just published: European Yearbook on Human Rights 2015

ISBN: 978-3-7083-1040-4, 582 pages, 2015

• European Yearbook on Human Rights 2015
• 
  
• Wolfgang Benedek / Florence Benoît-Rohmer / Matthias C. Kettemann / Benjamin Kneihs / Manfred Nowak
• 
  
• Publisher's website
• 
  

2014 was a year of transition and controversy in Europe: a new Parliament and new Commission were constituted and Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the EU’s accession to the European Convention on Human Rights raised serious questions about the coherence of and cooperation between Europe’s human rights protection regimes. Especially in times of the socio-political conflicts that are connected to Europe’s austerity politics, the challenges to human rights grow. It is important to provide the policy-makers and diplomats but also researchers and citizens with cutting-edge research into the practice of human rights protection. This is what the European Yearbook on Human Rights 2015 sets out to do.

Across 38 contributions by 61 authors in five sections, the seventh edition of the Yearbook explains and contextualizes key developments in human rights in Europe and the world.

Edited jointly by representatives of four major European human rights research, teaching and training institutions, the Yearbook 2015 contains, as usual, a Topic of the Year section, and covers all relevant political and legal developments in the field of the three main organizations charged with securing human rights in Europe: EU, Council of Europe and OSCE. A section on cross-cutting topics concludes the Yearbook.

The biggest news regarding institutional protection of human rights in Europe is undoubtedly Opinion 2/13 of the Court of Justice of the European Union which dashed the hopes of many European human rights lawyers for a quick completion of the EU accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. The CJEU raised a number of complicated issues related to the autonomy of the EU’s legal order, the disputes settlement monopoly of the CJEU, the mechanism provided for EU involvement in Strasbourg, the prior-involvement-procedure and the problems of judicial review of questions regarding the Common Foreign and Security Policy. This Yearbook extensively covers the opinion in the first section, Topic of the Year.

See the exciting table of contents here and below.

Table of Contents

I Topics of the Year ................................................................ 25
Paul GRAGL
The Reasonableness of Jealousy: Opinion 2/13 and EU
Accession to the ECHR ............................................................................. 27
Elisabeth STEINER and Ioana RĂTESCU
The Long Way to Strasbourg – The Impact of the CJEU’s Opinion
on the EU’s Accession to the ECHR ........................................................ 51
Maria BERGER und Clara RAUCHEGGER
Opinion 2/13: Multiple Obstacles to the Accession of the EU to
the ECHR .................................................................................................... 61

II European Union .................................................................... 77
Wolfgang BENEDEK
EU Human and Fundamental Rights Action in 2014 .............................. 79
Hans-Peter FOLZ
The Court of Justice of the European Union and Human Rights in 2013-2014.................................................................................................. 105
Theodor RATHGEBER
Human Rights à la Carte: The EU at the UN Human Rights
Council in 2014......................................................................................... 125
Gosia PEARSON
Assessment of the Implementation of the EU Human Rights
Strategy and Action Plan as Regard Business and Human Rights .... 135
11

Table of Contents Valentina CAGNIN
The Potential Role of the Horizontal Social Clause (Article 9
TFEU) on Social Rights Protection ........................................................ 143
Karin LUKAS
The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Social Charter – an Alliance for Social Rights?................................................ 153
Ewelina TYLEC
The Influence of Economic Crisis on Fundamental Rights in the European Union: A Step Forward or Step Backwards? ....................... 165
Moritz BIRK and Gerrit ZACH
Torture Prevention in the EU – Many Actors, Few Outcomes? ........... 175
Grazia REDOLFI
European Union’s Attitude Towards Reproductive Rights: Clear
Policy or Double Standards Approach ................................................. 189
Denise VENTURI
The Body as an Instrument of Border Control: Remarks on Age Assessment for Unaccompanied Migrant Children ............................. 201
Rocío ALAMILLOS SÁNCHEZ
EU Sanctions Policy: A New Human Rights Tool? The Case of Belarus ..................................................................................................... 213
Nicolas HACHEZ and Jan WOUTERS
Introducing FRAME: A Large-Scale Research Project on the
European Union and Human Rights ...................................................... 227
Katharina HÄUSLER and Alexandra TIMMER
Human Rights, Democracy and Rule of Law in EU External
Action: Conceptualization and Practice ............................................... 231
Balázs MAJTÉNYI
The Nation’s Will as Trump in the Hungarian Fundamental Law ........ 247
Felipe GÓMEZ ISA and María NAGORE CASAS
EU Member States Under the Universal Periodic Review of the
Human Rights Council: Achievements and Challenges ...................... 261

Carolina PAVESE, Jan WOUTERS and Katrien MEUWISSEN

The European Union and Brazil in the Quest for the Global
Promotion of Human Rights: Prospects for a Strategic
Partnership .............................................................................................. 279
Viljam ENGSTRÖM and Mikaela HEIKKILÄ
Lisbonising Back and Forth? Strategic Planning and
Fundamental Rights in the AFSJ............................................................ 295
Veronika APOSTOLOVSKI, Isabella MEIER, Markus MÖSTL, Klaus STARL and Maddalena VIVONA
Measuring Human Rights in EU Practice: Realities and
Requirements ........................................................................................... 307

III Council of Europe .............................................................. 317
Brigitte OHMS, Dominik HAIDER, Elisabeth HANDL-PETZ, Martina LAIS and Sebastian SCHOLZ
The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in
2014: A Year of Consolidation ................................................................ 319
Amalie BANG
Recent Developments in Whistleblower Protection in Europe ........... 343
Jonas GRIMHEDEN and Gabriel N. TOGGENBURG
Fundamental Rights in EU Criminal Justice Instruments: How to
Best Make the Glass Slipper Fit? ........................................................... 355
Adina PORTARU
The “Rights and Freedoms of Others” vs. Religious
Manifestations: Who Wins at the ECtHR? ............................................. 367
Zane RATNIECE and Kushtrim ISTREFI
The Limits of the Strasbourg Court’s Two-Level Harmonization Approach vis-à-vis SC Resolutions in Al-Dulimi .................................. 379
Philip CZECH
European Human Rights in International Military Operations............. 391
Sarah LAMBRECHT
The Brexit Scenario: Potential Consequences of a Withdrawal of
the UK from the European Convention on Human Rights .................. 407

IV OSCE.................................................................................... 421
Manfred NOWAK
Torture, Enforced Disappearances and Extrajudicial Killings in
the OSCE Region ..................................................................................... 423
Eva Katinka SCHMIDT and Vasily VASHCHANKA
Judicial Performance Evaluation and Judicial Independence: International Standards for an Appropriate Balance............................ 435
Irina URUMOVA
The Role of Social Inclusion in Preventing Victimization: What
We Know and What We Don’t Know ...................................................... 445
Lucile SENGLER
Foreign Terrorist Fighters: A Human Rights Perspective.................... 453
Martina ORLANDI
Wartime Sexual Violence: The Route to Accountability Between International Justice and Political Commitments ................................ 467
Kateryna RYABIKO and Marcin WALECKI
A Right to Political Participation Beyond Elections ............................. 479
Andrei RICHTER
The Relationship between Freedom of Expression and the Ban
on Propaganda for War ........................................................................... 489

V Cross-Cutting Issues........................................................... 505
Klaus STARL, Veronika APOSTOLOVSKI and Ingrid NICOLETTI
Human Rights Education for the Judiciary: An Assessment of a
Decade of Training Experience ............................................................. 507
Tessa SCHREMPF
An Economy to Feed (on) Human Beings? Human Rights and the Responsibility to Counteract .................................................................. 517
Patrick HARRIS
Prisoners: Disenfranchised with Dignity? Searching the Legal
and the Theoretical to Find the Cure for Europe’s Ailing Right to
Vote ........................................................................................................... 533

VI Book Reviews ..................................................................... 551
Biographies....................................................................................................... 567

Tracing Normative Influence: From the Charter of Internet Rights and Principles to the Italian Declaration of Internet Rights

One of the key bottom-up normative approaches regarding human rights online in the last years was the Internet Rights & Principles Coalition's Charter of Human Rights and Principles for the Internet. The Charter has been a very influential document in the framing of the debate on human rights online. 

In a blog post on the Coalition's site, which I am reproducing below, I argue that the influence has also been substantial for the most recent national multi-stakeholder effort to frame the role of human rights online (and Internet governance).

"On 28 July 2015, Laura Boldrini, the speaker of Italy’s House of Deputies announced the publication of Italian Declaration of Internet Rights. She called it the “first time that a parliament produces a declaration on Internet rights of constitutional inspiration and international scope”. Drawn up in a multistakeholder process the drafting phase also included multiple drafts, the last of which was also discussed on the IRP list in March of this year. 

The study commission behind the Declaration was led by Prof. Stefano Rodotà and included experts such as Juan Carlos De Martin, co-founder and co-director of the Nexa Center for Internet & Society (read more on the process here). Though the Declaration is an impressive document on its own, Prof. De Martin confirmed that the Commission’s first step was to synthesize “previous efforts”. He especially highlighted the importance of the IRPC’s Charter of Human Rights and Principles of the Internet, as being “the most important and mature” normative efforts towards stratifying human rights on the Internet. “After one year of work, a 5-month public consultation and 46 hearings, the study commission has shared with the international community a potential blueprint for an Internet Constitution”, Professor de Martin explains. “As private and public powers increase their presence in our common digital space we urgently need to assert and protect the rights of citizens online to preserve both democracy and freedom,” he adds. 

 Not only was the IRPC Charter a source of inspiration for the Italian Declaration, but both documents share similar approaches to human rights and their role in furthering a people-centred and sustainable information society. Charter and Declaration also transcend the artificial separation of social and economic and civil and political rights.

In particular, the Italian Declaration reaffirms that all fundamental rights apply offline just as online (Art. 1) and that every person has a right to Internet access (Art. 2). Innovative codifications include Art. 6. on the right to informational self-determination and Art. 9 on the right to be forgotten. Art. 14 gives a nod to the international dimension of protecting human rights online by providing that “Internet rules” on all levels need to be human rights-sensitive.What is also striking is the holistic focus on human rights and the centrality of the right to access. Article 1, para. 1., cleverly incorporates existing human rights law by referencing the UDHR, the EU’s Fundamental Rights Charter, “national constitutions and other relevant international declaration”. These “shall be protected on the Internet”. This allows the authors to refrain from reiterating the rights and allows for certain flexibility, but does leave some normative uncertainty as to the concrete rights referred to. There are, after all a lot of “relevant international declaration”, especially if you count, as you should, those by stakeholders other than states, including the IRPC’s Charter. 

But the Commission has chosen to take a different normative route focusing on new rights (informational self-determination) and Internet-related concepts (net neutrality). Its starting point, however, is a locus classicus: access. The Declaration underlines, in Art. 2, para. 1, that access to the Internet is a “fundamental right of all persons and a condition for their individual and social development”. This is in line with a broader trend on both the international and the European level away from the consideration of freedom of expression and privacy as über-rights on the Internet and towards the realization that all human rights are interdependent, interrelated and mutually reinforcing – offline just as online. 

Indeed, being able to access the Internet – and Internet content – is an essential condition for personal and social development, not only for the expression of one’s views. Threats to access are threats not only to freedom of expression, but rather to the whole gamut of human rights. Art. 2., para. 2, provides that all persons “shall have the same right to access the Internet on equal terms, using appropriate and up‐to‐date technologies that remove all economic and social barriers.” Though it is unclear to me whether it primarily technologies that remove social barriers. Isn’t it rather social barriers, such as poverty, that impede access to technologies? 

We need social change to ensure that digital divides to not continue to broaden – and, admittedly, technology can help in that. And more importantly, in the usage of technology, poverty or minority status or membership in a disadvantaged group must not impede access. This thought also carries Art. 3, para. 3, of the  Declaration: “The fundamental right to Internet access must be ensured with respect  to  its  substantive  prerequisites,  not only as the mere possibility of connecting to the Internet.” Access to the Internet and access to Internet content go hand in hand. The Italian Declration on Internet Rights is a helpful reminder."

Read the whole Declaration here.

For more on the Italian Declaration, see Stefan Rodotà’s article here.

(Disclaimer: I used to be Co-Chair of the Coalition and am now a Steering Committee member. I am also, with Wolfgang Benedek, co-translator of the German translation of the Charter.)

New Publication: The Common Interest in International Law

I am excited to announce the publication a book I co-edited on the pursuance of common interest in international law. 

The Common Interest in International Law
 

Wolfgang Benedek, Koen De Feyter, Matthias C. Kettemann and Christina Voigt (eds.)

Law & Cosmopolitan Values, volume 5

ISBN 978-1-78068-271-6

xiv + 234 pp. | hardback

72 euros | 98 US dollars | 68 GB pounds

Series price: 61.20 euros

83 US dollars | 58 GB pounds

 

What lies in the common interest of the international community? How are those common interests protected? What is the role of states and of the international community? The Common Interest in International Law provides answers to these key questions that international law is faced with in times of globalization, humanization and climate change.

This book looks at the protection of common interests and shows how international law is progressively moving away from a system based on territorial sovereignty to a system based on shared responsibilities among states and other actors. The areas covered range from human rights law, international environmental law and international security law to international economic law and international litigation.

The editors’ objective is to investigate whether and how international law which historically is state-centric and consensual can protect common interests of humanity, when such common interests can only be safeguarded with the commitment and cooperation of all state and non-state actors. The issue of collective interests is subject to numerous current discourses in international law. This volume attempts to tie these together to a new – or renewed – understanding of ‘common interest’ reflective of contemporary challenges in international law. The concept of ‘common interest’ suggests that more is at stake in international law than the individual self-interests of states. Such notion might hold the key to transforming international law away from the dominance of sovereignty into a system which truly serves the interest of the “community”, including all relevant actors.

This book is essential reading for all scholars and practitioners of international law. It aims at stimulating and defining the topic of the protection of common interests by the international community across geographical as much as disciplinary boundaries.

Table of Contents

‘This is an important and multi-faceted book on one of the most urgent challenges of our time: the protection of our common interests. The book provides a solid platform for further research in this area.’
Professor Geir Ulfstein, Director, Pluricourts - Center of Excellence for the Study of the Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in the Global Order, University of Oslo

‘The Common Interest in International Law is a fascinating, timely and innovative expert account of what common interests are, who defines them and what are their legal implications. At the same time it seeks to provide an answer to the fundamental and timeless question: what is international law for?’
Professor Katja Ziegler, Sir Robert Jennings Professor of International Law, Director of the Centre of European Law and Internationalisation (CELI), School of Law, University of Leicester

‘A carefully composed book, The Common Interest in International Law, broaches a topic that is underrepresented in the scientific discourse. As the world is getting smaller (more integrated), the number of issues that need to be resolved in the common interest of the international community continues to grow. The pursuance of common interests has serious consequences. Their realization will necessitate fundamental changes to the structure of international law and international relations. This book convincingly analyzes this evolution.’
em. Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Rüdiger Wolfrum, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg 

Just published: European Yearbook on Human Rights 2014

I'm thrilled to announce that the sixth edition of the European Yearbook on Human Rights 2014, which I have co-edited, has just been published. 

You can order it here

It's been an exciting year for huaman rights. If 2012 was the year of furthering coherence in human rights protection, 2013 was the year of discussing new standards and their implementation in light of growing challenges to international and societal solidarity. This
survey of human rights in Europe and beyond identifies an increased tension in the protection of economic, social and cultural rights. Vulnerable groups – from migrants to children, from victims of human trafficking to victims of gender-based violence – have also moved squarely into the center of both the discourse and practice of human rights protection. This volume contextualizes these trends.

Defining and discussing key developments in human rights, the sixth edition of the European Yearbook on Human Rights brings together more than 30 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 2014 covers extensively political and legal 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.

The impressive array of authors – academics and diplomats, practioners and human rights experts – makes the book essential reading for anyone interested in human rights in Europe and beyond.

And here's the table of contents.

I Topics of the Year

Zdzislaw (Dzidek) KEDZIA
Reinforcement of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights

Anita DANKA and Oliver PAHNECKE
Digital Human Rights Defence: The Challenges and
Opportunities of Using Social Media for Human Rights
Documentation and Monitoring

Lisa Maria HESCHL
Lampedusa: The Lack of Solidarity and the Human Rights Crisis at the EU’s External Borders

II European Union

Wolfgang BENEDEK
EU Action on Human and Fundamental Rights in 2013

Theodor RATHGEBER
A Human Rights Champion? The EU at the UN Human Rights
Council in 2013

Jarmo OIKARINEN
Reform of the EU Human Rights Policy and the Challenge of Implementation

Jean Paul JACQUÉ

La Cour de Justice de l’Union et l’application de la Charte dans les Etats membres : « Mehr Licht ? »

Martina ALMHOFER and Johannes HARTLIEB
Article 53 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU: Recent Developments

Ulrike LUNACEK
Furthering the Human Rights of LGBTI People: A View from
within the European Parliament

Eva Maria LASSEN
EU Guidelines on the Promotion and Protection of Freedom of Religion or Belief

Dimitri VANOVERBEKE and Michael REITERER
ASEAN’s Regional Approach to Human Rights: The Limits of the European Model?

Alba BESCOS POU
Data Protection vs. Security in the European Union

Nora SCHEUCHER
In the Best Interests of the Child? Towards a Common EU
Approach to Migrant Minors in Detention

Abraham Pieter VINGERLING
The European Union and a Prohibition on Goods Produced by Child Labour and Forced Labour

Davide ZARU
EU External Assistance and the Prevention of Atrocity Crimes

David D’HOLLANDER, Axel MARX and Jan WOUTERS
Integrating Human Rights in EU Development Cooperation
Policy: Achievements and Challenges

Henning Bang Fuglsang Madsen SØRENSEN
International and European Approaches to Extraterritorial Liability for Violation of Fundamental Rights in International Criminal Law

III Council of Europe

Brigitte OHMS and Elisabeth HANDL-PETZ
The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights in 2013: A Year of Breakthroughs

Gregor HEISSL
The EU’s Accession to the ECHR: Recent Developments and
Remarks on the Relationship between the ECJ and the ECtHR

Jan MALINOWSKI
Monitoring Freedom of Expression in Council of Europe Member States: Only Desirable or also Unavoidable?

Agnieszka SZKLANNA
The Council of Europe’s Position vis-à-vis the Proposal to Establish a “Rule of Law Mechanism” in the European Union

Petra SMUTNY and Christian MANQUET
CAHVIO – New Standards for the Protection Against Gender- Based and Domestic Violence

Sara DE VIDO
States’ Due Diligence Obligations to Protect Women from
Violence: A European Perspective in Light of the 2011 CoE Istanbul Convention

Martina KLEIN
Not for Sale: Towards a Council of Europe Convention against Trafficking in Human Organs

IV OSCE

Christian STROHAL
Closing the Implementation Gap: The OSCE and Added Value
from Stronger Synergies Between Human Rights Organizations

Maria ALCIDI
Trial Monitoring: OSCE Methodologies

Irina URUMOVA
When “Economic” Means Much More: Researching the Nexus
Between the Economic Recession and the Implementation of
Civil and Political Rights

Snježana BOKULIĆ 

The OSCE and Human Rights Defenders: A Longstanding and
Contentious Relationship

V Cross-cutting Issues

Jonathan BERNAERTS
A Medical and Legal Analysis of Circumcision of Male Children

Melanie Fiona OLIVER
Can Women Trafficked for the Purpose of Sexual Exploitation Claim Asylum? Defining the Refugee Convention’s ‘Particular Social Group’

Clara RIGONI
Humanizing Criminal Justice? Restorative Approaches under Fair Trial Scrutiny

Óscar A. LEMA BOUZA
Kin or Foe? Hungary’s Policy Towards Its Kin Minorities

Gábor HALMAI
An Illiberal Constitutional System in the Middle of Europe

The Internet Has a Constitution. Now Make it Work for All!

The normative future of the Internet needs to be realized.
(c) Kettemann (2014)

Ideas on the normative future of Internet Governance

We have no agenda other than furthering the goal inscribed in each social order, globally, nationally, locally: ensuring the centrality of the human being.

We speak with no other authority than the one that allows us to speak truth to power – to make the truth powerful.

The Internet has constituted itself as a regulatory regime. It has given itself a normative framework which we can call a Constitution: it has grown organically and is driven by real needs not perceived wants.

No, there is no single written document, no single formal Magna Charta, but shared commitments encompassing processes and principles, drawing from the outcome documents of WSIS, refined over the years, normatively developed, applied, misapplied and rectified, discussed and questions, confirmed and reconfirmed, translated into national law and regional legal instruments, turned into binding and non-binding norms, used in courts and on the streets, as policy tools and as shields in the fight for access for all and dignity for everyone.

You may object to ther Constitution because you believe only states should have one, but hear me out. 

But we do not need a single written document. A lot of states do not have one. We also need to change our conviction that 'constitutions' are a prerogative of states. Regimes, including emerging ones, are being constitutionalized - endowed with values and a finality - and the body of norms that they give themselves can have constitutional dimensions.

We do not need to wait for a constitutional moment. It probably will not come – and let us hope that it will not. We do not need a moment of existential crisis to identify which norms matter online. We already have ‘constitutional’ norms. We do not need to wait for the next big thing. It is already here, even if we do not, or choose not to, realize it.

The big thing – the constitution of the Internet, the constitutional frame for Internet Governance – exists. We have a body of norms, a normative order, confirmed recently in the NetMundial Multistakeholder Statement, that is neither complete nor perfect, that reflects diverging interests but that has one unyielding advantage.

It exists.

   

Let us use these norms, les us secure the freedoms they enshrine. Let us translate them into practice.

Those of you who are still doubtful should ask themselves one question: Which norms tell us how to legitimately exercise public authority in international settings? International legal norms and national public law, to systems which are interlinked and mutually enforcing.

Current Internet Governance institutions, especially those that exercise substantial authority, are not yet sufficiently legitimized. This is a problem, but one that the progressive constitutionalization of the Internet can effectively counter.

The processes and principles of Internet Governance, as developed in international multistakeholder practice over the last decade, have hardened into a body of norms and normative expectations.

The actors and the normative processes of Internet governance together have constituted themselves as a regulatory regime. There is no going back. After constitution came constitutionalization. We are there.

True: Some important aspects of Internet Governance – access, copyright, intermediary liability – have not or not sufficiently been treated of late. But this is to be expected. Read the US Constitution and see what it says about 21^st century problems.

The Internet’s constitution is neither static nor closed. The process of testing principles and processes against the demands of stakeholders and the realities of the Internet is a dynamic one.  

The intrinsic rationality of the regime and its norms must be respected. But we need to do more. After NetMundial, normative silence is wrong. Let us not wait.

We need to build on the momentum developed at and in the wake of NetMundial and support the process of solidifying the normative edifice underlying Internet Governance. We have to contribute to the further constitutionalization of Internet Governance locally, regionally and globally.  

We need to build on the NetMundial commitments. They are an important normative baseline which we need to translate into our own political and judicial systems and make relevant for our daily lives.

As a entrepreneur, you should respect the rights of your customers and innovate in light of the centrality of the human being.

As a member of the technological community, you need to make code help the law secure human dignity. The age of binarity – code or law – is over. The time for positive synthesis has come.

As a member of the academic community, you need to translate the normative commitments contained in the regulatory structure of the Internet into your local language and your local socio-political systems. Tell your students, write papers, give talks, talk to the media.

As a politician, you need to make parliament pass laws that enshrine the values of the Internet’s constitution. Do so, and do so quickly.

As a lawyer, it is your responsibility to advise clients about their rights, to ensure that they can actualize them in Internet-based settings. You are the interpreter of their needs and you need to know what rights they have. Do not be afraid to speak truth to power.

As a citizen, you need to get active, be creative, argue and fight for Internet freedom, take part in online demonstrations, join international civil society groups.

As representatives of an international organization, you have a special epistemic power over states that you can use as a force for good. Make states see the advantages of aligning themselves with the constitutional values of the Internet regime and develop templates, such as model laws, that states can adopt.

We need to keep the normative momentum flowing. We need to keep states, companies, civil society on its toes. Laws and practices that go against the constitution of the Internet Governance regime or its spirit need to be aggressively and loudly criticized. 

This is how constitutional progress happens. 

We need to localize and regionalize Internet Governance, we need to keep the process of substantializing the norms of Internet Governance alive.

We cannot wait for reports, expert groups, heads of state or other actors to show initiatives, or merely hope that the normative energy of NetMundial will not dissipate.

It may. But it must not.

Constitutionalization limits the exercise of power and, internationally, develops legitimacy matrices for the exercise of authority by non-state actors and in international constellations. This is what the debate about Internet Governance is all about – power and legitimacy.

Power online must only be exercised legitimately. Legitimacy of norms, at its core, means that those who are impacted by it have some say in its making. This is what lies at the basis of multistakeholderism. It is imperfect but each iteration brings it closer, and each new user, each new company, each new state that chooses to engage with multistakeholder processes makes them more legitimate. 

We do not need to reinvent the wheel. The wagon of Internet Governance already has them: the principles and processes developed over time and in practice.

We need to ensure that the wheels keeps turning.  

The speed is not so important, the direction is. And the direction is clear: the protection of the individual through the development of a people-centred, human rights-sensitive development-oriented information society in which power is exercised legitimately. 

Join us. Fight for the Internet’s Constitution.

Keep the momentum flowing. Apply the norms and you strengthen them.

Choose to engage and iteratively increase the legitimacy of the Internet’s norms and structure, its principles and processes.

It’s your Internet. It’s our Internet.