Search

Abstract Misinformation often continues to influence people’s reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people’s subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure.

Misinformation often continues to influence people's reasoning even after it has been corrected. Therefore, an important aim of applied cognition research is to identify effective measures to counter misinformation. One frequently recommended but hitherto insufficiently tested strategy is source discreditation, that is, attacking the credibility of a misinformation source. In two experiments, we tested whether immediate source discreditation could reduce people's subsequent reliance on fictional event-related misinformation. In Experiment 1, the discreditation targeted a person source of misinformation, pointing to a conflict of interest. This intervention was compared with a commonly employed message-focused correction and a combination of correction and discreditation. The discreditation alone was effective, but less effective than a correction, with the combination of both most effective. Experiment 2 compared discreditations that targeted a person versus a media source of misinformation, pointing either to a conflict of interest or a poor track record of communication. Discreditations were effective for both types of sources, although track-record discreditations were less effective when the misinformation source was a media outlet compared to a person. Results demonstrate that continued influence of misinformation is shaped by social as well as cognitive factors and that source discreditation is a broadly applicable misinformation countermeasure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On 13 September 2024, ahead of the presentation of the State Budget, the new Dutch coalition presented their finalized plan to implement what it has labelled as the strictest admission regime ever in the field of asylum law. To implement its Outline Agreement, titled ‘Hope, Courage and Pride,’ the government plans to rely on an derogation provision in the Dutch Aliens Act 2000. We argue that the provision does not apply to the current situation and that the Dutch government therefore does not have the jurisdiction to render parts of the Dutch Aliens Act 2000 inoperative.

The present paper considers controversial utterances that were erroneously taken as derogatory. These examples are puzzling because, despite the audiences’ error, many speakers retract and even apologise for what they didn’t say and didn’t do. In recent years, intuitions about retractions have been used to test semantic theories. The cases discussed here test the predictive power of theories of derogatory language and help us to better understand what is required to retract a slur. The paper seeks to answer three questions: are the cases considered genuine retractions? If the speakers didn’t derogate by using a slur, how are the cases retractions of derogatory acts? Do these examples support expressive accounts of slurs? I argue that the examples provide evidence for an expressivist account of slurs: a slurring utterance (defeasibly) makes a derogatory speech act where the speaker expresses a commitment to a morally questionable appraisal state, such as disgust or contempt for a target group. A retraction of a derogatory speech act requires undoing the enactment of that commitment, which can be achieved with a genuine apology. This helps explain the conduct of audiences who misunderstand what the speaker says, and the speakers’ reactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Language is sometimes used for influencing people negatively. This is done via the use of various derogatory strategies. Therefore, the present study deals with derogation pragmatically in American election campaign speeches. Precisely, the current work attempts to answer the following questions: (1) How is derogation approached pragmatically in American election campaign speeches? (2) Through which impoliteness strategies is derogation realized? (3) What is the target of derogation? Is it the public face or the personal face? And what are the foci of derogation? The study aims to find answers to the previous questions through reviewing the literature related to derogation and adopting an eclectic model for analyzing the data under investigation. Besides, a statistical means represented by the percentage equation is used to calculate the results. The main conclusion is that American presidential rivals use different impoliteness strategies to derogate each other; through this derogation either the public face or the personal face is threatened. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The global energy landscape is evolving, with an increasing focus on sustainability and the transition towards cleaner energy sources. As countries strive to meet their climate goals and reduce carbon emissions, the energy transition has become a critical imperative. In this endeavor, the role of regulatory sandboxes has emerged as a promising approach to foster innovation, accelerate technological advancements and overcome regulatory barriers in the energy sector. Many regulatory authorities introduce legislations incorporating the concept of ‘sandbox’ to create a regulatory framework and an experimental environment that encourages participation and integrates infrastructure with new technologies and business processes for facilitating and accelerating the energy transition. With the help of sandbox applications, the designated test or pilot implementations provide protected spaces for projects to allow regulatory trials and the development of required regulations. This study aims to examine and compare regulatory sandbox and pilot project experiences in selected countries to explore technological requirements, and recommendations for effective regulation. A four-dimensional/key perspectives framework was designed to analyze and compare selected countries. The reviewed projects were qualitatively summarized and categorized in a thematic synthesis based on a combined systematic review approach. Key findings underscore the significance of regulatory frameworks and provide clear guidance to stakeholders in innovative energy initiatives. Furthermore, collaboration, precise project delineations, and the preservation of technology neutrality emerge as crucial factors. Addressing challenges like grid integration, resource limitations, and regulatory adherence prove pivotal for the prosperous evolution of the energy domain. For this reason, the study includes a policy needs framework through experiences and insights in particular.

Examine effects of self-affirmation on university students' processing of health risk messages related to sedentary behavior. Eighty-eight students from a Canadian university (females = 53; males = 35; Mage = 21.74, SD = 5.36) participated during the 2018–2019 academic year. Participants were randomized to a self-affirmation (n = 43) or control group (n = 45), watched a video conveying sedentary behavior risk messages, and completed measures of acceptance, derogation, risk perceptions, negative affect, and intentions. A one-way between-groups multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) examined effects of condition on the combined set of outcome variables. Self-affirmation had no observable effect on any outcome variables. Self-affirmation did not appear to impact students' reactions to sedentary behavior risk messages. Given the lack of a manipulation check, however, this finding must be interpreted with caution. The Trigger and Channel framework offers a useful account of factors that influence self-affirmation effects. Implications and future research directions are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Following Russia’s on-going facilitation of migrants to the Finnish border since last fall, Finland’s newly formed right-wing coalition government has closed the eastern land border indefinitely on 4 April 2024. Worried that this step will not be enough to ensure national security, the government is finalising a Draft Act on Temporary Measures to Combat Instrumentalised Migration, currently under revision.The draft bill allows for pushbacks in violation of non-refoulement and openly admits a conflict with Finland’s human rights obligations, EU law and own constitutional system, which is unusual. The unprecedented nature of the proposed measures is particularly worrying given that the Act appears unlikely to effectively address the essentially political problem that “migrant instrumentalisation” poses.

Human Rights treaties which contain derogation clause, albeit allowing the derogation of some rights and freedoms in states of emergency, have provided some principles that must be observed by the States Parties for the derogation clause to be applicable. The purpose behind the prevision is the prevention from abuse of derogation right and gross violation of human rights by States under pretext of the existence of emergency situations. These principles can be divided into two general categories: substantive and procedural. The substantive principles are: the principle of exceptional threat, the principle of proportionality, the principle of observation of other international obligations, the principle of non-discrimination, the principle of good faith and the principle of non-derogable rights. The procedural principles are: the principle of proclamation and the principle of notification. Strict implementation of these principles requires their entry into domestic systems, especially in the constitutions of countries. Article 79 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran also deals with the application of necessary restrictions in times of war and similar emergencies. In the study, the issue of the status of emergency situations in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its compliance with the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) relating to the suspension of human rights in emergency situations has been examined comparatively. Findings indicate that Article 79 of the Iranian Constitution is slightly in line with Article 4 of the ICCPR and could be amended in a possible future revision.

Post-2017 Zimbabwean laws have remained hostile to business, contradicting Emmerson Mnangagwa's promise to citizens and the international business community to make Zimbabwe flourish economically. Seven million Zimbabweans were on the brink of starvation in 2018 forcing Mnangagwa to use Statutory Instruments (SIs) to promote business, create employment, and defeat poverty. Yet, many Zimbabweans remain prevented from meaningfully contributing to reviving the economy. This article considers if the Mnangagwa administration's political priorities and economic choices have undermined the very legal framework of the SIs intended to promote business confidence amongst citizens. The aspiration to better the lives of citizens by implementing regional trade liberalisation policies is based on theories of flexible integration and derogation. This article interrogates the legal frameworks of selected Statutory Instruments (SIs) and evaluates their impact on Zimbabwean livelihoods. It argues that Mnangagwa's administration has implemented SIs arbitrarily, making it difficult for citizens to contribute positively to the creation of wealth for all. This is important because it shows the dangers of subordinating economic policies under the political imperative to remain in power. Reform of the legal provisions of SIs is needed to balance the political and economic aspirations of citizens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International human rights law allows states to derogate some of their human rights obligations in times of public emergency. This essay attempts a normative assessment of the practice of derogation. We discuss, specifically, whether derogation is compatible with the logics and morality of rights. We notice that a major inconsistency between rights and derogation derives from the unilateral character of derogation: derogating parties are assigned a power-right to annul their own rightsbased obligations. This contrasts with the idea, central to rights, that rights-based obligations are owed to the right-holder. Only through consent of right-holders, we argue, can duties owed to them be modified or annulled. But whether the current practice of derogation is interpretable as a form of consent to rights infringement is highly disputable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public emergencies like global pandemics subject human rights to extraordinary vulnerability. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) permits States to restrict rights by enacting permissible limitations on them at any time and by derogating from their protection in emergencies. This article argues that States should rely on the ICCPR's permissible limitations provisions rather than lodge formal derogations in times of crisis, unlike what many States have done during the COVID-19 pandemic. It draws upon New Zealand's highly successful public health response to support this proposition. The article argues that the accountability machinery for compliance with States' rights obligations is stronger when permissible limitations are enacted. Where States do rely on the right to derogate, the article suggests some improvements to existing international accountability mechanisms. These include enhancing the analysis to be contained in notices of derogation and advance capacity-building to enable States to better decide if derogation is necessary in the first place. Ultimately, the article argues that keeping States within the international human rights system is ideal. This can be achieved through reliance on the flexibility built into the ICCPR via its permissible limitations provisions rather than its right of derogation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines realizing the right to freedom of expression under martial law conditions. The authors analyze the concept, content, and guarantee of the right to freedom of expression within national and international legal orders. In particular, the guarantees right to freedom of expression are considered. The study explicitly focuses on how the constitutions of various countries determine the conditions for restricting freedom of expression. Most national constitutions consider the right to freedom of expression as a relative right that may be subject to interference to protect national security, the privacy of individuals, the authority of justice, the protection of commercial property, etc. In the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law, at least such elements of freedom of expression are highlighted: freedom to adhere to views; freedom to disseminate information and ideas; freedom to receive information and ideas; freedom of the press; freedom of radio and television broadcasting. The ECtHR's approaches to derogation are studied. The ECtHR's jurisprudence contains several cases related to limiting freedom of expression during the derogation. The authors argue that despite security threats, the ECtHR believes that without dialogue within society, a democratic process is impossible. Therefore, imposing disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression violates Art. 10 of the Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter ECHR or Convention). Criteria for determining the proportionality (a necessity in a democratic society) of interference with freedom of expression under martial law can be: the sphere of social relations to which the information belongs; the primary source of information; credibility of information; consequences of dissemination of information; the subject of information dissemination; method of dissemination of information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental human rights, as it encompasses a wide range of relationships related to the private life of the individual. Starting with the right to family life and the right to private life, many institutions that seem very important nowadays, such as data protection, find their place and are part of the right to privacy. Nevertheless, the right to privacy is one of the relative rights protected by the European Convention, which means that it can be derogated in specific cases and under certain conditions. The purpose of this article is to examine the conditions set out in the European Convention for the derogation of right to privacy and to analyse the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This Court has, in its jurisprudence, restrictively derogated the right to privacy, with fulfilling three conditions: prescription by law, necessary in a democratic society and achieving certain legitimate aim. One of the examples of the possibility of its restriction is the epidemic of the Covid-19 virus. Considering that numerous countries around the world have restricted the right to privacy, the question is whether and to what extent the restriction was in accordance with prescribed conditions for derogation of this right.

The right to privacy is one of the fundamental human rights, as it encompasses a wide range of relationships related to the private life of the individual. Starting with the right to family life and the right to private life, many institutions that seem very important nowadays, such as data protection, find their place and are part of the right to privacy. Nevertheless, the right to privacy is one of the relative rights protected by the European Convention, which means that it can be derogated in specific cases and under certain conditions. The purpose of this article is to examine the conditions set out in the European Convention for the derogation of right to privacy and to analyse the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. This Court has, in its jurisprudence, restrictively derogated the right to privacy, with fulfilling three conditions: prescription by law, necessary in a democratic society and achieving certain legitimate aim. One of the examples of the possibility of its restriction is the epidemic of the Covid-19 virus. Considering that numerous countries around the world have restricted the right to privacy, the question is whether and to what extent the restriction was in accordance with prescribed conditions for derogation of this right. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2022 7(2), 545-560 | European Forum Insight of 28 July 2022 | (Table of Contents) I. Premessa. - II. La possibilità di deroga all'applicazione della direttiva 2008/115/CE nel nuovo Patto su migrazione e asilo. - III. La possibilità di deroga all'applicazione della direttiva 2008/115/CE nelle proposte di risposta alla strumentalizzazione dei migranti. - IV. La possibilità di deroga alla direttiva 2008/115/CE a fronte della modifica del regolamento sul meccanismo di valutazione e monitoraggio di Schengen (SEMM). - V. Considerazioni critiche e conclusioni. | (Abstract) Art. 2(2)(a) of the Directive 2008/115/EC (Return Directive) provides the conditions whereby the Member States can derogate from some provisions of the directive itself. An amendment to remove this clause is under discussion before the European Parliament, as part of the negotiations on the directive's recast. Derogations from the scope of the directive challenge the monitoring of compli-ance with human rights obligations and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Meanwhile, the proposal on the reform of the Schengen Evaluation and Monitoring Mechanism (SEMM) aims for an effective monitoring of the respect of rights at external borders. This implies greater attention to the correct implementation of the Return Directive. However, in the new Pact for migration and asylum, the derogation clause is applicable to both the proposal for a Regulation on screening at external borders and the proposal for a common procedure for international protection. Derogations from the Return Directive are also contained in the proposals aimed at addressing situations of instrumentalisation of migration and asylum. The analysis of these provisions gives a picture of an incoherent normative system, whose antinomies may foster or further complicate the already troubled advancement of negotiations on the Return Directive and on the Pact.

Copyright of Prudentia Iuris is the property of Pontificia Universidad Catolica Argentina and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In the context of ICCPR, the doctrine of the non-derogable rights is very significant in its nature keeping in view the concept of the civil and political rights. Further these tights are still available even during the time of public emergency which may threaten the life of the state parties. So the role of those bodies which have manifesto to ensure the implementation of such rights is very significant. In such scenario there is an issue that the states parties are bound to fulfill its obligations during that time of public emergency by fulfilling the conditions envisaged in the Article 4 of ICCPR. Although there are monitoring mechanism is there in the shape of the treaty bodies for the ensuring the implementation of the non-derogable rights. But not with standing that there is dire need of some cogent and effective mechanism to monitor and supervise its execution by internationally recognized bodies which are called treaty bodies in terms of ensuring its implementation in letter and spirit as per the scheme and objective of the International covenant on civil and political rights 1966. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Initiatives proposing a cleansing of the legal order have traditionally been a proposed solution to the problem of a confusing and growing legal order. Massive and one-off derogations are an atypical solution that has never been used in our tradition. The problem of obsolete older regulations does not in fact create an acute threat to the legal practice. The primary purpose of depuration must be a summary list of applicable legislation. A possible massive derogation of the selected list can only be the next stage. It is necessary to design a conceptual system of regular revision of the legal order and to use classical forms of derogation. The basic condition for the legitimacy of such activities lies in the participation of experts in the field of legal publication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to nearly all theorists writing on the subject, a certain derogatory content is regularly and systematically communicated by slurs. So united, the theorists disagree sharply on the elements of this content, on its provenance, and on its mechanism. I argue that the basic premiss of all these views, that there is any such derogatory content conveyed with the use of slurs, is highly dubious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rule of law binds humankind together, or at least, is expected to do so. In an attempt to keep the sanctity of the UN Charter, the San Francisco conference and the vision which made way for the modern contemporary world, rule of law is the quintessential word. But, has there been any realization on the importance of the principle, with regard to the international legal regime is the question that propels thought. Ever since the conception of the term 'rule of law', there have been enormous scholarly explorations on its nuances. Through this paper, the author tries to understand in depth, how the practical implications of the same are felt across different sectors of the mechanisms of law. Be it in the international setting or the domestic set-up with the UN framework, the author outlines the significance of rule of law at work. The paper also attempts to answer some basic questions with respect to the administrators of rule of law from an international legal platform, the instruments that propel rule of law and explores the human rights dimensions to this. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although slurs are conventionally defined as derogatory words, it has been widely noted that not all of their occurrences are derogatory. This may lead us to think that there are “innocent” occurrences of slurs, i.e., occurrences of slurs that are not harmful in any sense. The aim of this paper is to challenge this assumption. Our thesis is that slurs are always potentially harmful, even if some of their occurrences are nonderogatory. Our argument is the following. Derogatory occurrences of slurs are not characterized by their sharing any specific linguistic form; instead, they are those that take place in what we call uncontrolled contexts, that is, contexts in which we do not have enough knowledge of our audience to predict what the uptake of the utterance will be. Slurs uttered in controlled contexts, by contrast, may lack derogatory character. However, although the kind of context at which the utterance of a slur takes place can make it nonderogatory, it cannot completely deprive it of its harmful potential. Utterances of slurs in controlled contexts still contribute to normalizing their utterances in uncontrolled contexts, which makes nonderogatory occurrences of slurs potentially harmful too.

Slurs are both derogatory and offensive, and they are said to exhibit “derogatory force” and “offensiveness.” Almost all theories of slurs, except the truth-conditional content theory and the invocational content theory, conflate these two features and use “derogatory force” and “offensiveness” interchangeably. This paper defends and explains the distinction between slurs’ derogatory force and offensiveness by fulfilling three goals. First, it distinguishes between slurs’ being derogatory and their being offensive with four arguments. For instance, ‘Monday’, a slur in the Bostonian argot, is used to secretly derogate African Americans without causing offense. Second, this paper points out that many theories of slurs run into problems because they conflate derogatory force with offensiveness. For example, the prohibition theory’s account of offensiveness in terms of prohibitions struggles to explain why ‘Monday’ is derogatory when it is not a prohibited word in English. Third, this paper offers a new explanation of this distinction from the perspective of a speech act theory of slurs; derogatory force is different from offensiveness because they arise from two different kinds of speech acts that slurs are used to perform, i.e., the illocutionary act of derogation and the perlocutionary act of offending. This new explanation avoids the problems faced by other theories.

This paper discusses the phenomenon of linguistic taboo. It contrasts that phenomenon with the truth-conditional and non-truth-conditional dimensions of meaning, paying particular attention to slurs and coarseness. It then highlights the peculiarities of taboo and its meta-semantic repercussions: taboo is a meaning-related feature that is nevertheless directly associated with the tokening process. In the conclusion, it gestures to the role of taboo within a theory of linguistic action and the standard framework for conversational exchanges. On these results, I am going to end by looking at some of the harms that epistemic injustice inflicts upon its victims.

The Swedish risk management case of Baltic fatty fishes, in which dioxin levels may be too high, is a typical multidimensional food safety decision problem involving public health, economic, environmental and socio-cultural aspects. To effectively address the dioxin food safety problem, the multiple dimensions and conflicting interests of stakeholders have to be considered systematically when evaluating competing risk management options. The objectives of this study were to illustrate the applicability of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method for multidimensional food safety risk management problems, and to evaluate the Swedish dioxin risk management using MCDA. The results show that the MCDA method is indeed a relevant tool for modelling the multifactorial Swedish dioxin problem and for initiating discussions amongst stakeholders to increase the acceptance of chosen strategies. Abolishing the derogation from the European Commission's maximum limits for the presence of dioxins in Swedish fish is the dominant strategy for risk assessors, whereas the preferences provided by the other stakeholders would suggest a continuation of the derogation without providing consumer information. However, the preferences of female consumers match with the 2011 decision of the Swedish government to ask for a derogation in combination with consumer information. The conclusion drawn from our MCDA analysis is comparable to the government's decision that—given the gradual reduction in dioxin concentrations in Baltic fish—the decision to continue providing consumer information or not mainly depends on how risk managers balance the preferences of the different stakeholders. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Identification and categorization of the peculiar orientalist stereotypes present in Louis Tracy’s The Red Year: A Story of the Indian Mutiny (1907) is the aim of the article. The argument is theoretically pivoted on the Saidian postcolonial proposition presented in his Orientalism (1978). The researchers contend that the selected novel stands as a superlative example of the colonial discourse and orientalist rhetoric marked by supremacism and parochialism. The prevalent (mis)representational schema of the text has been explicated and various instances of social, religious, and racial branding have been analyzed. From characterization to narration, Tracy’s fictional discourse has conspicuous xenophobic colour and prejudiced parlance. The native figures have been demonized and details of the events distorted, whereas the English have been aggrandized to pitch the idea of their civilizational supremacy. Thus, the article exposes the politics of colonial poetics by identifying the derogatory stereotypes and exposing the pejorative rhetoric used therein. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

According to the principle of the necessity of the contracts, the possibility of termination is an exceptional and unconventional one. Article 456 of the Civil Code of option has been considered as one of the cases of the dissolution of the necessary contracts and has not been included in the law of the law. Therefore, the issue of the flow and absence of option in the authorized contract is not much investigated. The reason is that the well-known jurisprudents have rejected the option flow in an acceptable contract, which is contrary to the rules governing the contract. This group of jurisprudents has stated that: according to the rules governing the contract, the flow of option in this contract is contrary to the principle, since the permit for termination is permissible in the nature of the contract and does not require cucumber. But the promise against the jurisprudents is that the cucumbers in this contract are regarded as the proper contracts.The purpose of this article is to investigate the effects of bayatars in the works and their works, which can be analyzed by analytical-descriptive methods and by investigating jurisprudential sources and the views of jurists in the existing sources, which ultimately concludes that the use of bouquets In an acceptable contract, not only does not have a legal ban, but it can also have legal and legal effects, and this is the most important goal of the research

Some non-appropriated uses of slurs seem to be non–derogatory. In this paper, I argue that in a range of cases, the lack of derogation is owed to the term not being genuinely used. I first examine so–called pedagogical uses and show that they can be assimilated to what I call “distancing uses.” I then turn to a range of other apparently non–derogatory, non–appropriated uses of slurs – such as non–weapon uses, comedic uses – and argue that they can depart from standard, genuine usage in relevant ways. I finally turn to so–called “affectionate” uses, and show that, if the conditions in which they obtain can be described as standard, then they are derogatory because they are genuine uses, no matter the benevolent feelings of the speaker.

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Avrupa bütünleşmesi çalışmalarında derogasyonların rolünü incelemektir. Bu kapsamda şu sorulara yanıt aranmaktadır: Derogasyon Avrupa bütünleşmesi bağlamında nasıl tanımlanmaktadır? Derogasyon hakkı kim tarafından hangi kriterlere göre devletlere verilebilir? Bütünleşme sürecine derogasyonların etkisi nasıl olmuştur? Yer yer Hukuk, örgüt sosyolojisi ve siyaset bilimi literatürlerinde konu edilen derogasyon meselesine kavramsal ve kuramsal açıdan eleştiriler getiren bu çalışma, çeşitli AB derogasyonlarının vaka analizleri yoluyla Avrupa bütünleşmesine ilişkin rasyonalist açıklamaların yetersiz kaldığını göstermektedir.

This article is a critical reflection on human rights obligations and the changes that have taken place in their conception and functions, as well as their impact on the protection of human rights – especially in crises. The text is divided into two parts. The first section presents the features that characterise human rights obligations while focusing on the arguments that give them identity and reinforce their binding nature, with human beings as the subjects of rights and beneficiaries of obligations that broaden the responsibility of the obligated states. The second section analyses these obligations in times of crisis, such as the Covid-19 pandemic. Therefore, this piece of research focuses on two significant legal situations based on the relevant elements of obligations: on one hand, it critically reflects on the derogative clauses in obligations, and, on the other hand, reviews the prohibition of regression or dilution of human rights as a guarantee for the maintenance of such obligations

We examined majority group members' perceptions of racial slurs, compared to what we have labeled as combination terms. These combination terms possess the same semantic and pragmatic linguistic functions as racial slurs, functioning to express negative emotion toward, and to describe, a target. Across three studies (total N = 943) racial slurs were not perceived as significantly different from combination terms. We then examined whether participants higher in social dominance beliefs reported greater perceived justification for using combination terms over racial slurs because of their lack of historical denigration of marginalized groups that racial slurs have. Participants, even those higher in socially dominant attitudes, did not perceive greater justification for the use of combination terms than racial slurs. Indeed, an important implication is that race-marking, an understudied area of social psychology, paired with general derogative terms produces terms which may function similarly to racial slurs, but, fortunately, are also similarly vilified in modern society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The implementation of the new Algiers development master plan PDAU adopted in 2016, is based on projects identified as structuring that have necessitated for many of them, the use of urban derogations as solutions to constraints encountered in the field during their realization. Given the importance of the number of these projects, the derogatory approach risks becoming more widespread and questioning the usefulness of the urban management regulatory instrument PDAU, which is enforceable against third parties. The revision of this instrument, whose timetable is 2035, required more than seven years of study and the mobilization of substantial financial and human resources. In order to be able to respond to this contradictory situation and to understand its implications for the formation of the Algiers urban landscape, we are interested in examples of the application of the urban derogation in three Maghreb’s countries: Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. The objective is to be able to identify the permissible limits for tolerance of this exceptional mode of urban and architectural production in order to preserve the coherence of the overall strategy development and planning

This article aims to study the implications of certain measures taken by American States, in order to address the COVID-19 Pandemic, on International Human Rights Law. Throughout this article, we will dive deep into the phenomenon of Human Rights derogations that are employed during exceptional public safety crisis. For that purpose, firstly, we will examine the context behind the protection of Human Rights under the Inter-American System. Next, attention will be paid to the exception of the universal application of International Human Rights Law. Thirdly, we will examine the most common practices adopted during the COVID-19 pandemic, and how they interact with specific Human Rights. Lastly, we contemplate some matters about the future of International Law.

Slurs are derogatory words and they are used to derogate certain groups. Theories of slurs must explain why they are derogatory words, as well as other features like independence and descriptive ineffability. This paper proposes an illocutionary force indicator theory of slurs: they are derogatory terms because their use is to perform the illocutionary act of derogation, which is a declarative illocutionary act to enforce norms against the target. For instance, calling a Chinese person "chink" is an act of derogation to enforce racist norms that license exclusion of the Chinese, deny their rights to dignity, etc. The contribution of this paper is twofold. First, it offers a more comprehensive explanation of the features of slurs than earlier speech act approaches. Second, it provides a theory that is immune to the problems faced by existing theories, such as wrong predictions of truth-conditions, explaining unacceptability to non-bigots, and explaining slurs against the dominant groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

States of emergency pose the most significant challenges to the safeguarding of fundamental rights and civil liberties. Crises are generally characterized by a strengthening of the executive to the detriment of judicial authority and parliamentary oversight. One of the immediate consequences of emergencies is the absence of effective domestic mechanisms of supervision of the executive. The gradual replacement of the judicial role with police operations represents a symptom of how prolonged emergencies prompt the eclipse of legal certainty and lead to the rapid and irreversible degradation of public institutions.

The article analyses weather or not a derogation submitted under article 15 of the European Convention of Human Rights is necessary and justifiable as a state of emergency was imposed due to the Covid-19 Pandemic. It also analyses the effects of the derogation and the implications on the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To determine the fate of human rights in extreme situations, the treaties contain a mechanism for derogating from obligations, i.e. derogations from their enforceability in such exceptional situations. The initial and fundamental criterion under which derogation steps are admissible is the existence of an exceptional public emergency that threatens the life of the nation, as referred to in Article 4(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 15(1) of the European Charter of Human Rights, and about which Professor Anna Michalska wrote so competently in 1997. Neither the constitutions of modern states nor their practice of introducing states of emergency are helpful in defining this criterion more precisely; most often, they do not use it at all. Unfortunately, it is not to be found in Chapter XI of the Polish Constitution “States of Emergency”, nor in the laws of 2002 regulating these states. In the practice of the treaty monitoring bodies (Human Rights Committee in the ICCPR system; the European Commission and the Court of Human Rights in the ECHR system), we do not find incontestable nor indisputable indications. The concept of the “nation” is referred to society as a whole and is to be associated with its physical survival. In the author’s opinion, this is not the correct approach, as it is and must be about a “living nation”, a nation effectively exercising its rights. The enslavement of a nation, its subjugation, elimination of opportunities for its self-determination – far from its extermination – can unquestionably meet the requirements of the criterion of a threat to the life of the nation. The study of constitutional law (the nation-sovereign) and international law (the principle and right to self-determination of the nation) unequivocally confirms this thesis.

The Swedish risk management case of Baltic fatty fishes, in which dioxin levels may be too high, is a typical multidimensional food safety decision problem involving public health, economic, environmental and socio-cultural aspects. To effectively address the dioxin food safety problem, the multiple dimensions and conflicting interests of stakeholders have to be considered systematically when evaluating competing risk management options. The objectives of this study were to illustrate the applicability of the Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) method for multidimensional food safety risk management problems, and to evaluate the Swedish dioxin risk management using MCDA. The results show that the MCDA method is indeed a relevant tool for modelling the multifactorial Swedish dioxin problem and for initiating discussions amongst stakeholders to increase the acceptance of chosen strategies. Abolishing the derogation from the European Commission’s maximum limits for the presence of dioxins in Swedish fish is the dominant strategy for risk assessors, whereas the preferences provided by the other stakeholders would suggest a continuation of the derogation without providing consumer information. However, the preferences of female consumers match with the 2011 decision of the Swedish government to ask for a derogation in combination with consumer information. The conclusion drawn from our MCDA analysis is comparable to the government’s decision that—given the gradual reduction in dioxin concentrations in Baltic fish—the decision to continue providing consumer information or not mainly depends on how risk managers balance the preferences of the different stakeholders.

Since the 15 July 2016 failed coup, Turkey has seen the mass arrests and detention of hundreds of thousands of individuals; among them are judges and prosecutors, military personnel, police officers, journalists, lawyers, human rights defenders and opposition politicians who have been deprived of their liberty on an array of terrorism-related charges. While this has raised numerous human rights issues, this article focuses on those relating to pre-trial restrictions imposed on the right to liberty and security of individuals during the post-coup state of emergency. Building on the theory and use of the reasonableness concept in the field of pre-trial detention through a particular focus on the 'reasonable suspicion' test under Article 5 § 1 (c) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), the article analyses the role of the European Court of Human Rights (the Court or the ECtHR) in enforcing the guarantees of the right to liberty in the Turkish post-coup cases of Mehmet Hasan Altan, Şahin Alpay, Alparslan Altan and Kavala. Against the background of pre-existing Convention standards on pre-trial reasonable suspicion in states of emergency, it finds that the ECtHR has adopted a stronger supervisory stance regarding the compatibility of Turkish post-coup detention practices than the more hesitant approach shown in the prior derogation context of Northern Ireland. While these decisions give some cause for optimism in the hope for a judicial boldness on the part of the ECtHR in condemning Turkey's arbitrary detention practices during the state of emergency, the article argues that there is further scope for the Court to strengthen its protection in this respect. Notably, despite the positive aspects in the Court's approach, by continuing to support the notion that the Turkish legal landscape is capable of addressing Article 5 violations and not tackling the underlying structural issues so clearly at play, the Court leaves a glaring gap in rights protection for those seeking justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of International Journal of Eurasian Education & Culture is the property of Ayse Burcu Ulusoy and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The study highlights the international legal framework for the regulation of derogation of human rights and the practice of applying the latter by Ukraine, which is exercised for the first time under conditions of armed conflict and temporary loss of control over part of its territory. The essence, factors, mechanisms, peculiarities and problems related to derogation in the field of human rights, tools for its realization are revealed. The importance of using derogation of human rights as one of the "escape mechanisms" for the state is emphasized, the state's right which is of an exclusive nature, the possibility of which is provided for by the relevant international treaty, requiring compliance with agreed conditions and procedures. Comparative analysis of the provisions of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) concerning the right of the state to derogate in the field of human rights in time of a public emergency threatening the life of the nation is made. It is emphasized that the derogation in the field of human rights requires doctrinal understanding as a kind of legitimate limitation on use of restrictions on rights. It outlines the specific measures Ukraine was forced to take in order to derogate in the field of human rights under the armed conflict and temporary loss of control over part of its territory, as well as their perception by the international community. International legal acts, case law of the European Court of Human Rights and doctrinal views on issues outlined are analyzed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]