Search

This article criticises the Strasbourg Court’s reluctance to recognise the familial association between a natural father and a child with whom he had no opportunity to establish effective bonds, unless the child was the product of a committed relationship (by analogy with marriage) and planned conception, whilst downgrading family aspirations to a (less protected) privacy interest if the birth resulted from an extra-marital or fleeting relationship. The author also laments the Court’s readiness to accept superficial justifications for interferences with the father’s private or ‘potential’ family life (where it finds it engaged), such as the refusal to order genetic tests or contact. The Court allows the ‘child’s best interests’ façade to accommodate the mother’s choice of partner (especially in the case of children conceived in adultery) and remains oblivious to the modern plural fatherhood (whereby the husband continues his parental role qua stepfather, without obliterating the natural father’s family life with the child). It is further argued that, to end the gender-based double standard in the treatment of natural parents, the case law must de-couple the father’s family life with the child from the quality of the adults’ relationship and the circumstances surrounding conception (save for narrow exceptions) and acknowledge that currently pater certus est.

This book explores current human rights controversies arising in UK law, in the light of the way such matters have been dealt with in Canada.

This article, somewhat against the trend in that growing body of scholarship in this area, argues that there is a role for a new international instrument targeting the harassment of and violence against journalists. It supports this position by a review of UN and regional human rights jurisprudence, with an emphasis on hitherto undiscussed weaknesses, as well as by an analysis of loopholes in international humanitarian law. It concludes with suggestions for a new instrument, providing better safeguards for both journalists and societal interests in the media, and highlights how such an instrument would tackle the problems in the existing framework.

The fact that heterosexual couples still cannot form civil partnerships after the introduction of gender-neutral marriage contravenes Articles 8 and 14 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950. Albeit optional under the Convention (like adoption, parental leave or child benefits), civil partnership is an institution engaging the right to respect for family life and its domestic regulation demands conformity with Convention principles, including non-discrimination. This article contrasts states' wide margin of appreciation in matrimonial matters under Article 12 with the limited discretion under Article 8 and discusses the strict proportionality test applicable to differences in treatment exclusively based on sexual orientation. It dismisses the justifications espoused by executive and judicial authorities in recent litigation for the indefinite postponement of reform, namely the overestimated costs of legislative amendment, the subordination of the equality principle to the number of takers, and attempts to gauge social demand through post-2014 statistics on gay partnerships. Finally, it provides arguments for removing discrimination by opening civil partnership to opposite-sex couples rather than abolishing it: obviating hardship for family units lawfully constituted abroad, ensuring privacy for individuals whose disclosure of civil status reveals sexual orientation, and fostering a pluralist, tolerant society, accommodating ideological objections to marriage.

MASSIVE OPEN ON-LINE COURSES IN OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES AND E-LEARNING FOR TOXICOLOGY COURSES Stefano GIROTTI1, Luca FERRARI2, Michele PROTTI1, Laura MERCOLINI1, Camelia DRAGHICI3 1Department of Pharmacy and Biotechnology FaBiT, Via San Donato 15, Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Bologna,40127, Italy 2Dipartimento di Scienze dell' Educazione 'G.M. Bertin', Alma Mater Studiorum - Università di Bologna, Via Filippo Re 6, 40126 Bologna, Italy 3Department of Product Design, Mechatronics and Environment, Transilvania University of Brasov, 29 Eroilor Blv, 500036 Brasov, Romania Remarkably, owing to the lack of European Massive Open On-line Courses (MOOCs) [1] in the field of the Toxicology and major differences in the teaching and learning of this important subject at various European biologically oriented faculties, we will present our TOX-OER European project which develops a scientific and pedagogical joint between research in the field of toxicology and MOOC pedagogical design [2]. This will consist in a guideline to support partners during: a) the creation of accessible Open Educational Resources (OER); b) course & module management; c) the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of individual and social learning activities. This procedure will contribute to the promotion of using the learning outcomes in the design and delivery of educational programs and activities in favor of pupils, students, young people, trainees, adult learners. Furthermore, the TOX-OER project could create the conditions for the RECOGNITION and CERTIFICATION (ECTS credits) of learning achievements, at least between partners. Finally, throughout the duration of the project, the partners involved in the educational tasks will manage a virtual space (server) within which the MOOC platform will be installed, and where all the Open Educational Resources will be available. TOX-OER project is coordinated by Universidad de Salamanca and partners are: Università di Bologna, Italy; Transilvania University of Brasov, Romania; Univerzita Karlova V Praze, Czech Republic; Universidade do Porto, Portugal; Space Research and Technology Institute, Bulgaria; Kymenlaakson Ammattikorkeakoululu Oy, Finland. [1] Chiappe, A., & Arias, V. (2015). Understanding reusability as a key factor for open education: A review. The International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning, 16(1). Retrieved from http://www.irrodl.org/index.php/irrodl/article/view/2042 ISSN: 1492-3831 [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9lHtNLHP4Y

The right to marry is guaranteed under the European Convention on Human Rights ECHR)in art.12, which reads: "Men and women of marriageable age have the right to marry and to found a family, according to the national laws governing the exercise of this right". This provision was given effect in the UK through the enactment of the Human Rights Act 1998, which incorporated ECHR rights, allowing domestic litigants to rely on them before the British courts. The express referral to "national laws" in art.12 indicates that States may legitimately impose restrictions on the exercise of this right, such as bars on marriage between persons who fall within the prohibited degrees of a relationship, a minimum marriageable age, and the requirement to comply with certain formalities for the valid celebration of marriages. The Convention institutions maintain, nevertheless, the power to scrutinise any such restrictions, and ensure that domestic law strikes a fair balance between the prevention of objectionable marriages and the protection of individual rights against social prejudice. Controversial issues in this area include same-sex marriage, polygamous, underage and religious marriage within ethnic minority communities, transsexuals' right to marry according to the newly acquired gender, the suspension of the exercise of the right in circumstances involving deprivation of liberty, the right to re-marry, and the right to divorce and re-acquire the capacity to marry.

The article analyses the ramifications of the Supreme Court’s 2014 Nicklinson judgment. It argues that the majority approach to a declaration of incompatibility as judicial incursion into legislative territory does not rest convincingly on the distribution of power envisaged by the Human Rights Act. Contrasting the domestic courts’ wider prerogatives to develop human rights with the self-restraint of the Strasbourg Court, driven by the margin of appreciation, the author contends that the judgment fails to protect the right to personal autonomy. Unlike the Strasbourg Court, reserved in matters pertaining to the sensitive field of bioethics, where no European consensus can legitimise progressive judgments, domestic courts have more leeway to signal to the legislature that the manner in which discretion was exercised does not strike a fair balance between competing interests. A development in this direction would find support in the general Strasbourg approach to blanket bans in other controversial areas.

1. The absence of a right to adopt under the European Convention on Human Rights. 2. Eligibility to adopt, civil status and sexual orientation. 3. Rights of the natural parents with regards to adoption proceedings. 4. Dispensing with parental consent to further the best interests of the child. 5. The (almost) equal standing of biological and adoptive families under Article 8. 6. Recognition of foreign adoptions. 7. Conclusions: the demise of the margin of appreciation doctrine?

This contribution assesses the legitimacy of the Second Gulf War under international law through the lens of its human costs, exploring aspects such as the purported humanitarian nature of the intervention, the consistency of the warfare means and tactics employed with humanitarian law, and the compliance of U.S. military forces with the duties of occupying powers towards the civilian population after the termination of active hostilities.

The war on terror is a peculiar type of conflict: at times it involves military operations, subject to international humanitarian law, but for the most part it consists of law-enforcement action, bound to observe international human rights law.\ud \ud • In times of war or other public emergencies, States can lawfully derogate from some of their human rights obligations. In times of peace, some measure of interference with certain rights may also be permitted to accommodate security concerns. The proportionality of such restrictions should, however, always be respected.\ud \ud • The war on terror has entailed arbitrary deprivations of life and liberty, the use of torture and degrading treatment against suspected terrorists, the supression of due process guarantees, unwarranted interference with the right to private life, freedom of expression and association, as well as restrictions on the rights of aliens. \ud \ud • The human rights cost of the global war on terror regards both the excesses of national policies and multilateral (especially UN) action.

Policy-makers, domestically and in international fora, tend to address counterterrorism and human-rights protection in terms of competitive goals. In the post-9/11 political climate dominated by security concerns, the suppression of the financing of terrorism is given priority over suspects’ rights. The current procedures established by the UN Security Council for the freezing of funds of terrorist suspects encroach upon several individual rights. The most severe infringement upon the rights of persons targeted by the UN sanctions derives from the lack of a secure avenue of appeal. The denial of access to justice has been fostered for several years by the deference of national and regional courts to the UN Security Council. Recent developments at European Union level demonstrate that judicial decisions can shape counter-terrorism policies.

Sommario:\ud \ud 1. La dottrina delle “mani pulite” da massima di equità nella common law a principio di diritto internazionale: la sua rilevanza nelle controversie interstatali alla luce della giurisprudenza della Corte Internazionale di Giustizia. \ud \ud 2. Il significato specifico della regola nelle controversie interstatali “indirette” derivanti da ll’esercizio della protezione diplomatica. \ud \ud 3. La regola delle “mani pulite” negli scritti giuridici e nei lavori di codificazione della Commissione di Diritto Internazionale. \ud \ud 4. Conclusioni: inesistenza della regola quale causa di inammissibilità, applicazione marginale \ud nell’esame del merito delle controversie e non auspicabilità della sua codificazione a titolo di sviluppo progressivo.

1. Aspects introductifs : relevance internationale du principe et tentative de mise à niveau de la Charte arabe. \ud \ud 2. Une amélioration incontestable : la clause de nondiscrimination (article 3, alinéas a) et b)) et le principe de l’égalité devant la loi (article 11). \ud \ud 3. L’introduction de la parité des sexes (article 3 alinéa c)) et les droits de la femme dans les rapports familiaux (article 33) : des dispositions problématiques.\ud \ud 4. Les discriminations manifestes contre les non-ressortissants (articles 24 f), 34 a), 36, 41). \ud \ud 5. Considérations conclusives : les espoirs de modernisation sous le spectre des principes chariatiques prémodernes.

CD-ROM; International audience