Search

This article aims to test whether human rights have an indivisible nature. To do that, we perform correlation analysis and Granger causality tests to test 1) the relationship within socio-economic rights and 2) between socio-economic rights and civil-political rights. The results show that certain socio-economic rights have mutual reinforcing relationships, lending support to the existence of widespread indivisibility. This finding yields relevant policy implications. Given their financial constraints, states could make use of the existence of widespread indivisibility, in combination with the progressive implementation clause, to foster the efficient allocation of resources for human rights implementation. Furthermore, this article shows that the intensity of indivisibility varies depending on the income category of states: the indivisible nature of socio-economic rights is more intense in low-income countries while seems to achieve a saturation point at the highest levels of human rights compliance. We, thus, propose to define this phenomenon as ‘indivisibility saturation’. Lastly, our findings detect a more complex picture for the indivisibility principle between the two classes of human rights. While widespread indivisibility does not follow from the tests, important unidirectional relationships between different human rights exist and are equally important for human rights policy-making purposes.

The last two decades have been incremental for the development of artificial intelligence (AI) and data-driven technologies. AI is increasingly being applied to all facets of life. Much research has been conducted on AI and its interplay with human rights in general, yet, little research is available on AI’s impact on LGBTQ+ rights and the queer community in particular (though many of the general human rights concerns are also valid for the LGBTQ+ community). While the LGBTQ+ community has benefitted from certain forms of AI, there are also discernible risks involved in AI’s application in terms of privacy, health, safety, employment, censorship, discrimination etc. Weighed against each other, the pertinent question is whether AI is to be considered a friend or a foe for the LGBTQ+ community. This chapter aims to answer that question and fill the gap in the literature. It discusses some of the positive aspects of AI applications that have improved the lives of LGBTQ+ people and advanced or promoted the protection of LGBTQ+ rights, as well as the negative risks and the ethical implications of this ever-evolving technology that need to be addressed for a fairer future application. It furthermore elaborates on what queer theory is and how its application from the beginning stages of AI-development on could take away some of the concerns that are prevalent. It presents three case studies to illustrate how an actual queerification of AI could lead it to being more inclusive, diverse and fair for the queer community.

Tranl. in Bahasa Indonesia of paper entitled "International Law Standards on Extreme Speech about Religion"

The Dutch approach to calibrating freedom of religion or belief and gender equality is characterized by its outspokenness as far as external affairs are concerned and, historically, the absence of a similar degree of fortitude when it comes to its internal affairs. Recently, the two perspectives—internal affairs and external relations—have become more or less aligned. This process was significantly steered by judicial interventions and interventions by human rights monitoring bodies, which judicial recourse was mobilized in turn by civil society. The non-proactive attitude on the part of the state must be understood—yet not necessarily justified—on account of its unique political constellation in which pillars, polders and principles are driving, if conflicting, forces.

This article makes two claims, one explanatory, one normative. The former aims at explaining why pluralist religion teaching, be it teaching in the style advocated by the OSCE Toledo Guiding Principles on Teaching about Religions and Beliefs in Public Schools or other forms of pluralist religion teaching or religious literacy teaching, has not become an overwhelming success in Europe. To that effect, the article identifies a number of incentives and disincentives contained in (interpretations of) international human rights law that serve to perpetuate confessional teaching models. The normative claim advanced in this article challenges international human rights monitoring bodies’ ‘claw-back-clause’ reading of educational and religious rights of pupils and parental liberties. Specifically, the article concludes that advances in socio-legal science show that opt-outs are no remedy for the risks emanating from confessional religion teaching within public schools—rather, opt-outs are part of the problem.

Dit artikel onderzoekt de plek van de (mogelijke) aanpak, door staten, van homofobe and transfobe haatuitingen1 onder internationale mensenrechtenverdragen. Te dien einde gaat dit artikel in op de relevant stand van zaken binnen de relevant universele mensenrechtenstandaarden van de Verenigde Naties (VN) en bekijkt dit vraagstuk tevens vanuit het perspectief van het Europees Verdrag voor de Rechten van de Mens (EVRM) aan de hand van enkele recente relevante uitspraken van het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens (EHRM, hierna ook (Europees) Hof). Terwijl noch de VN-verdragen, noch het EVRM expliciete verdragsrechtelijke aanknopingspunten biedt om homofobe en transfobe haatuitingen tegen te gaan, zijn ontwikkelingen in die richting – meer bepaald: uitbreiding van de beschermingsgronden tegen haatuitingen – wel degelijk te bespeuren. Deze ontwikkelingen kenmerken zich door een combinatie van, en deels een wisselwerking tussen, progressieve statenpraktijk en door dynamic treaty interpretation.

Item does not contain fulltext