Refine
Year of publication
- 2019 (5) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (2)
- Monograph/Edited Volume (1)
- Part of a Book (1)
- Working Paper (1)
Language
- English (5) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (5) (remove)
Keywords
- Computer Science (1)
- Freedom of expression (1)
- Hate speech (1)
- Humanities (1)
- Law (1)
- PPPs (1)
- Politics & International Relations (1)
- Social Sciences (1)
- Yemen (1)
- conflict resolution (1)
Institute
- Öffentliches Recht (5) (remove)
This chapter aims to analyse whether and how democracy is actually threatened by big-data-based operations and what role international law can play to respond to this possible threat. It shows how big-data-based operations challenge democracy and how international law can help in defending it. The chapter focuses on both state and non-state actors may undermine democracy through big data operations; although democracy as such is a rather underdeveloped concept in international law, which is often more concerned with effectivity than legitimacy – international law protects against these challenges via a democracy-based approach rooted in international human rights law on the one hand, and the principle of non-intervention on the other hand. Thus, although democracy does not play a major role in international law, international law nevertheless is able to protect democracy against challenges from the inside as well as outside.
Unfolding the history of one of the oldest human val-ues, the freedom of expression, while defining its limits, is a complicated task. Does freedom stop where hate starts? This very old dilemma is -now more than ever before- revealing new dimensions. Politicians and new laws aim at regulating free expression, while disagree-ments over such regulation gradually become a source of endless conflict in newly formed multicultural, inter-connected, and digitized societies. The example of the Network Enforcement Act is used to understand the idea of restrictive legal practices in Germany, but also to enlighten the fact that law is a human construction which was created in order to regulate communication among individuals. Alternative practices, to straight legal ones, are summarized to show other dimensions of regulating hate speech without involving top-down approaches. The article proposes the approach of re-storative justice as a combination of legal and medita-tive practices in cases of hate speech. One advantage of the restorative justice approach elaborated in this arti-cle is the potential to remedy the inner hate and the pain, both of the victim and perpetrator. Finally, reveal-ing parts of history and new aspects of the ‘hate speech-puzzle’, leads to a questioning of contemporary social structures that possibly generate hate itself.
The Forgotten War: Yemen
(2019)
The conflict in Yemen seems forgotten considering the worldwide severe humanitarian catastrophes. Nevertheless, since the conflict escalated around four years ago, it became one of the worst humanitarian crises in recent history and has no end in sight. Thousands of people were killed even more displaced and the country is facing tremendous food insecurity as well as the world’s largest cholera outbreak. It is no longer just a civil war between the Houthi- and Hadi-Faction. International interests play a major role and made it a proxy war between Saudi Arabia (and its allies) on one side and Iran on the other. This all happens at the expense of the civilian population. Therefore, it is urgent to analyse the actors involved, their interests within the conflict and furthermore searching for possibilities to overcome it.
While public–private partnerships (PPPs) have surged worldwide since the 1990s, they have been met with growing skepticism during the last years. A recent revision of Germany’s constitutional rules on motorway construction and observations on the use of PPPs published by both the German and the European Courts of Auditors illustrate this new caution. These two examples fit into a general trend towards a revival of the public sector, which can be summarized under the cross-level umbrella term “publicization.” It would, however, be remiss to replace the uncritical euphoria that once surrounded privatization with a similarly undifferentiated euphoria regarding publicization. Rather, it is crucial to identify the most appropriate solution for the fulfilment of each public task from the “toolbox” of publicization on the one hand and privatization on the other hand in order to ensure the most effective completion of public functions.