China

In general, there are judicial and extrajudicial ways to protect human rights in the EU. Judicial protection of human rights from violations by international institutions falls within the jurisdiction of the Court of Justice. Extrajudicial institutions that protect the rights of the individual include the following: the Ombudsman of the European Union, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights, and EU bodies such as the European Commission and the Council of the EU. It should be noted that the functions of these bodies in the field of individual rights are to protect the rights of the individual from violations by the bodies of the European Union and not the EU Member States. Extrajudicial bodies responsible for the protection of individual rights should be distinguished as follows. Depending on the purpose of education: specialized institutions for the protection of individual rights: the Agency for Fundamental Rights of the European Union, the Ombudsman of the European Union, and bodies of general competence: the European Commission or the Council of the EU. According to the subject of the appeal to the Institute for Protection of Rights: the Ombudsman of the European Union, for appeals of individuals, the Agency for Fundamental Rights of the European Union, which provides for appeals of certain bodies of the European Union and the Council of the EU. The Council of the European Union is the main body of the EU in terms of performing various functions. It is considered the main rule-making body of the EU. It is important to note that the issue of protection of individual rights is not a priority, but only one of the functions of this EU body. The main executive body of the EU is the Commission of the European Union, which performs the function of investigating illegal actions and can impose penalties on violators. The object of illegal actions may be an offense by a Member State of the requirements imposed on it by the EU's founding treaties, including human rights offenses. The basis in this process, within the framework of the investigation, is the right of both natural and legal persons to apply to the Commission for illegal actions committed by a Member State. The human rights procedures used by the Commission should be considered quite effective, as they combine both information and representation. Since the entry into force of the Maastricht Treaty, the EU has established a mechanism for the protection of human rights, namely the Ombudsman of the European Union.

The rapid pace of digital innovation presents significant challenges to existing privacy laws, necessitating a delicate balance between technological advancement and the protection of individual rights. This paper explores the evolving landscape of privacy law, highlighting the tension between fostering digital innovation and ensuring robust privacy protections. Through a historical overview, the paper traces the development of privacy laws from their inception to the current global regulatory framework, including key legislations such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA). It delves into the challenges posed by emerging technologies, such as artificial intelligence, the Internet of Things (IoT), and big data, and examines case studies that illustrate these challenges. The analysis reveals a dynamic interplay between innovation and privacy, where stringent regulations may impede technological progress, while lax privacy protections may undermine individual rights. The paper proposes legal reforms and innovative approaches to privacy protection, advocating for a flexible legal framework that can adapt to technological advancements while safeguarding privacy. The conclusion underscores the importance of ethical considerations in shaping future privacy laws and the need for a balanced approach that supports both digital innovation and the protection of individual rights.

This article uses empirical data to analyse the meaning of rule of law with Chinese characteristics. It compares rule of law data on China, Hong Kong and Singapore from the World Justice Project and finds patterns of more limited protection of individual rights and fewer limits on governmental powers. It then uses Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions to consider whether those patterns are related to common cultural characteristics. It finds low scores on the cultural value of individualism in those three jurisdictions are correlated with lower protection for individual rights, and that high scores on Hofstede’s Power Distribution Index are inversely correlated with strong governmental powers. It concludes that rule of law with Chinese characteristics means a version of rule of law with more limited protections for individual rights and with strong governmental powers with fewer legal limitations.

The implementation of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in managing single identification number systems, such as Indonesia's National Identity Number, must balance constitutional principles and human rights. AI can enhance administrative efficiency and data security, but it must align with the principle of equality before the law, as stipulated in Articles 27 and 29 of the 1945 Constitution. Ensuring data privacy and preventing discrimination in data processing are essential to avoid regional and social inequality. This study aims to examine how AI-based solutions impact the principles of equality before the law and personal data protection, as well as analyse these issues from the perspective of positivist philosophy, which emphasizes strict legal compliance and effective supervision. Using a normative juridical method with statutory and analytical approaches, this research evaluates existing regulations and explores the interplay between legal structure and AI governance. The findings reveal that while AI can promote efficiency and consistency, its algorithms may also introduce bias, risking unfair outcomes in identification services. A robust regulatory framework and continuous oversight are necessary to address potential inequalities and misuse. From a positivist view, strict rule enforcement and transparent governance are essential to balance technological innovation with the protection of individual rights. [Conclusion] In conclusion, the integration of AI into single identification systems must comply with constitutional and legal principles to uphold equality before the law and protect personal data. Effective legal oversight and accountability are essential to maintain fairness, prevent discrimination, and ensure that AI systems benefit all citizens equitably.

Enforcing criminal law against corruption in Indonesia faces significant challenges due to the dynamics of legal change, particularly following the enactment of Law No. 1 of 2023 on the National Criminal Code. This study aims to analyze how the principles of legality and lex favor reo, as applied to the interpretation of criminal provisions, affect the consistency of law enforcement, particularly in the context of Article 23 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption, which refers to several provisions of the old Criminal Code. Using a normative legal research method with a conceptual approach and a comparative analysis of court decisions, data are collected through literature reviews and regulatory analysis. The research findings indicate that changes in the normative reference of primary norms in the National Criminal Code have led to significant differences in the criminal threats and criminal provisions referenced in Article 23 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption. The application of the lex favor reo principle becomes crucial, as the most lenient provisions are applied not only to the defendant but also in the context of the National Criminal Code, where the terminology is expanded to include the concepts of the perpetrator, accomplice, suspect, defendant, and convict. The consistency of the Supreme Court in adhering to a material theory limited to the interpretation of "changes in legislation" underscores the protection of individual rights. A comprehensive harmonization and synchronization between the National Criminal Code and the Law on the Eradication of Corruption is essential to prevent normative conflicts and to ensure legal certainty in the implementation of Article 23 of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption.

The international legal regimes for refugees and for statelessness have much in common. Both aim at mitigating an absence of State protection of individual rights, while the treaties central to each are related in substance, structure and seek to balance similar concerns. Another similarity is more recent: both face challenges amidst new concerns and new law in the area of counterterrorism. The last two decades have seen a sharp increase in international rules on counterterrorism, the impact of which can also be seen in immigration law and administrative powers. That impact is conditioned by how ‘terrorism’ itself is defined, and Section 2 of this article will highlight some consequences of domestic approaches and why the capacity of international law to impose limits on domestic definitions is often overstated. Section 3 will consider the interaction between counterterrorism law and refugee law, arguing that current difficulties arise not from the substance of the rules but from practical, resource-based challenges. Section 4 will consider legal and practical questions raised by recent practice in withdrawing nationality due to suspected involvement in terrorism, a measure applied to both dual nationals and to those at risk of statelessness. This article will argue that the new threats and responses thereto do pose important practical challenges requiring further attention and resources. But that does not mean that new substantive law is required: the ‘old rules’ adequately balance security concerns with the protection of individual rights, and are more than adequate to meet contemporary challenges.

개인정보자기결정권은 헌법전에 명문으로 규정되지 않았음에도 불구하고 헌법해석에 의해 기본권으로 인정되는 기본권이다. 그리고 개인정보자기결정권이라는 기본권은 정보화시대에 정보주체의 사생활 보호 등 여러 보호영역과의 관련성을 갖는 중요한 기본권이다. 그런데 메르스 사태 이후 현재의 코로나19 상황에 이르기까지 감염병 예방과 전파방지의 과정 속에서 개인정보의 제한과 침해에 대한 숙고와 검토가 필요하다는 것이 자명해졌다. 왜냐하면 실제로 코로나 19에 대한 효과적 대응을 위한 정보공개 시스템 실행의 이면에는 확진환자 개인의 사생활이 여과 없이 공개되는 부작용 발생이 적지 않았기 때문이다. 이미 국가인권위원회도 확진자의 과도한 사생활 노출로 인한 인권침해가 발생하지 않도록 해야 한다고 권고한 바 있다. 이러한 상황에 대한 문제의식을 바탕으로 이 글에서는 개인의 민감정보 등 개인정보 공개와 관련한 개인정보 보호법과 감염병 예방법의 관련 규정들을 상관적으로 검토하였다. 특히 개인정보자기결정권과 관련하여 감염병 예방법상의 정보공개와 관련된 규정인 제34조의2 규정을 중심으로, 확진자의 내밀한 사생활을 보호할 수 있는 세부적이고 합리적인 공개기준의 정립 여부와 특히 위치정보 등의 공개로 인한 권리침해의 문제에 대해 살펴 보았다. 일반적인 개인정보와 구분되는 개인위치정보의 특성을 고려할 때 개인위치정보가 개인정보 보호법상의 민감정보에 해당될 수 있는가, 개인위치정보의 분류에 관하여 온라인행태정보유형으로 생존하는 개인에 관한 정보로써 개인정보 가명가공정보익명가공정보 중 어디에도 해당하지 않는 정보유형으로 새로이 “개인관련정보”를 입안하는 방안의 검토, 감염병 예방법상 개인위치정보를 비롯한 개인정보를 제공하고 공개함으로써 발생될 수 있는 권리침해에 관한 대책과 절차에 대해 검토하였다. 개인정보에 관련된 법제는 그 정보의 보호와 이용이 동시에 고려되어야 할 필요가 있다. 즉 개인정보 관련법제는 ‘개인정보의 유용성 배려’와 ‘개인의 권리이익 보호’의 균형을 맞추는 병존적 구조를 반영한 것이어야 할 것이다. 다만 양법익 간의 관계에 있어서는 ‘개인의 권리이익 보호’가 우선적으로 고려되는 것이어야만 함은 물론이다. 안전사회 추구로 인한 부작용을 간과해서는 안되는 것도, 개인정보의 유통으로 인한 비재산적 손해에 대한 배상책임을 고민해야 하는 것 도 이러한 헌법정신에 기인한다고 하겠다. 감염병 예방법의 새로운 수정이 시작되어야 한다.The right to self-determination of personal information is a basic right recognized as a basic right by constitutional interpretation, even though it was not prescribed in the Constitution. And this right is an important basic right that has relevance to various areas of protection, such as protection of the privacy of the information subject in the information age. However, from the MERS outbreak to the current COVID-19, it has become apparent that it is necessary to consider and review the restrictions and infringements of personal information in the process of preventing infectious diseases and preventing transmission. This is because, in fact, behind the implementation of the information disclosure system for effective response to COVID-19, there were not a few occurrences of side effects in which the personal life of confirmed patients was disclosed without filtering. The National Human Rights Commission of Korea has already recommended that human rights violations should not occur due to excessive exposure of the confirmed person s private life. Based on the awareness of the problem in this situation, in this article, the related regulations of the Personal Information Protection Act and the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act related to the disclosure of personal information, such as personal sensitive information, were reviewed correlatively. In particular, with respect to the right to self-determination of personal information, detailed and reasonable disclosure standards have been established to protect the confidential personal life of the confirmed person, with a focus on Article 34-2, which is a regulation related to the disclosure of information in the Infectious Disease Prevention Act, and, in particular, disclosure of location information, etc., I reviewed the problem of infringement of rights caused by. Considering the characteristics of personal location information that are distinguished from general personal information, can personal location information correspond to sensitive information of the Personal Information Protection Act?, review of a plan to devise a new “personal-related information” as an information type, review measures and procedures for rights infringement that may occur by providing and disclosing personal information including personal location information in the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act. Legal systems related to personal information need to consider the protection and use of the information at the same time. In other words, the legislation related to personal information should reflect the coexistence structure that balances “consideration of the usefulness of personal information” and “protection of individual rights and interests”. However, in the relationship between the two legal interests, ‘protection of individual rights and interests’ should be given priority. It can be said that this constitutional spirit should not overlook the side effects caused by the pursuit of a safe society and the need to consider liability for compensation for non-property damages caused by the distribution of personal information. A new modification of the Infectious Disease Control and Prevention Act must be initiated.

This article aims to discuss selected problems related to the protection of individual rights and freedoms during the period of emergency. In his letter, the author refers to regulations contained in the European Union law and the European Convention on Human Rights. Then, individual solutions adopted in such countries as Great Britain, France, Germany, Lithuania and Poland are discussed. The author puts particular emphasis on the assessment of regulations in Poland and Lithuania, bearing in mind the principle of propetionality emphasized in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg

The article is devoted to the study of the legal nature of access to justice as a fundamental human right in the context of its evolution towards a modern understanding as a comprehensive legal category. The article outlines the role of the right to access to justice as a foundational element of a legal and social state, explained by the interrelation and interdependence of access to justice with access to law, justice, and the rule of law. It is established that the close relationship between the rule of law, access to justice, and fundamental human rights positions access to justice as a leading principle within the legal system. The author concludes that the dynamic and generative nature of the right to access to justice serves as a means of accessing legal protection, guaranteeing the right to a fair trial. Access to justice provides and expands opportunities for the realization of other rights and guarantees, facilitates their emergence and transformation, and thus, the effectiveness of access to justice becomes a key criterion for ensuring the observance of other rights and legal principles. At the same time, the author emphasizes that the value of the legal nature of the right to access to justice lies in the combination of its formal and real components, objective and subjective law, as well as its material and procedural essence. Thus, the concept of access to justice envisions providing individuals with the opportunity to play an active role in resolving their legal issues, while the state is reoriented toward community involvement to achieve not only individual but also socially just outcomes of justice. The article concludes that the access to justice is an open legal concept and a priority area of state activity aimed at the comprehensive normative regulation of the justice system and related legal institutions, as well as the practical observance of the values, principles, and goals of justice. The outcomes of this process determine, in particular, the effectiveness of judicial protection of individual rights and freedoms, and the overall state of social justice.

The objective of the research was to identify threats to individual rights in criminal proceedings during martial law. The research involved system methods, descriptive analysis, systematic sampling, doctrinal approach and forecasting. Martial law introduced as a result of armed conflict carries important implications for criminal justice. Ensuring the observance of individual rights in criminal proceedings during this period applies to several crimes, the common feature of which is the time of their commission. The classification of subjects of prevention of infringement of such rights is presented. The prospects for improving the protection of individual rights in criminal proceedings require international assistance in the detection of crimes related to the armed conflict. It is concluded that ensuring the observance of individual rights in criminal proceedings during martial law requires combining the efforts of national and international specialists. Prospects for improving this process envisage international assistance with increased use of its results as evidence in national and international courts. It is appropriate to develop international recommendations for national law enforcement agencies and judicial bodies.

Since 9/11, States have persistently sought to adapt their counter-terrorismTerrorism toolkit to the, perceived as unprecedented, threat of terrorismTerrorism . What has been a considerable departure from previous approaches is the extent of transnational State cooperation on matters of national securityNational security —particularly in the context of intelligenceIntelligence gathering, processing and information sharing. What can be described as entrenched 'information intoxicationInformation intoxication ' of security agencies has not only resulted in operational changes within the intelligenceIntelligence community but has also led to procedural shifts within national courts. In order to accommodate the growing utilisation of sensitive intelligenceIntelligence evidenceEvidence within national securityNational security and criminal investigations, domestic courts have been increasingly called upon to engage with such evidenceEvidence in closed proceedings. In the United KingdomUnited Kingdom , courts have been tasked with evaluating sensitive intelligenceIntelligence evidenceEvidence to assess whether an individual should be subjected to a particular counter-terrorismTerrorism measure and/or the impact of this measure on their individual human rightsHuman rights . Within the Dutch courts, such evidenceEvidence has been examined when deciding whether to impose a criminal conviction for engagement in terrorism activitiesTerrorism activities . The sensitivity and complexity of such cases have been accommodated through so-called conditional inclusion of intelligenceIntelligence within court proceedings models despite the courts' traditional reluctance to engage with such evidenceEvidence . In this context, the following discussion proposes to engage in a critical reflection on whether—and if yes, how—the respect and protection of individual rightsIndividual rights and human dignityHuman dignity within the United KingdomUnited Kingdom and the NetherlandsThe Netherlands has changed since the introduction of these models.

In this article we propose the establishment of a Drone Court to review Executive Branch drone decisions prior to their execution. That said, we harken back to Chief Justice Earl Warren’s wise words in Miranda v Arizona in which he called on, if not challenged, Congress and others to recommend alternative means to protect those subject to police interrogations. In the spirit of Chief Justice Warren’s entreaty, we are not wedded to the establishment of a Drone Court. Moreover, we do not claim to have all of the answers. We are, however, wedded to the creation of a process that will ensure that U.S. counterterrorism be conducted in accordance with the rule of law and the principles of morality in armed conflict which can effectively and concretely be monitored and measured. In other words, we advocate for the use of drones falling into alignment with the precepts of legitimacy explored in this volume. We present our proposal in the context of two realities that must be noted for the record. The first reality is that since the horrific attacks on September 11, 2001, the United States has struggled, as it never has in its history, with finding the appropriate balance between the protection of individual rights and the demands of national security. Repeatedly, as we note below, particularly in the area of surveillance, national security has trumped individual rights leading to abuses that have shocked the nation and led to calls for reform. Those abuses have occurred despite the formal existence of institutions intended to maintain the balance of power among the branches of government. Thus, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) was established pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) supposedly to insure that Executive Branch decisions with respect to surveillance were carried out in a way to protect the rights of those surveilled. The reality, however, is that fundamental flaws in the structure of the FISC, detailed more fully below, have turned the court more into a rubber stamp of Executive decision-making than a constitutional buffer between citizens and Executive Branch abuses that FISA sought to eliminate. Indeed, the mere existence of FISC has been cleverly used by the Executive branch to bolster claims that the massive surveillance programs disclosed since 9/11 pass constitutional muster – after all, goes the argument, the FISC said it was OK! We are under no illusion that the same process might not occur were a Drone Court to be established. It too, if not constructed properly with safeguards to maintain its independence, could be hijacked and used as a shield for abusive Executive decision-making rather than as a sword to insure appropriate checks on the Executive Branch. The task will not be easy. The lessons learned from past abuses must be incorporated into the Drone Court structure and the Court must have sufficient power to insure that the Executive responds in good faith to the requirements imposed on it. As we make our proposal, we recognize that such a structure has yet to be created in America’s 250-year struggle to find the appropriate balance between individual rights and national security. We believe, however, that if we keep that struggle in mind, along with past dismal failures, we may have the best hope of succeeding in the future. It is with that mindset that this proposal is offered, knowing the perils that may exist, including the misuse by the Executive Branch of a judicial order sanctioning its decision-making in the name of national security.

The protection of individual rights and the division of power between the national government and the states are core principles upon which American governance is built, but how well do these concepts work together and to what extent could they be at cross purposes? American Federalism and Individual Rights presents both of these founding concepts and explores their compatibility through policy-specific studies, including civil rights, education, marriage equality, and physician-assisted death. Written for anyone interested in American politics, the author presents all of the foundational information one would need to make their own assessment of how federalism works to either promote or undermine the protection of the individual in these policy areas along with suggestions for further study.

The rule of law is fundamentally anchored in the legality of state actions, ensures that state bodies operate within the legal frames. The interplay between legality and proportionality is crucial, as the legality test assesses whether actions are lawful, while the proportionality test evaluates the balance of interests involved. Together, these principles create an actual scope of individual autonomy against the potential overreach of state power, emphasizing the importance of justice based on individual rights rather than majority interests. The principles of legalism and proportionality are coherent in the task to limit state power and protect individual rights. While legalism provides a formal structure for governance, proportionality ensures that any limitations on rights are justified and balanced against the need to protect individual autonomy. The relationship between these principles is essential for maintaining a just legal order, where the protection of individual rights is prioritized, and the potential for political influence in judicial decisions is minimized. This coherence is vital for fostering a legal culture that respects individual freedoms while ensuring that state actions remain within lawful bounds.

Nationalism studies examine political and cultural nationalism as fundamental frameworks for understanding nation-building and identity formation. Political nationalism emphasizes the importance of sovereignty, self-determination and governance structures that support these principles. In contrast, cultural nationalism focuses on preserving and promoting shared heritage, language and traditions that define a community’s distinctive identity. Liberal nationalism, on the other hand, seeks to balance collective identity with the protection of individual rights and freedoms and seeks to harmonize these elements in a democratic context. Leading thinkers such as Yael Tamir, David Miller and Will Kymlicka have engaged in rigorous debates about the merits and challenges of liberal nationalism. These thinkers address the complexities and tensions that arise in different and pluralistic contexts regarding liberal nationalism and explore its potential to promote inclusive and harmonious societies. One critical debate focuses on the applicability of liberal nationalism, particularly in societies with significant ethnic, cultural and religious diversity. This article aims to fill an important gap in the literature by providing a comprehensive analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of liberal nationalism. It compares this ideology with other forms of nationalism, such as ethnic and civic nationalism, providing a nuanced understanding of its distinct features and potential benefits. The article also assesses the applicability of liberal nationalism through literature reviews. By examining the theoretical foundations and practical implications of liberal nationalism, this study offers a perspective on its role in contemporary democracies. It highlights how liberal nationalism can be a viable framework for nation-building that respects collective identity and individual rights and offers a balanced approach to governance in increasingly diverse societies.