European Integration Through Fundamental Rights

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

There are a number of responses to Covid-19 emergency across the globe. One reaction to mitigate the dastardly effects of Covid-19 such as massive loss of lives is imposition of lockdown. This action was a similitude of indirect kidnapping of the citizenry. In the normal kidnapping, victims` freedom of movement is truncated. In the same vein, the enforcement of lockdown denies citizens of their right to movement. This has negative consequences for the fundamental human rights to association, work and dignity of person. Hence, this paper assessed the Covid-19 and implicit kidnapping of citizenry as an elongation of abuse fundamental right of movement in Abeokuta metropolis. The study was cross-sectional, it adopted both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data were sourced primarily and secondarily. It anchors on anomie theory by Emile Durkheim and betrayal trauma theory by Jennifer Freyd`s. The sample size was gotten through Taro Yamane sample size formula. The questionnaires were administered to 500 re
 There are a number of responses to Covid-19 emergency across the globe. One reaction to mitigate the dastardly effects of Covid-19 such as massive loss of lives is imposition of lockdown. This action was a similitude of indirect kidnapping of the citizenry. In the normal kidnapping, victims` freedom of movement is truncated. In the same vein, the enforcement of lockdown denies citizens of their right to movement. This has negative consequences for the fundamental human rights to association, work and dignity of person. Hence, this paper assessed the Covid-19 and implicit kidnapping of citizenry as an elongation of abuse fundamental right of movement in Abeokuta metropolis. The study was cross-sectional, it adopted both qualitative and quantitative research methods. Data were sourced primarily and secondarily. It anchors on anomie theory by Emile Durkheim and betrayal trauma theory by Jennifer Freyd`s. The sample size was gotten through Taro Yamane sample size formula. The questionnaires were administered to 500 respondents. However, 440 was returned from the field, consequently the response rate was 88%. 312(70.90%) of the respondents were male, while 102(23.18%) were females. 102(94%). The results of the hypotheses tested: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The test statistic (0.1731 and 0.0980) exceeded the Pvalues (0.000 and 0.000). The alternative hypotheses that there are significant relationships between lockdown and fundamental human right abuse was accepted. The paper recommends effective compensation for victims of lockdown. It will be useful to individuals, organisation, government agencies and researchers in social sciences. 
 spondents. However, 440 was returned from the field, consequently the response rate was 88%. 312(70.90%) of the respondents were male, while 102(23.18%) were females. 102(94%). The results of the hypotheses tested: Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The test statistic (0.1731 and 0.0980) exceeded the Pvalues (0.000 and 0.000). The alternative hypotheses that there are significant relationships between lockdown and fundamental human right abuse was accepted. The paper recommends effective compensation for victims of lockdown. It will be useful to individuals, organisation, government agencies and researchers in social sciences.

The activity of the European Court of Human Rights is investigated and the significance of the relevant practice of the European Court for the judicial practice of Ukraine is determined. It is emphasized, that a constitutional complaint serves as an effective means of protecting fundamental human rights, strengthening the rule of law and building democracy, which has already been tested in many countries around the world. The article notes that the institution of constitutional complaint significantly expands the possibilities of protecting citizens. In general, this institution is a kind of constitutional appeal, which should be understood as a written petition, submitted to the Court to review the constitutionality of the law of Ukraine (its constitutional provisions), which is used in the final court decision in the case of the subject of a constitutional rights complaint. The author also draws attention to the issues of advantages and disadvantages of a constitutional complaint and a constitutional appeal separately. Thus, one of the advantages of having a constitutional complaint is that the grounds for filing a constitutional complaint are a violation of fundamental human and civil rights. The advantages also include the fact that, unlike a constitutional appeal, which is a mechanism solely for interpreting a certain provision of the law, which excludes the possibility for individuals to apply to a constitutional justice body to declare regulations unconstitutional, a complaint directly provides such a right. However, at the same time, the model of the constitutional complaint, introduced in Ukraine on the subject, is an incomplete normative constitutional complaint, which is related to the consideration of a specific case. After all, according to it, only one type of normative legal act is subject to appeal, a law, and only the one that was applied during the trial of the person. It is stated, that ensuring the possibility of a person to take an active part in the control over the activities of higher state authorities, which is implemented in the relevant legal forms, provides grounds for recognizing a constitutional complaint as one of the modern institutions of democracy. In fact, a constitutional complaint is an effective procedural means to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens

For centuries, the protection of fundamental human rights has been part of the historical conceptual and constitutional legacy of the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. Great thinkers from all nations have contributed towards the generation of human and fundamental rights. Nowadays these rights (or at least their substance) are universally recognised, beyond the continents of Europe and America. Virtually all the UN nations recognise them at least verbally. The fact that they are not put into effect, let alone observed, everywhere, does not alter their claim to validity. Practice and theory operate at different speeds, and politics carries the duty to change this.^ The academic world is only able to send out reminders and to encourage progress. The General Assembly of the UN adopted a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" on 10 December 1948. Following on from the origin of their spiritual forefathers, it was rooted in the European and American declarations of human rights, and embodied human dignity, protection of personality, individual rights to freedom, equality under the law, basic judicial rights and rights to political codetermination. However, these traditional rights were extended to include more recent legal rights, which had become manifestly threatened through experiences in the Thirties and Forties, namely bans on torture and deportation, the right of asylum and the right to citizenship. Certain social, economic and cultural rights were also added. However, it must be noted that the Declaration has not acquired the status of a binding international legal rule, despite the fact that a minimum standard (irrespective of how this may be circumscribed), has by now become a constituent of customary international law. Further markers en route to an international Charter of Human Rights have included numerous special declarations and conventions, and in particular the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social and

The development of forensic DNA analysis: New debates on the issue of fundamental human rights

The relationship between violations of fundamental human rights and serious international crimes is obvious because at the very core, both can be persecutory. Those who are victims of serious breaches to their most fundamental human rights, that may constitute a serious international crime, and who flee to seek asylum abroad can claim refugee protection on the basis of a well-founded fear of being persecuted on one or more of the five grounds of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees: race, religion, nationality, political opinion and membership in a particular social group. Those who perpetrate such serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to others' most fundamental human rights; that is, those who are responsible for creating refugees – through the persecution of others – are excluded from receiving refugee protection. Indeed, given the nature of their offence or contribution to serious breaches in other peoples' most fundamental human rights, or for their liability in the commission of serious international crimes, they can be subject to prosecution. This chapter will look at a number of cases where individuals have been excluded from refugee protection and then prosecuted for their serious international crimes and/or serious breaches to other people's most fundamental human rights and/or human dignity. As an instrument of justice, both the 1951 Convention and its system of refugee protection, together with the international criminal justice system, with the International Criminal Court (ICC) now at its head, must work together to ensure that those who are excluded from refugee protection for serious breaches to our most fundamental human rights and/or for the commission of serious international crimes must be brought to justice through their criminal prosecution. This can be done under the principles of territorial jurisdiction, extraterritorial jurisdiction, or international criminal institutions, primarily, the ICC. Hence, there is a direct relationship between those who are responsible for creating refugees, the perpetrators of serious international crimes and for the breaches to fundamental human rights and human dignity, and their victims, those who are forced to flee their States and who seek asylum abroad. But those who are responsible for perpetrating serious international crimes and are responsible for generating forced displacement also attempt to seek asylum abroad. Those are the asylum seekers who ought to be excluded from refugee protection. Those who are responsible for the commission of serious international crimes and, hence, causing the forced displacement, should not only be excluded from refugee protection but also prosecuted for their serious criminality when warranted.

A year after drafting the initial version of this chapter as a contribution to an ILO seminar, I published a book presenting the full methodology to measure the achievement of fundamental human rights in the world of work (Bohning, 2005a). The main purposes of this revised version are to outline the structure and workings of the new indicator system, to include the 2004 data and to refine the measurement of the implementation dimension. Which fundamental rights and principles are the object of measurement? Those that the Anglo-Saxons refer to as ‘core labour standards’. They comprise the eight core Conventions of the International Labour Organization1 and the four general subject matters enunciated in the Organization’s 1998 Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work, and its Follow-up (hereafter Declaration) that underpin them.2 Two broad advocacy aims inspire the setting up of the new system: (i) to document how well or poorly countries perform, which may shame some of the laggards into making improvements and others to seek bilateral or multilateral technical assistance; and (ii) to monitor progress in the realization of fundamental human rights.

This chapter assesses the contribution of the criminal law in protecting the fundamental human rights of workers. Fundamental human rights identify the basic moral entitlements of workers. These entitlements have a special normative significance in the polity. Accordingly, serious violations of those entitlements by powerful private actors would seem to count as public wrongs against the polity’s ‘civil order’, as constituted by its most fundamental rights. The chapter discusses the position of criminal law under the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR), and the interpretation of the state’s positive obligation to protect as encompassing a positive obligation to criminalize certain public wrongs against fundamental entitlements. This chapter also emphasizes how the European Court of Human Rights has developed an approach to criminalization that is sensitive to its effects in the real world. It is not sufficient to have criminal laws on the statute books. Those criminal laws must be investigated and enforced effectively, with adequate support and protection for victims, and the state also has a duty to dismantle the structural determinants of vulnerability such as those constituted by its own visa regimes.

The concept of fundamental human rights is observed in most works of human rights scholars (both Islamic and non-Islamic). This concept and its examples may appear self-evident at first glance; however, upon reviewing the relevant works, it becomes evident that no single definition of this concept and its examples has been provided. This lack of consensus is due to the sensitivity of these rights and their impact on the normative hierarchy of the human rights system. The present study, which has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based tools, aims to explain the concept of fundamental human rights and their examples within the framework of the international human rights system and the Islamic approach. The findings of the study indicate that the examples of fundamental human rights, as well as the process of their formation within the framework of the international human rights system, are narrower compared to the Islamic human rights approach. On the other hand, in the Islamic human rights approach, the requirements of political jurisprudence and attention to political and governmental necessities can bring the examples and processes of formation of fundamental human rights in the international and Islamic human rights systems closer together.

Technical mediations are commonly used by remote persons to exercise legal rights in distant places, but the legal ability of remote persons to substitute their physical presence using technical mediations is broadly shaped by whether the public accepts that a specific form of technical mediation of a remote person is tantamount to their physical presence. In telepresence robot markets, local users already accept that remote robot operators can exercise serious professional rights via telepresence robots. It is likely that the public acceptance of local rights of remote operators via telepresence robots in workplaces may at some point be expanded to include more fundamental human rights in social life. To verify the superior potential of remote operators mediated via telepresence robots to be socially accepted as bearers of fundamental rights, which theoretically qualify the juridical concept of “person” as bearers of rights and following duties, this study compared public acceptance of remote operators to exercise fundamental rights via a telepresence robot with physical control and a stationary video call stand without physical control. In experiments with 210 Korean participants, responses to whether a remote operator mediated via a telepresence robot should be granted fundamental rights were close to neutral, which was generally higher than the responses received for a remote person mediated by a stationary video call stand. The result shows that a remote operator with physical control on a technical mediation has more potentials to evolve into legal persons with greater fundamental rights in a local environment.

The phrase "security and public safety" has multiple meanings and can be analyzed by referring to the protection of fundamental human rights during judicial proceedings, including in the field of international judicial cooperation in criminal matters.
 A request for the passive extradition of a national of a member state or a third country, requires the executing state to check (if the extradition affects the rights included in the content of art. 19 paragraph (2) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).
 This paper aims to analyze the optional reason for refusing the extradition of a person to the Russian Federation, in the current international context, through the lens of national and European jurisprudence in the matter.

In today's world, privacy has gained unparalleled significance as one of the most fundamental human rights. Accordingly, this study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the criminal sanctions for privacy violations in Iran and Iraq by examining the foundations, instances, and challenges associated with this fundamental right in both legal systems. Using an analytical-comparative method, the study reviews legal, statutory, and jurisprudential sources in both Iran and Iraq to identify similarities and differences in laws, the severity of penalties, and judicial procedures concerning crimes involving privacy violations. The findings indicate that both legal systems recognize privacy as a fundamental right and have made efforts to criminalize its violation. However, serious challenges and limitations persist in the enforcement of these laws. In Iran, there is a greater emphasis on criminalizing privacy violations in cyberspace and protecting workplace privacy, whereas Iraqi law has yet to make sufficient progress in this regard. In both countries, existing laws are sometimes ambiguous and incomplete, and the prescribed criminal sanctions lack the necessary deterrent effect. Additionally, shared challenges such as resource shortages, lack of public awareness, and administrative corruption exist in both legal systems. Based on the findings of this study, it is recommended that comprehensive laws be enacted in line with international human rights standards to enhance criminal protection of privacy, independent and efficient oversight institutions be strengthened, necessary training be provided to judges and law enforcement officials, and public awareness regarding privacy rights be increased. Ultimately, this research underscores that privacy is a fundamental right requiring serious attention and comprehensive efforts for its preservation and protection.

Recent case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has declared practices involving the pushback of individuals, including those seeking asylum, to be illegal. This is a significant and positive development. This article examines the approaches taken in key cases before these two courts, comparing and reflecting on how they have framed pushbacks as a violation of fundamental rights and the procedural obligations that States have under international and European law. While both courts have ruled these practices to be in breach of applicable laws, their framing of the violations has differed. The ECtHR has focused on the fundamental rights that are threatened when individuals are pushed back across borders. In contrast, the CJEU has previously concentrated on the violations of procedural rules that occur during the forcible return of individuals. However, in the recent case of MA, the CJEU acknowledged that the breach of procedural rules inherent in pushbacks undermines access to effective protection, resulting in a denial of access to asylum. This situation constitutes a breach of Article 18 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. This important development indicates a convergence in the approaches of the two courts, both condemning pushbacks as violations of individual rights and highlighting the necessity of the right to enter as an integral part of the effective right to asylum.

The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the relationship between counter-terrorism and protecting human rights. These observations are based on the lead author's experiences of working in numerous countries as a human rights specialist and former British Diplomat. These countries included Brazil, India, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Nepal, various parts of Africa and the Far East. The paper includes a discussion around defining human rights and terrorism, the challenges and implications that terrorism poses to the state as well as highlighting key legislation to outline the crucial balance between rights and counter-terrorism powers.

Freedom of expression is one of the fundamental human rights guaranteed in various international legal instruments. The development of information and communication technology, especially social media, has opened up new spaces for people to express their opinions. This research aims to analyze the protection of the right to freedom of opinion through social media from a human rights perspective. This research uses normative legal research methods with a qualitative approach. Research data was obtained through literature studies of various statutory regulations, books, scientific journals and other legal sources. The data that has been collected is then analyzed in three stages, namely data reduction, data presentation and drawing conclusions. The research results show that the protection of freedom of expression on social media is regulated in various policies including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). Meanwhile, in Indonesia it is regulated in the 1945 Law, the Human Rights Law, and Law Number 19 of 2016. The right to freedom of opinion through social media is a fundamental human right that needs to be protected. This right is considered a fundamental right that cannot be reduced or limited by anyone or the state, this emphasizes the need for strong fulfillment and protection of this right. However, this right also needs to be balanced with the responsibility to use it wisely and responsibly.