Abstract This article discusses the disjunction between constitutional supremacy and Inter-American standards, which emerged in Mexico following two recent judgments of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights that mandate constitutional amendments by the State. This study introduces the notion of duality to elucidate the relationship between the Court and the States. According to this framework, the Court’s authority is dual in nature, as it possesses the faculty to mandate States to implement significant changes in their constitutional law, yet it lacks the power to ensure immediate and unconditional compliance with its orders. Concurrently, this duality is also characteristic of the States Parties, as they initially commit to adhering to the Court’s orders; however, such compliance ultimately depends on their own conditions. Utilising this proposed duality model, this study explores the potential evolution of the current Mexican disjunction and suggests a possible resolution, interpreting it as a false dilemma.
Abstract This article examines how Artificial Intelligence (AI)-enabled drones can be legally and operationally used in UN peacekeeping operations. It challenges the dominant, risk-focused narrative surrounding military AI, which casts drones primarily as weapons. It proposes an alternative framing: reimagining non-lethal, AI-enabled drones as ‘protective infrastructure’ for civilian protection. The core argument is that the lawful and legitimate use of this technology is not inherent but is contingent upon a comprehensive framework of verifiable safeguards. Through an analysis of international law, the article examines the notion of peace as a human right, and for that reason how drones can be used to promote peace. The article however demonstrates that the primary obstacle to the use of drones for such purposes is often the host state’s assertion of ‘informational sovereignty.’ To overcome this, the article develops an integrated framework of seven legal-operational conditions for lawful deployment, covering the mandate, host-state consent, human rights compliance, verifiable human control, and community acceptance. The article concludes that the legitimacy of using these technologies must be earned through a robust, institutionalised system of governance, providing a practical roadmap for harnessing technology for peace.
Abstract Association Martijn was a Dutch association that provided a platform for discussing a liberal attitude regarding sexual contacts between adults and children. One of the issues to consider regarding its dissolution is whether its activities amounted to a disruption of society. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is instrumental in understanding this case, inter alia since it was an integral part of the Dutch Supreme Court’s ruling. This ruling is examined critically. In considering whether an association should be dissolved, inter alia the significance of a majority morality, the materialisation of a disruption of society and the prevention of harm to children must be considered.
Abstract In 2019, during a UNHCR high-level meeting on statelessness for Southern Africa, the South African government pledged to adopt a statelessness determination procedure (SDP) to identify and protect stateless migrants. However, this commitment has yet to be fulfilled. Stateless persons in South Africa, are particularly vulnerable. Without a nationality or a legal status ensuring their protection, they face an increased risk of rights violations and systemic exclusion. This article argues that the exclusion of stateless migrants from recognition and protection violates their rights to equality and dignity. Consequently, the state has a constitutional duty to establish a legally formalised SDP which would recognise and protect them by conferring legal status upon them. The shortcomings in current immigration law and the challenges with implementation of the statelessness provisions of South Africa’s citizenship law further stress the need to fulfil this constitutional duty.
Abstract Many jurisdictions regulate voluntary sex work through permit systems and mandatory registration, citing public order, health, and anti-exploitation objectives. Some measures, however, raise significant privacy and data-protection concerns. This article examines how the right to respect for private life under Article 8 ECHR has informed the drafting, implementation, and judicial interpretation of sex work regulation in the Netherlands and Germany. Addressing a scholarship gap regarding the privacy implications of registration, the article compares legislative developments and case law over twenty-five years in both countries. Our analysis reveals striking similarities in regulatory objectives but divergent judicial engagement with privacy rights. This article argues that both jurisdictions introduce privacy considerations reactively rather than embedding them in regulatory design, highlighting the need for systematic Article 8 ECHR integration.
