Summary International human rights law protects the freedom indispensable for scientific research, and UNESCO recommends that all higher education teaching personnel be granted academic freedom. “Freedom of science” and “academic freedom” are two closely related concepts, yet they differ slightly with regard to who can claim them. They are not absolute freedoms, but limitations are generally permissible only when prescribed by law—for example, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of others or to protect national security. Many countries explicitly recognize the freedom of science or academic freedom in their constitutions, and the vast majority of states have entered into binding obligations by ratifying applicable human rights treaties. Despite these de jure commitments, the de facto realization of scholarly freedoms varies across time and space. Neither the freedom of science nor academic freedom can be taken for granted.

This paper investigates the use and potential role of satellite remote sensing (RS) data in documenting conflict incidents and related human rights violations. In particular, we scrutinized the methods applied by researchers and human rights practitioners as well as the characteristics of those human rights violations that were documented on the basis of analysis of remote sensing data. To this end, we reviewed 901 articles, out of which we chose 48 articles that comprised 51 empirical studies for an in-depth review analysis. The articles included in our literature corpus were published between 2006 and 2023. Our review of the studies focused on the following aspects: research organisations, geographies of the empirical studies, spatial resolution of RS data, methods used in empirical studies, validation practices, reported challenges. Despite the salience of human rights violations in recent history and the adoption of digital data-driven investigations in this context, we find that an increased focus on human rights is not detectable in RS-based research. Employing a critical remote sensing perspective, we show that a few conflicts dominate the attention of RS analyses, while other conflicts remain unobserved. As most studies (still) rely on visual interpretation, which requires very high-resolution data, we detect widespread dependencies on commercial providers. A perceptible rise in the use of machine learning approaches for documenting conflicts goes hand in hand with a similar increase in the involvement of academic researchers. The latter’s involvement changes validation processes to the extent that these processes shift towards relying exclusively on remote data instead of local human rights knowledge. Our findings highlight the untapped potential for interdisciplinary research and emphasize the need for more collaborative work, conjoining remote sensing and human rights expertise.

Academic freedom faces threats worldwide, including in some democracies that have traditionally been viewed as bastions of free universities. In the 21st century, academic freedom has declined in 20 (former) democracies, ranging from slow deterioration to abrupt collapse. Previous research shows that attacks on academic freedom are systematically linked to democratic backsliding. However, in some democracies that experience backsliding, academia remains autonomous. We employ data from the Varieties of Democracy project, utilizing the Episodes of Regime Transformation dataset and the Academic Freedom Index, alongside data on decline and growth episodes in academic freedom. Through an explorative study design, we analyse various political and academia-related determinants of academia's resilience amidst democratic backsliding. Our analysis shows that an autocratization episode reduces academic freedom resilience only slightly to levels between 96.7% and 95.5% for a given country-year, compared to over 99.5% for country-years without such episodes. Overall, our analysis highlights remarkable academic resilience.

This article traces how the ' freedom indispensable for scientific research' was introduced into the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). The review of the drafting history covers ICESCR Article 15.3 and that of its precursor, Article 27 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It pays particular attention to arguments presented during negotiations over the UDHR (adopted in 1948), as well as over the ICESCR (adopted in 1966), and it reflects on observable norm entrepreneurship. Following the end of the Cold War, details on the right to science and the status of higher education personnel were further elaborated in soft law, notably in the form of two General Comments and two UNESCO Recommendations. These specifications and the earlier traveaux pr & eacute;paratoires reveal a multifaceted and rich debate about science, development, dignity and freedom at the United Nations, including positions that span variations of a liberal science script as well as persistent illiberal contestations.

The Academic Freedom Index is the first conceptually thorough assessment of academic freedom worldwide and a times series dataset going back to 1900. While some previous datasets exist, they are geographically limited and methodologically or conceptually insufficient to offer a comprehensive picture of the levels of academic freedom across time and space. This paper introduces the new expert-coded dataset that includes the overall Academic Freedom Index alongside several specific indicators, to which more than 2050 country experts around the world have contributed and which is freely available as part of V-Dem’s time-series data releases. The paper discusses its advantages compared to other types of data on academic freedom, details the conceptualization of the new indicators, and offers a content and convergent validation of the results. The dataset provides ample opportunities for scholars to conduct in-depth research on academic freedom and its infringements, and for policymakers and advocates to monitor and analyze patterns and trends of academic freedom around the world.

In diesem Beitrag wird anhand der neusten Daten des Academic Freedom Index (AFI) ein Überblick zum Stand der Wissenschaftsfreiheit in 179 Ländern und Territorien gegeben. Die zugrundeliegenden Trends werden diskutiert und Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche Hochschulakteure, die internationale Mobilität fördern, ausgesprochen. Die Daten zeigen einen substantiellen Rückgang von Wissenschaftsfreiheit in 19 Ländern bzw. Territorien weltweit, in welchen dieser Trend häufig mit einer sich vertiefenden Autokratisierung zusammenfällt. Die aus dem AFI gewonnenen Erkenntnisse zeigen, dass die wissenschaftliche Mobilität von und nach Deutschland besonders mit Partnerländern intensiv ist, die die Wissenschaftsfreiheit gut schützen. Die Daten unterstreichen ferner die Attraktivität des deutschen Wissenschaftsstandorts und können in der Förderung von internationalem Austausch auch einen besonderen Bedarf für Schulung und Risikomanagement der beteiligten Forschenden, Studierenden und Universitäten aufzeigen.

In diesem Beitrag wird anhand der neusten Daten des Academic Freedom Index (AFI) ein Überblick zum Stand der Wissenschaftsfreiheit in 179 Ländern und Territorien gegeben. Die zugrundeliegenden Trends werden diskutiert und Handlungsempfehlungen für deutsche Hochschulakteure, die internationale Mobilität fördern, ausgesprochen. Die Daten zeigen einen substantiellen Rückgang von Wissenschaftsfreiheit in 19 Ländern bzw. Territorien weltweit, in welchen dieser Trend häufig mit einer sich vertiefenden Autokratisierung zusammenfällt. Die aus dem AFI gewonnenen Erkenntnisse zeigen, dass die wissenschaftliche Mobilität von und nach Deutschland besonders mit Partnerländern intensiv ist, die die Wissenschaftsfreiheit gut schützen. Die Daten unterstreichen ferner die Attraktivität des deutschen Wissenschaftsstandorts und können in der Förderung von internationalem Austausch auch einen besonderen Bedarf für Schulung und Risikomanagement der beteiligten Forschenden, Studierenden und Universitäten aufzeigen.

Universities striving for reputational gains in the competitive global higher education market rely on international rankings that claim to meaningfully identify 'world class' institutions. These rankings turn a blind eye to varying levels of academic freedom. We explore the origin of the first global university ranking in Shanghai, China, and argue that the current system of academic reputation management has been tailored to advance the interests of an authoritarian regime. From a human rights perspective, we argue that the notion of academic reputation should be reconciled with academic freedom. We also show how data from the new Academic Freedom Index (AFi) could inform international rankings and discuss other avenues for introducing a rights-perspective into academic reputation politics. The article includes ideas for how scholars, students, university administrations, funding organisations, and higher education policymakers can use the AFi to promote state compliance with the 'freedom indispensable for scientific research', which is a binding obligation under the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

On the occasion of the People's Republic of China's return to the UN Human Rights Council (HRC), this article argues that Beijing has long since ceased to pursue a defensive strategy and is now striving to change the international human rights system beyond recognition. China's diplomats at the United Nations pursue this goal with a strategic personnel policy, by cleverly exploiting institutional mechanisms for repressive purposes, issuing threats, and forcing a counter-narrative that proposes absolute state sovereignty and castigates human rights criticism as illegitimate interference in internal affairs.

Dedication Acknowledgements Introduction 1. Set-up and Content of the EU-China Human Rights Dialogue 2. 1995-1997: From Public Condemnation to Quiet Diplomacy 3. 1998-1999: Tactical Concessions Abroad and Repression at Home 4. 2000-2002: From Litmus Test to Breach of Trust 5. 2003-2004: Human Rights Diplomacy in a Honeymoon Relationship 6. 2005-2006: Dialogue Fatigue Meets Growing Confidence 7. 2007-2008: Principles Between Stand-off and Sweet-Talk 8. 2009-2010: Dialogue Ritual and Power Shift Conclusion References

The increasingly prosperous, mighty, and assertive China is arguably the most powerful country blocking democracy today. In addition to withholding democratic rights of one-fifth of the world's population, authoritarian China represents an alternative development model that has gained significant traction. China thus constitutes a challenge to democracy promoters. But does Beijing also countervail democracy promotion by the European Union and the United States? After a summary of the party-state's response to democracy promotion at home, we test the hypothesis that geostrategic interests or a perceived risk of regime survival will lead the People's Republic to countervail democracy promotion outside its own borders. We do so by focusing on the most likely cases in China's near-abroad: Myanmar and Hong Kong. Our analysis of Myanmar suggests that Beijing remains focused on securing economic and security interests irrespective of regime type when regime survival at home is not at risk. The case of Hong Kong, on the other hand, allows us to identify the tactics used by Beijing when there is a significant risk of democratic spillover. This case also demonstrates that the People's Republic of China is able to stifle United States and European Union democracy support when it wishes to do so.