Legal opinion/expert report in the case of Rocio San Miguel Sosa and others v. Venezuela, case nr. 12.923, on request of the Inter-American Court on Human Rights : Expert report in the case of Rocio San Miguel Sosa and others v. Venezuela

First the report examines the preliminary question whether signing a statement or a petition in a political context, such as a petition to carry out a recall referendum on the term of office of a head of state, is to be considered as an act of exercising the right to express a (political) opinion (by a civil servant or employee in the public sector), guaranteed by Article 19.2 ICCPR and/or Article 10 § 1 ECHR. Second it analyzes under what circumstances a termination of employment contract or dismissal of an employer or civil servant is to be regarded as an interference with the right to freedom of expression, and in particular in case the public authority or employer bring forward that the termination of contract or dismissal is unrelated to the exercise of the right to freedom of expression by the employee or civil servant. - Next this report will focus on the (limits of the) right to political freedom of expression in the employment relation, including the public sector, and on the (limitations of the) right to express political, critical or non-neutral opinions about the head of state, the government or other public institutions. Therefore it will elaborate on the criteria and conditions that may justify an interference with the right to (political) freedom of expression of public servants and employees in the public sector. It will also clarify in what circumstances an interference with this right amounts to a violation of Article 19 ICCPR or Article 10 ECHR, with references to the UN Human Rights Committee General Comment No. 34 “Article 19. Freedoms of opinion and expression” and especially analyzing and reporting the relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights

The Future of Freedom of Expression Online

Should social media companies ban Holocaust denial from their platforms? What about conspiracy theorists that spew hate? Does good corporate citizenship mean platforms should remove offensive speech or tolerate it? The content moderation rules that companies develop to govern speech on their platforms will have significant implications for the future of freedom of expression. Given that the prospects for compelling platforms to respect users’ free speech rights are bleak within the U.S. system, what can be done to protect this important right? In June 2018, the United Nations’ top expert for freedom of expression called on companies to align their speech codes with standards embodied in international human rights law, particularly the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). After the controversy over de-platforming Alex Jones in August 2018, Twitter’s CEO agreed that his company should root its values in international human rights law and Facebook referenced this body of law in discussing its content moderation policies. This is the first article to explore what companies would need to do to align the substantive restrictions in their speech codes with Article 19 of the ICCPR, which is the key international standard for protecting freedom of expression. In order to examine this issue in a concrete way, this Article assesses whether Twitter’s hate speech rules would need to be modified. This Article also evaluates potential benefits of and concerns with aligning corporate speech codes with this international standard. This Article concludes it would be both feasible and desirable for companies to ground their speech codes in this standard; however, further multi-stakeholder discussions would be helpful to clarify certain issues that arise in translating international human rights law into a corporate context

Closing the Transition Gap: The Rule of Law Imperative in Stabilization Environments

Using Afghanistan as a case study, examines strategic and moral aspects of establishing effective rule of law institutions to prevent and punish corruption following interventions; implications, such as for counterinsurgency efforts, and recommendations

Protecting and Promoting the Human Right to Respect for Family Life: Treaty-Based Reform and Domestic Advocacy

This article examines the right to respect for family life in international law, focusing on its underlying principles and explicit protections. The article identifies these legal norms so that drafters of international treaties, specifically the International Migrants Bill of Rights, and United States legal practitioners representing immigrant children can incorporate the right to respect for family life into their drafting and advocacy, thereby protecting and promoting this critical human right. To encourage both high-level, international treaty-based reform and the grassroots domestic advocacy necessary to comprehensively protect and promote this right, this article provides specific ideas for incorporating the right to respect for family life into (1) the International Migrants Bill of Rights and (2) the United States immigration advocacy process. Section II identifies the principles that underlie the right to respect for family life, especially as it relates to children: (1) that family is the natural and fundamental unit of society and (2) that maintaining the family unit is in the best interests of the child. It also discusses the individuals to whom the right to respect for family life typically attaches. Section III discusses examples of how courts and U.N. expert bodies, including the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, apply the right to respect for family life in child and family immigration contexts. Section IV analyzes the themes and reasoning in this case law. Section V discusses specific ideas for further integrating the right to respect for family life into the current version of the International Migrants Bill of Rights. Section VI identifies ways in which United States-based advocates can incorporate the right to respect for family life into their advocacy efforts. Section VII provides a brief conclusion