Christof and Mooting

This volume of essays, A life interrupted: essays in honour of the lives and legacies of Christof Heyns, honours Christof Heyns, renowned human rights lawyer, advocate, activist and educator, but also down-to-earth family man, friend and colleague. Christof’s sudden and most untimely passing on 28 March 2021 deeply saddened those close to him but also evinced an outpouring of grief from the national and international human rights community. His passing brought a deep sense of loss, in part because, at age 62, he was fully engaged in contributing to the betterment of society and still had so much more to give. His is a life interrupted. But at the same time, looking back over the varied lives he lived, he had already left his mark in so many ways. His influences and impacts are manifold and magical. This collection not only testifies to the legacy that he has left us, but also to the ongoing efforts of many to continue building on his legacy

Repeated Assessments of Informed Consent Comprehension among HIV-Infected Participants of a Three-Year Clinical Trial in Botswana

Informed consent (IC) has been an international standard for decades for the ethical conduct of clinical trials. Yet frequently study participants have incomplete understanding of key issues, a problem exacerbated by language barriers or lack of familiarity with research concepts. Few investigators measure participant comprehension of IC, while even fewer conduct interim assessments once a trial is underway.We assessed comprehension of IC using a 20-question true/false quiz administered in 6-month intervals in the context of a placebo-controlled, randomized trial for the prevention of tuberculosis among HIV-infected adults in Botswana (2004-2009). Quizzes were offered in both Setswana and English. To enroll in the TB trial, participants were required to have ≥ 16/20 correct responses. We examined concepts understood and the degree to which understanding changed over three-years. We analyzed 5,555 quizzes from 1,835 participants. The participants' highest education levels were: 28% primary, 59% secondary, 9% tertiary and 7% no formal education. Eighty percent of participants passed the enrollment quiz (Quiz1) on their first attempt and the remainder passed on their second attempt. Those having higher than primary education and those who took the quiz in English were more likely to receive a passing score on their first attempt (adjusted odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, 3.1 (2.4-4.0) and 1.5 (1.2, 1.9), respectively). The trial's purpose or procedures were understood by 90-100% of participants, while 44-77% understood randomization, placebos, or risks. Participants who failed Quiz1 on their initial attempt were more likely to fail quizzes later in the trial. Pass rates improved with quiz re-administration in subsequent years.Administration of a comprehension quiz at enrollment and during follow-up was feasible in a large, international collaboration and efficiently determined IC comprehension by trial participants. Strategies to improve understanding of concepts like placebos and randomization are needed. Comprehension assessments throughout a study may reinforce key concepts

When at Loggerheads With Customary International Law: The Right to Run for Public Office and the Right to Vote

Many populist demagogues in America and Europe have spoken; and continue to speak; against human rights in their campaigns for political office. This article discusses the factors that have contributed to the current wave of populism; and the nature of the challenges that are presented by populism to democracy; human rights; and constitutionalism from an international human rights law perspective. It also focuses on President Donald Trump; who was voted President of the United States; even after he clearly and publicly indicated his support for torture and his intentions to approve it in the United States. To that end; the article asks what a state should do when faced with such populist demagogues; arguing that international law authorizes states to disqualify such candidates from running for public office. In certain circumstances; especially those involving human rights norms that are part of customary international law; there is a state obligation to exclude those who plan to violate them. Of course; such exclusion limits certain rights; such as freedom of expression; the right to vote; and the right to run for public office. Such limitations are not only justifiable for their pursuance of a legitimate aim; but also necessary and proportionate

Autonomous Weapons Systems and Meaningful Human Control: Ethical and Legal Issues

The review highlights the crucial role played by the robotics research community to start ethical and legal debates about autonomy in weapons systems. A concise overview is provided of the main concerns emerging in those early debates: respect of the laws of war, responsibility ascription issues, violation of the human dignity of potential victims of autonomous weapons systems, and increased risks for global stability. It is pointed out that these various concerns have been jointly taken to support the idea that all weapons systems, including autonomous ones, should remain under meaningful human control (MHC). Main approaches to MHC are described and briefly analyzed. Finally, it is emphasized that the MHC idea looms large on shared control policies to adopt in other ethically and legally sensitive application domains for robotics and artificial intelligence

Who is to blame for Autonomous Weapons Systems’ misdoings?

This Chapter analyses who (or what) should be held responsible for behaviours by autonomous weapons systems (AWS) that, were they enacted by a human agent, would qualify as internationally wrongful acts. After illustrating the structural problems which make ascription of responsibility for AWS’ activities particularly difficult, when not impossible, the alternative routes proposed to solve the ensuing responsibility gap will be assessed. The analysis will focus, in the first place, on the international criminal responsibility of the individuals who, in one way or another, are involved in the process of production, deployment and activation of the AWS. The possibility to hold the deploying State accountable for AWS’ wrongdoings will then be gauged. Subsequently, attention will be paid to the responsibility of the corporations manufacturing and/or programming the AWS. It will be observed that these options may solve some responsibility problems more effectively than critics of AWS are ready to admit. At the same time, it will be shown that, unless a no-fault liability regime is adopted, autonomy in weapons systems is bound to magnify the risk that no one may be held to answer for acts which are objectively in contrast with international legal prescriptions. Also, it will be argued that, given the complementary relationship among the various forms of responsibility under international law, proposals aimed at focusing solely on one of these at the expense of others are incapable of leading to satisfying results