In this chapter, we offer a number of recommendations for those who are in a position to do something technically, structurally, and legally or otherwise to minimize the risk of psychological harm that comes with the public’s use of social media and other online sites, especially their engagement with graphic or other upsetting digital material. We outline the policy implications of what we’ve learned from more than three years of desk research and original interviews that we have conducted with dozens of people, ranging from technologists to psychologists to content moderators to human rights investigators and beyond. We first spotlight the competing interests that underscore social media companies and governments’ policy deliberations with regard to content moderation. Next, we lay out our suggestions for companies, governments, and individuals with regard to how to improve the experiences of both content moderators and everyday social media users. We close with suggestions for creating a more “pro-social” online environment, one that not only better mitigates the risks of psychological harm but potentially encourages greater connection, resulting in wellness and even flourishing.

This chapter develops a formal model of autocratic propaganda. Citizens are uncertain about the link between policy and outcomes, and hence the regime’s performance. Citizens are also uncertain about the regime’s capacity for repression. Autocrats use propaganda to shape citizens’ beliefs about both. Where relatively binding electoral constraints compel autocrats to employ propaganda to curry support, their propaganda apparatuses must acquire credibility by conceding bad news and policy failures. We refer to this as “honest propaganda.” In the absence of electoral constraints, autocrats employ absurd propaganda, which signals to citizens that the regime has no need for their support: that its hold on power rests on coercion, not persuasion. Our theory generates a range of predictions about how propaganda strategies change with features of the autocrat’s strategic environment, including the threats posed by elite coups and alternative sources of information to citizens.

This chapter discusses the right to freedom to expression and to freedom of information as it is protected by the European Convention on Human Rights, other Council of Europe instruments, in EU law and in international instruments. Attention is also paid to topics such as hate speech, defamation, press freedom and access to government information. In the final section, a short comparison between the different instruments is made

This chapter considers the role of the media in promoting and protecting human rights. With the rise of the Internet and highly offensive material “going viral” have come calls for more regulation. It is challenging to balance human rights to freedom of expression, access to information, freedom of assembly, and privacy against countervailing interests. While media freedom is important for the mobilization of shame, it carries risks explored here. Deciding how to balance competing considerations without adopting overbroad legislation should lead to lively class discussions.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000, which came into force in 2005, provides, for the first time, a legally enforceable right of access to official information. This chapter examines the benefits of freedom of information and the scheme and scope of the Freedom of Information Act, examining how it balances the competing interests in the disclosure and retention of official information. The enforcement mechanisms in the Act are outlined and the ministerial veto power discussed. The chapter concludes by examining the effectiveness of the openness regime imposed by the Freedom of Information Act.

A rapidly deteriorating supply of healthy freshwater resources, exacerbated by climate change, intensifies social and economic injustices and inequalities across the world. Strong public laws and institutions upholding equitable procedures for public participation, access to justice and information regarding the fair distribution of access to sufficient water resources are needed more than ever to protect the most vulnerable. International water law and river basin treaties have poor provisions for public participation. This chapter demonstrates how the UNECE environmental regime, especially through the Aarhus Convention and Protocol on Water and Health, provides a comprehensive framework for the principle of public participation, access to justice and information, including identifying where it fills gaps in international water law and basin treaties. For example, non-state actors including the public and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have limited almost non-existent rights under the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention beyond the procedure on non-discriminatory access to justice. In contrast, the public including NGOs are given a significant participatory role in law making, implementation and enforcement in the UNECE water regime. This contributes to procedural justice and the principle of intra-generational equity in international water law. The Water Convention, however, should be amended to provide for all three pillars of public participation.

Using the framework exposed in Chapter 6, this chapter presents how the SPS and TBT transparency mechanisms serve to address a number of the factors needed by WTO Members to adjudicate. In particular, it shows the extent to which SPS and TBT transparency allows to gain access to information about other Members’ regulations, to reduce some resource inequalities through equal access to information and to offer alternative fora to discuss conflicts and work towards a mutually acceptable solution. Still, this chapter underlines inequalities that remain in the access to WTO transparency, suggesting some explanations for unequal access to dispute settlement.

After having seen both the potential effects of transparency under the SPS and TBT framework and the limitations that still remain as to their actual benefits to all Members, Chapter 9 will examine the main ways forward to improve the system. These recommendations focus on what the WTO Members on the one hand and the WTO Secretariat on the other can do to improve the effectiveness of transparency, with the ultimate goal of improving the day-to-day implementation of the SPS and TBT Agreements, preventing disputes or allowing better disputes if they must take place. The recommendations are structured around improving availability of information on all Members’ domestic regulations, to all Members and to private stakeholders and on enhancing the scope and benefits of regulatory co-operation.

The dispute settlement system is a costly and burdensome process that may be worth turning to only in cases of high trade losses. It is arguably in any country’s interest to avoid disputes. Building on the premise that disputes intervene only as a last resort, Chapter 7 explores the reasons that explain the difficulty to ‘climb’ the disputing pyramid. Based on pre-existing literature, it identified three general factors to explain WTO Members’ access to WTO adjudication: Members are likely to bring disputes as long as they have information, resources, and they lack alternative fora to solve the conflict. This serves as a basis for arguments in the subsequent chapter about the possible roles for transparency in accessing formal dispute settlement.

Chapter 5 addresses the regulation of donor conception. This chapter examines how parentage should be allocated in situations where this procedure is used. The aim of the chapter is to identify a means of allocating parentage that is most in keeping with the best interests principle. The child’s right to identity and safeguards required to vindicate this right in cases of donor conception are also considered, as is the issue of access to services for gay and lesbian couples.

Chapter 5 reflects on how accessibility is understood in the CRPD and how it is interpreted by the CRPD Committee. It conducts a broad examination of the multidimensional concept of ‘accessibility’ and its relationship with universal design and assistive devices. It discusses the role of ‘accessibility rights’ in the Convention and focuses on the content and scope of Article 9, addressing the relationship between accessibility and non-discrimination. The chapter investigates the differences between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, in light of the CRPD Committee’s jurisprudence. Finally, the chapter briefly analyses Article 21 CRPD on access to information and communications.

Chapter 5 reflects on how accessibility is understood in the CRPD and how it is interpreted by the CRPD Committee. It conducts a broad examination of the multidimensional concept of ‘accessibility’ and its relationship with universal design and assistive devices. It discusses the role of ‘accessibility rights’ in the Convention and focuses on the content and scope of Article 9, addressing the relationship between accessibility and non-discrimination. The chapter investigates the differences between accessibility and reasonable accommodation, in light of the CRPD Committee’s jurisprudence. Finally, the chapter briefly analyses Article 21 CRPD on access to information and communications.

This paper focuses on the legal and technological issues involved in the digitization and use of cultural content. We chose to take the perspective of Czech public cultural institutions because they administer the majority of the rich cultural heritage in the Czech Republic.