The image of human rights in e-state

  • Mart Susi Tallinn University, 25 Narva Road, Tallinn 10120, Estonia

Abstract

The article applies the non-coherence theory of digital human rights to e-statehood and identifies five caveats. The emerging image is characterized by the absence of human rights rhetoric from e-state goals and strategy, absence of conclusive justification of e-state success in social context, relatively lower protection of human rights through e-state solutions in comparison with solutions in the private digital domain, dichotomy of the meaning of privacy in the digital domain, and the theoretical threat of e-state transforming into a police-state. The article argues that since human rights are not generic to e-state, their inclusion into the rhetoric about e-state is the result of public pressure. The author proposes the thesis about negative correlation between the e-state and human rights: the expansion of e-state solutions in a given society leads to decrease in fundamental rights protection.

Author Biography

Mart Susi, Tallinn University, 25 Narva Road, Tallinn 10120, Estonia

doctor of science (law); professor

References

  1. Solvak M, Vassil K. E-voting in Estonia: technological diffusion and other developments over ten years (2005–2015). Tartu: University of Tartu; 2016. 224 p.
  2. Susi M. Human rights in the digital domain: the idea of non­coherence theory. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 3–13.
  3. Schaumberg­Müller S. Liability regimes for online human rights violations. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 103– 117.
  4. Kulesza J. Multistakeholderism – meaning and implications. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 117– 132.
  5. Zoonen van L. Privacy concerns in smart cities. Government Information Quarterly. 2016;33(3):472–480.
  6. Eckhoff D, Wagner I. Privacy in the smart city – applications, technologies, challenges, and solutions. IEEE Communi-cations Surveys & Tutorials. 2018;20(1):489­516. DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2017.2748998.
  7. Alston P.Ships passing in the night: the current state of the human rights and development debate seen through the lens of the millennium development goals. Human Rights Quarterly. 205;27(3):755–829.
  8. Twenge J M. The sad state of happiness in the United States and the role of digital media [Internet; cited 2020 April 23]. Available from: https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2019/the­sad­state­of­happiness­in­the­united­states­and­the­role­of­digital­media/.
  9. Martela F, Greve B, Rothstein B, Saari J. The Nordic exceptionalism: what explains why the Nordic countries are constantly among the happiest in the world [Internet; cited 2020 April 23]. Available from: https://worldhappiness.report/ed/2020/the­nordic­exceptionalism­what­explains­why­the­nordic­countries­are­constantly­among­the­happiest­in­the­world/#fnref28.
  10. Liu HY. The digital disruption of human rights foundations. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 75–87.
  11. Wischmeyer T. The role and practices of online stakeholders. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 148–163.
  12. Susi M. Balancing fundamental rights on the Internet – the proportionality paradigm and private online capabilities. In: Torre La M, Susi M, Niglia L, editors. The quest for rights: ideal and normative dimensions of law. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019. p. 173–194.
  13. Mims C. Privacy is dead. Here’s what comes next. Wall Street Journal. 2018 May 6.
  14. Tan A. Privacy is dead. The Business Times. 2018 June 9.
  15. Bonnell K. Privacy is dead and we all helped kill it. Ottawa Citizen. 2018 April 2.
  16. Kerry CF. Why protecting privacy is a losing game today – and how to change the game [Internet; cited 2020 April 19]. Available from: https://www.brookings.edu/research/why­protecting­privacy­is­a­losing­game­today­and­how­to­change­the­game/.
  17. Richards N. Four myths of privacy. In: Sarat A, editor. A world without privacy: what the law can and should do. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015.
  18. Johnson B. Privacy no longer a social norm, Facebook founder says. The Guardian. 2010 January 11.
  19. Warren SD, Brandeis LD. The right to privacy. Harvard Law Review. 1890;4(5):193–220.
  20. Glancy DJ. Invention of the right to privacy. Arizona Law Review. 1971;21(1):1–40.
  21. Rosenberg J. The death of privacy. New York: Random House; 1969. 236 p.
  22. Regan PM. Legislative privacy: technology, social values, and public policy. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; 1995. 336 p.
  23. Froomkin M. The death of privacy? Stanford Law Review. 2000;52:1461–1543.
  24. Garfinkel S. Database nation: the death of privacy. Sebastopol: O’Reilly Media; 2000. 336p.
  25. Lin E. Prioritizing privacy: a constitutional response to the Internet. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2002;17(3):1085–1154.
  26. Kang J. Information privacy in cyberspace transactions. Stanford Law Review. 1998;50:1193–1294.
  27. Thomas JJ. The right to privacy. In: Schloeman FD, editor. Philosophical dimensions of privacy: an anthology. Cam­bridge: Cambridge University Press; 1984.
  28. Penney JW. Chilling effects: online surveillance and Wikipedia use. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2016;31(1):117–182.
  29. Pagallo U, Durante M. Human rights and the right to be forgotten. In: Susi M, editor. Human rights, digital society and the law: a research companion. London: Routledge Publishing; 2019. p. 197–209.
Published
2020-10-29
Keywords: human rights and e-state, non-coherence theory of digital human rights, caveats of human rights, e-state narratives
How to Cite
Susi, M. (2020). The image of human rights in e-state. Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations, 1, 62-68. Retrieved from https://journals.bsu.by/index.php/internationalRelations/article/view/3040
Issue
No 1 (2020): Journal of the Belarusian State University. International relations
Section
International Law

Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of the Belarusian State University. International Relations

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)