Technology and Law Going Mental

On 28 August 2020, Neuralink gave a much anticipated update on their progress to connect humans and computers. In the near future, the activities within our brain will be recorded, analysed, and altered, shaking our conception of inaccessible mental processes. A multitude of legal issues will arise, in particular to what extent fundamental and human rights protect mental processes and neurological data collected by (therapeutic or enhancing) brain-computer interfaces (BCIs) from being accessed by states without the individual’s consent. To date, however, there remains a significant gap as neurological data does not enjoy absolute protection from any interference within the existing European human and fundamental rights frameworks. This gap could be remedied by introducing new mental rights.

Why the Key to the Past Lies in the Future

A few days ago, Namibian President Hage Geinob rejected the German government’s offer for financial compensation for the 1904-07 genocide committed by the German colonial power in what was then called Southwest Africa against the Herero and Nama peoples. Germany refuses to consider the payment as an act of reparation, arguing instead that it would serve the “healing of wounds”. The Namibian side considers this inacceptable, insisting that such payments should not be considered a mere act of grace. I find this terminological dispute highly intriguing and telling. It prompts me to react with three responses.

How to Make Whistleblower Protection in Europe more Effective

In April 2019, the European Parliament adopted the Whistleblowing Directive, which aims to protect whistleblowers in European Union (EU) countries. The directive entered into force on 16 December 2019 and EU Member States have until the end of 2021 to transpose the provisions of the directive into their legal systems. But how effective can and will this directive be? Some recommendations based on the authors’ personal experience as whistleblowers.

Wissenschaft ist farbenblind

Es steht außer Frage, dass sich gewisse Biografien in einem konservativen, leistungsorientierten Feld wie der Rechtswissenschaft leichter tun als andere. Aber sollte das bedeuten, dass besondere Zugangswege geschaffen werden sollten? Wäre es nicht interessanter, weil selbstbestimmter, nach den Ursachen der eigenen Unzulänglichkeit zu fragen, um durch Selbstkritik, Einsicht und Aktion die eigene Zukunft selbst gestalten zu können?

Politische Ästhetik als juristisches Argument

Über problematische Straßennamen und Denkmäler wird politisch debattiert. Wie der öffentliche Raum aussieht, wird gemeinhin nicht als juristische Frage behandelt. Trotzdem taucht die Frage, was die Gesellschaft im öffentlichen Raum sehen will, auch als rechtliches Argument auf. Wann erkennt der Diskurs solche Fragen politischer Ästhetik als juristisches Argument an? Und welche Bedingungen entscheiden darüber?

Ask the Dust

Last week, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) condemned France for violating Article 3 of the Convention, by reducing asylum seekers to destitution in such an intensity that it constitutes a degrading treatment. It asserts that the French authorities failed to fulfill their obligations under national law against three of the plaintiffs. According to the Court, the national authorities must be held responsible for the conditions in which they left the asylum seekers, who lived for months on the street, without any resources, without any access to sanitary facilities, without any means of providing for their basic needs and in the constant anguish of being attacked and robbed

No more Piecemeal Tactics

The EU’s Whistleblowing Directive is supposed to protect whistleblowers comprehensively – but its strict implementation might do just the contrary: The protection of reporting persons would end up shattered and remain insufficient. Neither national security whistleblowers such as Edward Snowden nor persons reporting sexual offences would be protected under the Directive's provisions – to name only two protection gaps. Therefore, a “1:1 implementation” as discussed by the German Government is the wrong way. Quite contrary the implementation of the Directive should be seen as a chance to enact a comprehensive and all-encompassing national whistleblowing regulation.

To Vote or Not to Vote?

The COVID-19 pandemic poses considerable challenges to democracies across the world. This is particularly apparent with regard to the holding of elections which states have approached in various ways. States face the following tension: On the one hand, the obligation to protect the rights to health and life requires states to limit the spread of the pandemic by reducing human-to-human contact. At the same time, these measures encroach upon the right to political participation. Against that background, an intricate balancing of the various interests in light of international human rights law seems necessary.