Том 11

Permanent URI for this collection

https://ekmair.ukma.edu.ua/handle/123456789/26860

Browse

Browsing Том 11 by Subject "article"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The compliance of facial processing in France with the article 9 paragraph 2 (a) (g) of (EU) General data protection regulation
    (2023) Bulgakova, Daria; Bulgakova, Valentyna
    The legal identity of individuals is critical in digital ecosystems, and biometric systems play a vital role in verifying identities throughout their lives. However, these systems also pose significant risks and require responsible use. The European Union has established a digital strategy to create a trusted and secure digital identity, setting a global standard for technological development in identification. In line with the General Data Protection Regulation Article 9(1), member countries must justify any exceptions to the rule provided. France has taken a leading role in using unique identification legally, implementing digitally processed attributes such as facial recognition through the Alicem application on smartphones to identify individuals in a digital environment, and improving e-services uniquely. Specifically, the article analyses the General Data Protection Regulation Article 9, paragraph 1, and the exceptional conditions outlined in paragraph 2 (a) (g) along with scrutinized legislation in France of Decree n°2019-452 of 13 May 2019, which authorized the use of unique identification known as "Certified Online Authentication on Mobile". The research recommends that EU member countries taking approaches to introduce GDPR Article 9 into national legislation should consider their citizens’ specific needs and concerns while aligning with the European Union law because it is critical to balance the benefits of biometric systems with the risks posed to personal data protection, ensuring that their responsible use contributes to a secure and trustworthy digital ecosystem.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Hegemony of a Ruling Party as a Common Element in the Armenian Genocide, the Holodomor and the Holocaust
    (2023) Antonovych, Myroslava
    With the development of comparative genocide as the second generation of genocide studies over the last decades it became important to examine the Holodomor as a crime of genocide committed by the Communist party of the Soviet Union in comparative perspective with other genocides. In this article, the author offers a comparative analysis of the Holodomor with cases of genocide in the first half of the 20th century – namely, the Armenian genocide of the Ottoman Empire and the Holocaust of Nazi Germany – from the perspective of perpetrators (organizers). The author compares the three genocides as crimes under international law in terms of one of the mental elements of genocide that characterizes each of them, noting the similarities in ruling political parties as organizers of those crimes who exercised the collective intent in each of the case of genocide under analyses. The author argues that hegemony of a ruling party: the Ittihadists, the Communists, and the Nazis which substituted the state organization was a common element in the genocides perpetrated in the Ottoman Empire, the Soviet Union, and the Third Reich. Moreover, in the ongoing Russian genocide against the Ukrainian nation with culmination since 24 February 2022, it is again the ruling party – Yedinaya Rosiya (Single Russia) which is the foundation of Russian totalitarian regime that organized this crime of genocide.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The origins of "lawfare" and the exploitation of public international law
    (2023) Fisher, Brad
    This paper offers a transdisciplinary analysis of the abuse of public international law for geopolitical objectives, providing an analysis of the term lawfare, the only previously accepted term to describe this behavior. It concludes that the definition lawfare is inadequate for professional scholarly or policy-focused discourse and offers the notion of Malign Legal Operations (MALOPs) as a more appropriate term to encapsulate these actions. Furthermore, this paper emphasizes that the debate over the value-neutrality of the notion lawfare is complex, and the term is insufficiently defined to support its supposed neutrality, leading to opportunities for further exploitation by revisionist states and entities. Supporters of valueneutrality argue that distinguishing a "malign" variant of lawfare offers malicious practitioners more opportunities to make false claims against legitimate actors. However, the text counters that classification of malign behavior is based on objective and observable manipulations of legal systems rather than mere disagreement. Furthermore, the paper argues that lawfare is a octrinally inappropriate term due to its contradictory nature, as it combines "law" and "warfare" despite serving as an alternative to military conflict. Using a single term to describe both legitimate and malicious legal actions is damaging to discourse and detracts from efforts to combat the misuse of legal systems. The research’s primary objectives include establishing the lack of a universally accepted definition for lawfare, demonstrating the unanswered question of value-neutrality, and highlighting the non-doctrinal nature of the term itself. It concludes that lawfare is no longer an appropriate term to describe these phenomena, advocating for the adoption of Malign Legal Operations to better represent the manipulation of legal domains for political ends.