‘A More Human Approach’. Human Rights, Obligations of the State and Network Neutrality in Europe

• Authors: Andrzej Nałęcz

Abstracts

FR

L’article explore le concept des obligations positives et négatives de l’État en matière de défense des droits humains, reconnu dans la littérature sur les droits humains et dans les arrêts de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme. Le concept est ensuite appliqué pour montrer l’importance de garantir la liberté d’expression dans la réglementation des services d’accès à Internet et dans l’application des réglementations pertinentes dans les États membres de l’UE. L’auteur est d’avis que les arguments économiques ne doivent pas occulter la nécessité de garantir la liberté d’expression des utilisateurs finals des services d’accès à Internet.

EN

The article explores the concept of the positive and negative obligations of the state in securing human rights, recognized in human rights literature, and in the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights. The concept is then applied to show the importance of securing freedom of expression in regulating Internet access services and enforcing pertinent regulations in EU Member States. The author is of the opinion that economic arguments should not overshadow the need to secure the freedom of expression of the end-users of Internet access services.

Keywords

EN

freedom of expression; Regulation 2015/2120; net neutrality; open; Internet; Internet access service; positive obligations; negative obligations; European Convention on Human Rights; means of expression

• Publisher: Uniwersytet Warszawski. Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania
• Journal: Yearbook of Antitrust and Regulatory Studies
• Year: 2019
• Volume: 12
• Issue: 19
• Pages: 29-52

Dates

published

2019

Contributors

author

Andrzej Nałęcz

• Uniwersytet Warszawski: Wydział Zarządzania

• https://orcid.org/0000000305532084

References

• Akandji-Kombe, J.-F. (2007). Positive obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.
• Alston, P. (1990). U.S. Ratification of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The Need for an Entirely New Strategy. The American Journal of International Law 84(2), 365–393. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2203459 (30.07.2019).
• Barendt, E. (2007). Freedom of Speech. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Belli, L. (2016). Net neutrality, zero rating and the Minitelisation of the internet. Journal of Cyber Policy 2(1), 96–122, https://doi.org/10.1080/23738871.2016.1238954.
• BEREC. (2016). BEREC Guidelines on the Implementation by National Regulators of European Net Neutrality Rules. BoR (16) 127. Retrieved from: https://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelines/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-netneutrality-rules (30.07.2019).
• Callewaert, J. (2018). Do we still need Article 6(2) TEU? Considerations on the absence of EU accession to the ECHR and ITS. Common Market Law Review 55(6), 1685–1716. Retrieved from: https://johan-callewaert.eu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Do-we-stillneed-62-TEU_.pdf (30.07.2019).
• Carter, W.M. Jr. (2010). Treaties as Law and the Rule of Law: The Judicial Power to Compel Domestic Treaty Implementation. Maryland Law Review 69(2), 344–389. Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/56358054.pdf (30.07.2019).
• Clapham, A. (2006). Human Rights Obligations of Non-State Actors. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Conçado Trindade, A.A. (1998). The interdependence of all human rights – obstacles and challenges to their implementation. International Social Science Journal 50(158), 513–523, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2451.00164.
• Currie, D.P. (1986). Positive and Negative Constitutional Rights. University of Chicago Law Review 53(3), 864–890. Retrieved from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5993 (30.07.2019).
• De Búrca, G. (2013). After the EU Charter of fundamental rights: The Court of Justice as a human rights adjudicator? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law 20(2), 168–184, https://doi.org/10.1177/1023263X1302000202.
• Dzehtsiarou, K. (2018). What is law for the European Court of Human Rights? Georgetown Journal of International Law 49(1), 89–134. Retrieved from: https://www.law.georgetown.edu/international-law-journal/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2018/07/GT-GJIL180003.pdf (30.07.2019).
• Eide, A. (1996). Human rights requirements to social and economic development. Food Policy 21(1), 23–39. htpps://doi.org/10.1016/0306-9192(95)00057-7.
• Engle, E. (2009). Third Party Effect of Fundamental Rights. Hanse Law Review 5(2), 165–173. Retrieved from: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1481552 (30.07.2019).
• Fields, A.B. (2003). Rethinking Human Rights for the New Millennium. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
• Florczak-Wątor, M. (2014). Horyzontalny wymiar praw konstytucyjnych, Kraków: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego.
• Gragl, P. (2013). The Accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Hanum, H. (2019). Rescuing Human Rights. A Radically Moderate Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Harris, D.J., O’Boyle, M., Bates, E., Buckley, C., Harvey, P.H., Lafferty, M., Cumper, P., Arai, Y. and Green, H. (2014). Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Ishay, M.R. (2004). The History of Human Rights. Berkeley: University of California Press.
• Knox, J.H. (2008). Horizontal Human Rights Law. The American Journal of International Law 102(1): 1–47. Retrieved from: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40007767 (30.07.2019).
• Koch, I.E. (2005). Dichotomies, Trichotomies or Waves of Duties? Human Rights Law Review 5(1), 81–103, https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlrev/ngi004.
• Kuijer, M. (2018). The challenging relationship between the European Convention on Human Rights and the EU legal order: consequences of a delayed accession. The International Journal of Human Rights. Advance online publication, https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2018.1535433.
• Letsas, G. (2013). The ECHR as a living instrument: its meaning and legitimacy. In: A. Føllesdal, B. Peters, and G. Ulfstein (eds.), Constituting Europe (pp. 106–141). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, https://doi.org/10.1017/cbo9781139169295.005.
• Marsden, C.T. (2016). Zero Rating and Mobile Net Neutrality. In: L. Belli and P. De Filippi (eds.), Net Neutrality Compendium. Human Rights, Free Competition and the Future of the Internet (pp. 241–260). Cham: Springer, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-26425-7_18.
• Marsden, C.T. (2017). Network neutrality: From policy to law to regulation. Manchester: Manchester University Press, https://doi.org/10.26530/oapen_622853.
• Mowbray, A.R. (2004). The Development of Positive Obligations under the European Convention of Human Rights by the European Court of Human Rights. Oxford: Hart Publishing, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472562920 .
• Nałęcz, A. (2017). Aksjologia gminnych projektów bezpłatnego dostępu do Internetu. In: J. Zimmermann (ed.), Aksjologia prawa administracyjnego. Tom I. Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer.
• Nash, V. (2013). Analyzing Freedom of Expression Online: Theoretical, Empirical, and Normative Contributions. In: W.H. Dutton (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Internet Studies, edited by. Electronic book, n. p. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199589074.013.0021.
• Piątek, S. (2017). Rozporządzenie UE Nr 2015/2120 w zakresie dostępu do otwartego internetu. Warszawa: C.H. Beck.
• Schabas, W.A. (2015). The European Convention on Human Rights. A Commentary. Oxford: Oxford University Press, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781472561725.
• Sluijs, J. (2012). Network Neutrality and European Law. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers (WLP).
• United Nations. (1968). Final Act of the International Conference on Human Rights, Tehran, 13 May 1968. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b36f1b.html (30.07.2019).
• United Nations General Assembly. (1993). Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, 12 July 1993, A/CONF.157/23. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b39ec.html (30.07.2019).
• United Nations Human Rights Committee. (2011). General comment no. 34, Article 19, Freedoms of opinion and expression, 12 September 2011, CCPR/C/GC/34. Retrieved from: https://www.refworld.org/docid/4ed34b562.html (30.07.2019).
• Van Schewick, B. (2010). Internet architecture and innovation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/7580.001.0001.
• Vázquez, C.M. (2008). Treaties as Law of the Land: The Supremacy Clause and the Judicial Enforcement of Treaties. Harvard Law Review 122(2): 599–695. Retrieved from: https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/979 (30.07.2019).
• West, R. (2001). Rights, Capabilities, and the Good Society. Fordham Law Review 69(5): 1901–1932. Retrieved from: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol69/iss5/14/ (30.07.2019).
• Whelan, D.J. (2010). Indivisible Human Rights. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, https://doi.org/10.9783/9780812205404.
• Wright, J. (2017). Tort Law and Human Rights. Oxford: Hart, https://doi.org/10.5040/9781782257707.
• Wu, T. (2003). Network neutrality, broadband discrimination. Journal on Telecommunications and High Technology Law 2, 141–179. Retrieved from: https://ssrn.com/abstract=388863 (30.07.2019).
• Wu, T., and Yoo C. (2007). Keeping the Internet neutral?: Tim Wu and Christopher Yoo Debate. Federal Communications Law Journal 59(3), 575–592. Retrieved from: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/fclj/vol59/iss3/6/ (30.07.2019).

Identifiers

DOI

10.7172/1689-9024.YARS.2019.12.19.2

Biblioteka Nauki

2159179