‘Together for Health’? How EU Governance of Health Undermines Active Biological Citizenship

This paper explores the potential for active biological citizenship in the discursive space opened by the Community law rights to receive cross-border health care services. By focusing on the European Patients’ Forum and the European Public Health Association as examples of actors facilitated by the European Union, the paper notes how this space might provide some opportunities for patients’ strategic engagement, but also how EU governance discourse is shaping and undermining the potential for activism.

Journal article: Children and Religion under Article 14 UNCRC: A Critical Analysis

This article examines the text of Article 14 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 and the work of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. It considers the text of the article and its travaux préparatoires; it then provides an analysis of the issues considered by the Committee: the concept of the evolving capacities of the child, freedom of religious choice, freedom of manifestation, and education. It also highlights the problems that have emerged in the Committee’s work, in the light of a theoretical framework of the right of the child to religious freedom in international law. It concludes that the Committee fails children in relation to their religion and suggests some positive steps to be taken by the Committee.

On How to Build a Positive Understanding of the Child’s Right to Freedom of Expression

This article looks at the child’s right to freedom of expression under UN treaties. It defines the legal basis, the scope and the extent of the child’s right and it compares it with the adult’s right to freedom of expression. It argues that freedom of expression has both a developmental and an autonomy aspect, and that Article 12 UNCRC does a better job at encapsulating the child’s right than Article 13. It concludes that the child’s right is very much based on the positive obligations of the state, to the difference of traditional international law on freedom of expression.

Cosmopolitan Exception

There has been a resurgence of interest in cosmopolitanism in contemporary political theory, based upon the hopeful premise that it heralds an ameliorative response to the malignity of sovereignty's lack and the treacherous violence of sovereignty's excess. The promise of cosmopolitanism inheres in the claim that state sovereignty is and should be supplemented by an international system backed by the legitimacy of international law, grounded in the sovereignty of human rights. Drawing upon Foucault and Agamben, my argument in this essay is that the laudable endeavour of liberal cosmopolitans is flawed in two ways: first, cosmopolitanism cannot escape sovereign violence, because it cannot escape sovereignty; and second, cosmopolitans misconstrue the composition of the very sovereignty they aim to escape. This means that cosmopolitan theorists are unable to identify cosmopolitan practices of sovereignty that also entail forms of violence: cosmopolitan exception. Cosmopolitan exception denotes violent sovereign practices that cannot be differentiated from the protection of rights.

The Future of Preventive Wars: The Case of Iraq

Eight years have past since the devastating September 11 attacks, and the USA has engaged in two wars in the name of uprooting global ‘terrorism’ and providing security to American citizens. The Bush administration bequeathed a legacy of two ongoing wars and growing threats emerging from ‘terrorist’ acts. This article analyses the future of the preventive war doctrine, formulated by the Bush administration, under international law. The article thus explores whether the preventive war doctrine has the potential to set a customary precedence, or whether it merely constitutes a breach of international law.

Freedom of Expression and Hate Speech

This is a study of free speech and hate speech with reference to the international standards and to the United States jurisprudence. The study, in a comparative and critical fashion, depicts the historical evolution and the application of the concept of ‘free speech,’ within the context of ‘hate speech.’ The main question of this article is how free speech can be discerned from hate speech, and whether the latter should be restricted. To this end, it examines the regulation of free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and in light of the international standards, particularly under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The study not only illustrates how elusive the endeavour of striking a balance between free speech and other vital interests could be, but also discusses whether and how hate speech should be eliminated within the ‘marketplace of ideas.’