There is a growing consensus that fair priority-setting and the right to health contribute to achieving universal health coverage. The right to health creates legal entitlements to receive care and fair priority-setting promotes efficient and just health systems. However, there can be tension between them, particularly when the right to health is judicially protected. This article analyses three approaches to understanding this tension: the first minimises the conflicts between them to emphasise their synergies; the second admits the tension and considers it positive as rights create and protect substantive entitlements against priority-setting decisions; the third also recognises that this tension exists, but sees these substantive entitlements as obstacles for fair priority-setting. Building on the analysis of these approaches, this article argues that the involvement of courts in allocative decisions can be more comprehensively evaluated by assessing whether they promote or impair fair priority-setting rather than by focusing on the direct beneficiaries of judicial decisions. If this argument is correct, then courts using the right to health to create and enforce substantive entitlements to health treatments becomes very questionable.

With the increase in online content circulation new challenges have arisen: the dissemination of defamatory content, non-consensual intimate images, hate speech, fake news, the increase of copyright violations, among others. Due to the huge amount of work required in moderating content, internet platforms are developing artificial intelligence to automate decision-making content removal. This article discusses the reported performance of current content moderation technologies from a legal perspective, addressing the following question: what risks do these technologies pose to freedom of expression, access to information and diversity in the digital environment? The legal analysis developed by the article focuses on international human rights law standards. Despite recent improvements, content moderation technologies still fail to understand context, thereby posing risks to users’ free speech, access to information and equality. Consequently, it is concluded, these technologies should not be the sole basis for reaching decisions that directly affect user expression.

human rightsgenderbirth registrationR (on the application of TT) v Registrar General for England and Wales

The aim of this article is to discuss why the principle of equality and non-discrimination, although foundational to international human rights law, remains an unfulfilled promise in the context of immigration. Nationality is now widely considered as a suspect ground of discrimination, yet contemporary immigration and citizenship laws increasingly use meritocratic criteria to distinguish among migrants. Although framed in universal terms, these criteria create differences of treatment among migrants based on their income, level of education and economic worth. However, from a legal perspective such differences of treatment rarely amount to prohibited discrimination. Looking at the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, this article argues that the normative content of the equality and non-discrimination principle fails to challenge such differences of treatment. Moreover, the proportionality test is used as a judicial restraint mechanism which prevents the effective enforcement of the equality requirement by international and domestic courts in the context of immigration.