, Les Trois Cours Régionales des Droits de l’Homme in Context: La justice qui n’allait pas de soi (Éditions A. Pedone, 2020), 588 pp; ISBN 978–2–233-00955–5; 48€

On 11 June 2019, two Interoperability European Union (EU) Regulations entered into force. With it, six existing EU databases created for security and border management purposes merged into one single, overarching EU information system operating with the purpose of changing the way front-line officers worked in various tasks. The main objective of these Regulations was to prevent and combat illegal immigration and to improve security within the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice of the Union. This article studies the challenges that have emerged from making EU databases and information systems ‘interoperable’ as well as the potential negative consequences that the Regulations may have for fundamental rights as enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. In particular, it examines whether the interoperability between EU information systems could violate the rights related to data protection, rights of the child, prohibition of discrimination as well as principles of necessity and proportionality.

Universal Periodic Review provides a unique insight into states’ perceptions of IHRL. States issue recommendations on fulfilling human rights obligations and commitments. HRC Resolution 5/1 sets out the bases of the reviews: the UN Charter, the UDHR, human rights instruments to which the state is party and voluntary pledges and commitments. Relevant IHL is ‘take[n] into account’. Analysing the identification of these bases of review and how they have been used in the 57,685 recommendations from the first two cycles of UPR, we demonstrate states’ understanding of the term ‘human rights’ and their preferences for certain sources of law. States have not limited themselves to the bases of review in Resolution 5/1. They have used additional materials and rejected distinctions between ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ law. They have interpreted the notion of ‘human rights’ expansively but largely ignored regional human rights instruments. A body of generalised, non-specific IHRL has been recognised.

National authorities have responded with different regulatory solutions in attempts to minimise the adverse impact of fake news and associated information disorder. This article reviews three different regulatory approaches that have emerged in recent years—information correction, content removal or blocking, and criminal sanctions—and critically evaluates their normative compliance with the applicable rules of international human rights law and their likely effectiveness based on an evidence-based psychological analysis. It identifies, albeit counter intuitively, criminal sanction as an effective regulatory response that can be justified when it is carefully tailored in a way that addresses legitimate interests to be protected.