Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

41 results

Page 1 of 3

  • 7 - The New Regulation of the European Union on Artificial Intelligence

  • from Part II - Current and Future Approaches to AI Governance
  • Edited by Silja Voeneky, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, Philipp Kellmeyer, Oliver Mueller, Albert-Ludwigs-Universität Freiburg, Germany, Wolfram Burgard, Technische Universität Nürnberg
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence
    Published online:
    28 October 2022
    Print publication:
    17 November 2022, pp 104-122
    • Chapter
      • You have access
      • Open access
    • PDF
    • HTML
    • Export citation

  • Summary

    In this chapter, Thomas Burri, an international lawyer, examines how general ethical norms on AI diffuse into domestic law directly, without engaging international law. The chapter discusses various ethical AI frameworks and shows how they influenced the European Union Commission’s proposal for an AI Act. It reveals the origins of the EU proposal and explains the substance of the future EU AI regulation. The chapter concludes that, overall, international law has played a marginal role in this process; it was largely sidelined.

  • 10 - Human Rights and the Chagos Advisory Opinion

  • Edited by Thomas Burri, Universität St Gallen, Switzerland, Jamie Trinidad, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
    Published online:
    13 February 2021
    Print publication:
    04 March 2021, pp 187-206

  • Summary

    The Advisory Opinion rendered by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Legal Consequences of the Separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 case1 constitutes a further piece of a complex jigsaw which we will refer to broadly as the Chagos case. It relates to a group of small islands in the middle of the Indian Ocean (the Chagos Archipelago); its former inhabitants (the Chagossians); the United Kingdom, which today administers the Archipelago under the designation ‘British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT)’; Mauritius, which claims the Archipelago as part of its own territory; the United States, which operates a military basis in Diego Garcia, the largest island in the Archipelago; and a number of other actors, including states like the Seychelles and the Maldives, and the African Union (AU).

  • 1 - Introduction

  • Edited by Thomas Burri, Universität St Gallen, Switzerland, Jamie Trinidad, University of Cambridge
  • Book:
    The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
    Published online:
    13 February 2021
    Print publication:
    04 March 2021, pp 1-8

  • Summary

    The separation of the Chagos Archipelago from Mauritius in 1965, and its setting aside by the UK ‘for defence purposes’,1 was the precursor to a human tragedy. The covert expulsion of the Chagossians from their homeland in the years that followed has been described as ‘unhappy – indeed, in many respects, disgraceful’ (by one of the UK’s most senior judges),2 ‘sordid’ and ‘morally indefensible’ (by a former British Foreign Secretary)3 and ‘shameful and wrong’ (by counsel for the UK in the International Court of Justice (ICJ)).4

The International Court of Justice and Decolonisation
  • New Directions from the Chagos Advisory Opinion
  • Edited by Thomas Burri, Jamie Trinidad
  • Published online:
    13 February 2021
    Print publication:
    04 March 2021
  • The 2019 Chagos Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice is a decision of profound legal and political significance. Presented with a rare opportunity to pronounce on the right to self-determination and the rules governing decolonization, the ICJ responded with remarkable directness. The contributions to this book examine the Court's reasoning, the importance of the decision for the international system, and its consequences for the situation in the Chagos Archipelago in particular. Apart from bringing the Chagossians closer to the prospect of returning to the islands from which they were covertly expelled half a century ago, the decision and its political context may be understood as part of a broader shift in North/South relations, in which formerly dominant powers like the UK must come to terms with their waning influence on the world stage, and in which voices from former colonies are increasingly shaping the institutional and normative landscape.

  • The Kosovo Opinion and Secession: The Sounds of Silence and Missing Links

  • Thomas Burri
  • Journal:
    German Law Journal / Volume 11 / Issue 7-8 / 01 August 2010
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    06 March 2019, pp. 881-889
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • With the request for an advisory opinion on Kosovo opportunity knocked on the doors of the International Court of Justice. The opportunity was unique for several reasons. First, the case of Kosovo was momentous. It had involved war. International armed forces had intervened to stop ethnic cleansing. Since then, the situation of Kosovo has been politically loaded. It has polarized the entire international community. Second, it is a rare occurrence that such a situation comes to the Court. The regular case, if there is such a thing, before the Court has tended to be a relatively low-profile interstate dispute. The Kosovo incidence had only come to the Court in the first place—like the case of the Wall on the West Bank, the other recent high-profile exception—because the detour via the United Nations General Assembly had been open.

Page 1 of 3