Artificial Intelligence (AI) has enriched the lives of people around the globe. However, the emergence of AI-powered lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has become a significant concern for the international community. LAWS are computer-based weapon systems capable of completing their missions, including identifying and engaging targets without direct human intervention. The use of such weapons poses significant challenges to compliance with international humanitarian and human rights law. Scholars have extensively examined LAWS in the context of humanitarian law; however, their implications for human rights warrant further discussion. Against this backdrop, this paper analyzes the human rights challenges posed by LAWS under international law. It argues that using LAWS in warfare and domestic law enforcement operations could violate human rights, such as the rights to life, human dignity, and remedy, among others. Thus, it calls for a prohibition of the use of killer robots against humans.

While sexual violence is receiving increasing attention in terms of international humanitarian and criminal law, and on the world political scene, this does not apply to all aspects of such crimes. Sexual acts on dead bodies are a common practice in times of armed conflict, constituting an affront to universal moral values that exacerbates the violence, domination and humiliation which motivates such abuses. However, such crimes have rarely been prosecuted under international criminal law, and where they have, perpetrators have been charged with umbrella offences or in connection with the protection of human dignity rather than with sexual offences. To explain this tendency, the present article takes stock of the legal treatment of sexual violence on dead bodies, examining the legal, philosophical and moral concepts that apply, with a view to obtaining recognition of such acts as sexual offences.

The widespread use of artificial intelligence technologies in border management throughout the European Union has significant human rights implications that extend beyond the commonly examined issues of privacy, non-discrimination and data protection. This article explores these overlooked impacts through three critical frameworks: the erosion of freedom of thought, the disempowerment of individuals and the politicization of human dignity. In uncovering these dynamics, the article argues for a broader conception of human rights to prevent their gradual erosion and safeguard the core principle of protecting human dignity.

In this paper, I question the argument from human dignity found in the Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights (UDHGHR) and in the recent views of the International Bioethics Committee (IBC). I focus on what this argument says about the permissibility of two broad categories of reprogenetic choices that may be available to prospective parents in the genomic era. The argument from human dignity holds that non-medical genetic selection and somatic enhancements ought to be prohibited because they violate the principle of human dignity. I argue that human dignity need not be violated by the enterprise of human genetic selection/somatic enhancement if reasonable social safeguards are established. In particular, I argue that respecting the reprogenetic choices of the decision-maker is paramount within the boundaries of (i) prohibiting the infliction of a shortened lifespan or pain upon the child; (ii) prohibiting the actualization of demeaning beliefs or intentions such as viewing certain groups as inferior; (iii) prohibiting the choice resulting from an expression of unwillingness to love and care for the child; and, with respect to somatic gene enhancements in particular, (iv) the potentially unjustified effects of the enhancement on others, if any, are reasonably addressable (and addressed) via social modifications so as to ensure the enhancement no longer risks adversely affecting them. With these limits, reprogenetic autonomy cannot be said to undermine the dignity of humans by creating unjustified harms or expressing demeaning ideas.

This article suggests a new interpretative framework for Article 27(2) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits sexual violence against women in armed conflict. One specific aspect of this norm is particularly controversial: the notion of ‘honour’ has often been criticised as an obsolete concept linked to an outdated view of female morality. In the absence of a definition of the term, this article examines whether the gendered limitations of the norm can be overcome and the extent to which an evolutive interpretation of the concept is feasible. It argues that the concept of ‘honour’ can be treated as a generic term that is subject to evolutive interpretation, allowing for a renewed and gender-sensitive understanding to be developed, aligned with the concept of human dignity.

ChatGPT launched in November 2022, triggering a global debate on the use of artificial intelligence (AI). A debate on AI-enabled lethal autonomous weapon systems (LAWS) has been underway far longer. Two sides have emerged: one in favor and one opposed to an international law ban on LAWS. This essay explains the position of advocates of a ban without attempting to persuade opponents. Supporters of a ban believe LAWS are already unlawful and immoral to use without the need of a new treaty or protocol. They nevertheless seek an express prohibition to educate and publicize the threats these weapons pose. Foremost among their concerns is the “black box” problem. Programmers cannot know what a computer operating a weapons system empowered with AI will “learn” from the algorithm they use. They cannot know at the time of deployment if the system will comply with the prohibition on the use of force or the human right to life that applies in both war and peace. Even if they could, mechanized killing affronts human dignity. Ban supporters have long known that “AI models are not safe and no one knows how to reliably make them safe” or morally acceptable in taking human life.

With the promulgation of the Autonomous Driving Act in summer 2021, Germany took the worldwide lead on regulating self-driving cars. This Article discusses the (non-)regulation of moral dilemmas in this act. To this end, it clarifies the role of the so-called trolley problem, which influenced the report of the German Ethics Commission that paved the way for this act in particular and the relationship between philosophical reasoning, empirical studies, and the law in general. By introducing the international legal community to the (non-)regulation of moral dilemmas in the German act, the Article critically reviews the German goal, which is to serve as a European and international role model. This will be preceded by a discussion as to why self-driving cars should be allowed as well as the moral dilemmas they cause which should be regulated by the law.

Using the lens of immigration and asylum, this Article develops a new understanding of legal personhood on the basis of equal human dignity, as the interface between legal personhood, equality and human rights, in order to address the dual-faceted and opposing reality of immigrants and asylum claimants in relation to their equality as humans in the order of nature and their inequality within the social/political order of Europe, where they are subjected to a constant process of depersonification and reification. This reformulated approach to legal personhood not only seeks to remove the debasement and dehumanisation that has come to characterise European Union (EU) immigration and asylum law but also intends to address the limitations of the Common European Asylum System (CEAS) as a valid platform for translating the EU’s own self-proclaimed commitment to human rights into justiciable normative claims.

This article addresses the challenge of conceptualizing the practice of religious proselytism in the context of international human rights law and its significance for the law of religious freedom. The author examines the evolving approach taken to religious proselytism within the landscape of human rights law, revealing that important aspects of religious freedom risk being lost given complex positive and negative views on proselytization. The author then explores the concept of human dignity and argues that there are relational and interactive dimensions associated with human dignity that are obscured in the international legal discourse of religious freedom. Recovering these dimensions of dignity will help address religious proselytization in international human rights law and reinvigorate the law of religious freedom.

Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision establishing a constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry, marked the first time in the Court’s history that justices explicitly disagreed over the meaning and requirements of human dignity. In his dissenting opinion Clarence Thomas sought to reclaim rather than simply reject the language of dignity, advancing a conception of dignity that differed sharply from the conception embraced by the majority. Using this disagreement as a point of departure, this article demonstrates how dignity has served as an extra-textual value that underpins divergent visions of American constitutionalism that, in turn, inform interpretations of the Constitution’s text and history.