Thammasat University students interested in law, technology, political science, sociology, and related subjects may find it useful to attend a free 5 September seminar on International Law and Emerging Technologies.
The speaker at the event, on Tuesday, 5 September 2023 at 1pm, will be Professor Emeritus Vitit Muntarbhorn of the Faculty of Law, Chulalongkorn University; United Nations (UN) Human Rights Special Rapporteur.
The event location will be Narathip Auditorium, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Si Ayutthaya Road.
The TU Library collection includes several books about different aspects of international law and emerging technologies.
The TU Library also owns a number of books by Professor Vitit.
Students are invited to register at this link.
As TU students know, Professor Vitit is an international human rights expert in addition to being a professor of law. In March 2021, Professor Vitit was appointed as UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Cambodia.
In January of this year, the website of the World Justice project, an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to create knowledge, build awareness, and stimulate action to advance the rule of law worldwide, posted remarks by Professor Vitit on the Rule of Law versus Law of Rule(r)s.
His statement was originally made at the Asia Pacific Justice Forum in December 2022, calling for empathy and “transformative partnership” to expand the rule of law for all. Three regional priorities were mentioned: access to justice, judicial independence, and freedom of expression. Excerpts:
The term “rule of law” has a resonant ring which sounds both familiar and distant. It seems familiar because it is employed frequently by lawyers to analyze the makings of a legal system. Yet, it is deemed distant because it sounds legalese, harboring both the thin version and the thick version of its intrinsic self. The thin version covers various legal safeguards for litigants and accused persons, such as fair trial, accompanied by the advocacy of an independent judiciary. The thicker version demands more, namely: adherence to human rights and democracy.
Whatever the version, what is equally important as the middle version is that it needs an adjective in front of it, namely: “international” rule of law rather than “national” rule of law. The former offers an element of objectivity based on international law, while the latter might be a hidden version of a subjective national system that is steeped in constraints on rights and freedoms, a far cry from international standards. The latter might open the door to an overreach of national laws in a setting of over-legislation, as the hinterland for non-democratic elements, alias the “law of rule(r)s” as instrument(s) of authoritarian control.
Declining Rule of Law
The international trend witnessed by the global Rule of Law Index regrettably indicates a decline of the rule of law internationally, undermined impliedly by the spread of the “law of rule(r)s”. It coincides with the reduced civic and political space witnessed in many parts of Asia Pacific and elsewhere, as a disquieting contraction of the democratic landscape. It is thus timely for key stakeholders, jurists, and more, to coalesce more assertively to strengthen various entry points to open up that space rather than to overlook the global warning of negative seepage inherent in the political climate change. There are at least three gateways of note, namely: access to justice, judicial integrity-cum-independence, and freedom of expression balancing with reasonable limitations. […]
Nurturing empathy is key to enabling them to reach out mentally to victims and litigants. Revolving the judiciary to different areas of the country and to enable them to witness first hand “how the other (deprived) half lives” helps to create more understanding for socio-economic and other conditions. Judicial education should involve visits to prisons and other detention locations to witness the real conditions beyond the courts. Gender-sensibility also needs to be maximized in the capacity building of judges through practical, ground related casework and exemplars from the very beginnings of judicial training. Inclusion of persons of different ethnicities, with disabilities, with gender-diversity, with pluralistic backgrounds is key to building a judiciary that is at-one with the community. Openness to critical analysis from others is another test for judicial transparency and this invites appraisal and reform of contempt of court provisions in several countries which shield the judiciary excessively from fair comment and fair play.
Strengthening Freedom of Expression
With regard to freedom of expression, the Asia Pacific region is confronted with a morass of laws of a prohibitive and inhibitive kind, entrenching censorship and self-censorship, especially in the face of more authoritarian trends. Those trends overplay the claim of national security, fake news, misinformation and disinformation to enact a vast panoply of laws which fail to comply with international standards. The state thus claims to be the arbiter and “ruler(s)” of the truth—a dangerous, subjective exercise of monopolization rather than pluralization of information sources and opinions. Over-legislation thus sanctifies the survival of those who control the reins of power.
The litany of laws invites vigilance: computer crimes law, online falsehood law, anti-fake news law, electronic transaction law, telecommunications law, internet gateway law, cybersecurity law, emergency decree, martial law, and national security/internal security law, etc. To these can be added the challenging provisions of the criminal code in some settings, such as on sedition, lèse-majesté, and criminal defamation.
Fortunately, international human rights law guides what should be permissible as constraints on the right to freedom of expression, in particular via Articles 19 and 20 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Although that freedom and some other rights, such as on freedom of peaceful assembly and on privacy, are not absolute, the limitations to be imposed on them must comply with the international three-part test: the authorities must prove that the limitation in question is not arbitrary and is consonant with the international rule of law (“legality”); that it is necessary to respond to the risks (“necessity”); and that it is proportionate to the circumstances (“proportionality”).
In any case, the fact that non-democracies keep the lid on freedom of expression is a root cause of misinformation and disinformation, exemplified by its propagandistic tendency and the discontented rumblings below. The preferred approach is to aim for an educated public, with digital literacy, to cross-check information as part of open, critical analysis. The more convincing entry point is to engender the personal wisdom through liberal education to choose not to believe fake news rather than to comply with the diktat from the top as to what to believe and disbelieve. […]
(All images courtesy of Wikimedia Commons)