Migration Predictions with a Pinch of Salt: Definitions and Reliability

Social Rights in Refugee Law and Human Rights Law: The Non-discrimination Principle as a Harmonization Tool

The article is devoted to the theoretical analysis of fundamental human rights as a special category. It is established that fundamental human rights should be understood as main, most important, basic rights. Three aspects of distinguishing this category of human rights are proposed. The content-value aspect indicates the connection of fundamental rights with basic social values, which determines their universal nature. The hierarchical aspect determines the place of fundamental rights in the system of human rights and freedoms, emphasizes their supremacy and systemic nature. The procedural-restrictive aspect demonstrates the peculiarities of the realization of fundamental rights in the context of the functioning of public and political power and emphasizes the prevention of state interference in the most important areas of private life.
 The influence of local conditions and local cultures on the recognition of certain rights as fundamental on the example of activity of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has been studied. It is emphasized that in specific conditions of place and time, certain human opportunities become especially relevant and require increased legal protection and guarantees, which leads to the expansion of the catalog of fundamental human rights. Examples include freedom of access to information and the right to privacy, which have become fundamental rights in recent decades. It is concluded that fundamental human rights are aimed at protecting the most important, basic social values, are the basis for the formation of an integrated human rights system and create a reliable framework that protects the individual from excessive pressure from public and political authorities.

The EU AI Act represents one of the most ambitious regulatory frameworks to date, entailing policy regarding innovation, competitiveness, and the protection of fundamental rights. However, regulatory discourse surrounding AI is neither politically nor ideologically neutral. Through the employment of critical discourse analysis, this study explicates the discursive construction of “risk objects” within the EU AI Act, focusing on the dilemmatic rhetorical constructions regarding AI governance, human rights, and migration management. The analysis highlights that while the Act positions AI misuse as a primary threat to fundamental rights, it simultaneously frames migrants and refugees as high-risk subjects, legitimising AI applications within border control and migration governance and reproducing a discursive ideological dilemma. As a result, the Act employs securitisation rhetoric within rights-based governance frameworks, authorising algorithmic interventions that disproportionately target marginalised populations. The findings contribute to critical debates on AI governance by highlighting how risk-based regulatory frameworks function as instruments of power, reproducing existing sociopolitical asymmetries under the guise of harm prevention and ethical oversight within digital governance.

In recent years the EU has become increasingly restrictive in its regulation of irregular migration flows despite its outward sustained discourse of safeguarding human lives and the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. As part of this restrictive strategy, the EU has invested heavily in the securitisation and the management of migration through the externalisation of its borders. The EU-Turkey Deal struck in 2016 paved the way for further agreements with third countries with poor gender equality and human rights records, such as Libya and Tunisia. This externalisation of migration constitutes an important feature of the New Pact on Migration and Asylum adopted in 2023 with the aim of establishing a common asylum process at EU level. Asylum seekers, particularly girls and women are placed at added risk from these restrictive policies and policies of externalisation, as apart from dangers faced by all asylum seekers, they are at increased risk of human trafficking, sexual abuse and exploitation, and others forms of gender-based violence. Despite offering a short-sighted measure to a complex problem and the adverse humanitarian repercussions and gross human rights violations, particularly on female refugees and asylum seekers, such deals and pacts constitute an integral aspect of the EU's strategic agenda of managing migration through the externalisation of its borders. The article proposes a number of alternative solution-oriented measures which safeguard fundamental human rights and freedoms, in particular the right to asylum for refugee women and girls.

Traditionally, fundamental human rights have occupied an important place in labor law. The ILO constitution of 1919 focuses, for example, on the right of freedom of association. Subsequent ILO documents stress other fundamental rights such as the right to non-discrimination in the field of labor. The fundamental rights of the worker did begin to get some attention in the EU too, especially in non-binding documents such as the Community Charter of the Rights of the Worker from 1989. Since the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon in 2009, the Charter of Fundamental Rights introduced at the summit in Nice is legally binding to the same extent as the EU Treaty itself. The Charter includes fundamental rights in the field of labor law under the heading ‘solidarity'. In this article two basic questions will be addressed. The first question will address the ‘old' issue of the clash between fundamental (labor) rights and the four economic freedoms of the EU, which are seen by the ECJ as of fundamental nature as well. Since the seminal cases of Viking and Laval, a lot has been written about this theme by both European and labor lawyers. I will not revisit the literature that has been written about these cases, but the more dogmatic issue of a (potential) clash between the four economic freedoms and the fundamental rights is still in need of clarification. The second question is whether the fundamental human rights will get a more important place in the case law of the European Court of Justice now that the Charter of Fundamental Rights is of binding character, or, will there be just a continuation of the already developed relationship between fundamental freedoms and rights or between two different kind of fundamental human rights? I will focus here on case law in the field of labor law. The article will finish with a plea for a proportionality test ‘light' in order to limit the interference of EU law with the essence of fundamental rights.

This paper analyses Mexico’s governance of migration and its geopolitical moral dilemma: an enthusiastic champion for migrants’ human rights in the international sphere and a tough migration control enforcer. I consider this seemingly ambivalent and contradictory approach through the lens of euphemisms and dysphemisms, more specifically by analysing the use of euphemistic rhetoric and dysphemistic practices in the governance of migration. Through document analysis, I examine Mexico’s use of euphemistic rhetoric in its role as migration control enforcer, as well as in its positioning in the relation to the Global Compact on Migration. Drawing on the experiences of irregularised migrants in Mexico and information obtained though Freedom of Information Requests, I analyse three dysphemistic practices in migration management: (i) bureaucratic negligence, (ii) precarious infrastructure, and (iii) spatial fixation and waiting. The Mexican case illustrates the discrepancy between discourse and practice in migration management and is an example of the ambivalences of global migration governance, which instrumentalises euphemistic rhetoric while promoting and tolerating dysphemistic practices.

The article draws attention to the fact that international protection of rights during armed conflicts plays an important role, and it must be effective for its implementation in countries in armed conflicts Regardless of its nature, whether international or non-international armed conflict, it threatens the realisation of most fundamental human rights and freedoms, including the most important natural human right - the right to life. The author examines the problems of international protection of human and civil rights in armed conflicts, the history of international campaigns to protect human rights in various paramilitary attacks, and the new international policy on human rights protection during the Russian-Ukrainian war. The purpose of the article is to analyse the international protection of human rights in the context of historical challenges and current armed conflicts, highlighting key issues, aspects and possible ways to improve existing legislation and practice. Case studies will also be considered to better understand the dynamics of human rights protection during armed conflicts and the role of international organisations in this process. The article concludes that international norms and treaties aimed at protecting human rights remain relevant and effective even in the most difficult conditions, such as armed conflicts. International human rights law, in particular, as defined by specific instruments, provides the necessary framework for the protection of fundamental rights and dignity of people even during hostilities. It is noted that it is important that the international bodies responsible for the implementation and enforcement of these norms confirm the inalienability of human rights protection in conflict situations. The condemnation of war crimes, genocide and violations of international humanitarian law indicates that the international community recognises the importance of protecting fundamental rights during war. It is emphasised that even in exceptional situations, when states take measures to derogate from their obligations due to the threat to the life of the nation, the preservation and protection of human rights remains a central task of the international community. It is important to continue to improve the mechanisms and instruments of international law aimed at ensuring the effective protection of human rights in time of war, thereby contributing to stability, justice and human security in the world.

The objective of this article is to describe the development of the perception of human rights’ issues pertaining to the field of labour law under the new jurisdiction and legal order created by the European Communities. The progress in the human rights area shall be illustrated by changing approaches of the European Court of Justice and Member States and of course by the greater awareness of the citizens of the “ever closer Union” of their fundamental rights. The gist of the work tackles the most interesting labour law cases which the European Court of Justice was deciding and which are sometimes of trailblazer character. This article commences by a necessary introduction of human rights protection in the context of labour law. It further briefly tackles the development of the European Court of Justice’ case law regarding human rights’ aspects generally. It also describes various instruments of the other EC institutions tackling the controversial subject of human rights, up to the most recent document, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the Europe’s Constitution. The principal part of this article concentrates on social human rights case law and outlines some of the basic general principles that the European Court of Justice employed when deciding such cases. However, it was never the aim of this paper to provide a complete list of Community fundamental social rights in the field of labour law as the author is well aware of the fact that such task would require much more elaborate analysis of this topic. Quite contrarily, the purpose of this article is to highlight labour law aspects connected with the judicial protection of fundamental rights of employees within the framework of the European Union and to enable a more clearer insight into some of the key judgments in this area. The final part reflects protection of fundamental social rights of employees provided by the Community in the Czech legal order. The article was written with the ultimate purpose of illustrating that fundamental social rights of employees are bound to enjoy more and more respect and the values comprised in some of the cases of the European Court of Justice and certain key Community instruments such as the Charter, are to become a necessary part of the foundations of the future European integration.

This dissertation yields insights into two rather recent, quickly expanding, and closely related research areas: the role of municipalities in the reception and integration of forced migrants, and the rise and proliferation of human rights cities. It comprises of five stand-alone and at the same time interrelated treatises that highlight the way local authorities in Greece and Italy contributed to the protection and fulfilment of forced migrants’ fundamental rights amidst and after 2015’s ‘long summer of migration’. It presents the results of an interdisciplinary desk and empirical research, which integrates conceptual and theoretical insights from migration and refugee studies, international human rights law, leadership studies, local government studies, urban policy-making, and crisis management literature. 
\n
\nOverall, the dissertation highlights municipal attempts to design and implement policies that facilitate the short-term reception and long-term integration of forced migrants into local communities in a human rights-conforming way. Several aspects stand out: 
\n
\na) the reasons that prompt local authorities to engage in migration governance matters that fall outside their institutional mandate (e.g. local pragmatism, opportunities for local development);
\nb) the protagonists behind instances of municipal policy activism in the reception and integration of forced migrants (mayors, municipal officials);
\nc) the strategies that local authorities apply to strengthen the protection of forced migrants’ human rights on the ground (e.g., collaboration with civil society, international organisations);
\nd) the motives behind local authorities’ engagement with human rights as law, practice, and discourse in the field of migration governance (e.g., political conflicts with higher levels of government). 
\n
\nThe findings demonstrate that local authorities, even when situated within very restrictive institutional and financial contexts, have significant potential to directly influence the on-the-ground governance of forced migration. A good example in this respect is the ‘against-all-odds’ municipal policy activism of the Thessaloniki in Greece. In addition, the findings highlight the relevance of mayoral leadership to improving forced migrants' reception conditions and strengthening the protection of their fundamental rights. Lastly, the findings show that at times when legal and institutional frameworks at higher levels underdeliver, local authorities and their political leaders can step in and effectively address human rights deficits in the field of migration – as in the case of the Italian city of Bologna. 
\n
\nIn conclusion, the dissertation offers several lessons for local-level politicians and practitioners, which can assist them in overcoming structural constraints and developing human rights-based strategies for the reception and integration of forced migrants. Among these are: the proactive use of discretion on behalf of mayors in the field of migration governance; broad coalition-building with like-minded partners, locally and transnationally, to access know-how and external funding; and the timely institutionalisation of project-based initiatives.

The main use of plasma has evolved into market-driven plasma-derived medicinal products (PDMPs), but it still requires donors. Availability of PDMPs in access to care is often considered restrictively, in terms of volumes of plasma required for production and whether or not to remunerate donors. Unfortunately, this leads to an inability to meet today's challenges, both in terms of patient access to treatment and donor protection. Here we review how the current challenges can be held under two major human fundamental rights and their associated ethical principles: the right to health protection and the right to human dignity. Our research shows how advantageous it could be to reposition the fundamental right to health protection as an input parameter for decisions on the transfusion and plasma supply chain, as this would enable reconciliation of both patient access to these therapies and the protection of donors. This objective means that actions must be prioritized on parameters that do not impact human rights so that the plasma donated is fully exploited and the donors adequately protected. Decisions could be made within the remit of human rights, and finally go over the opposition between access to care and donor health protection. As PDMPs have created a kind of international human interdependence, it is our responsibility to place both patients and donors under the umbrella of fundamental human rights, to act not as if a choice has to be made between the two, but in ways that protect them both.

Abstract: Regarding the conceptual and terminological delimitation related to Fundamental Rights and Human Rights, there are different interpretations within the legal field. Where in this tuning fork does one observe the problem situation of what would be the effects of the conceptual and terminological differentiation that encompass Fundamental and Human Rights? In this sense, this article aims to outline the complexity that involves the concepts and characteristics of Fundamental and Human Rights in the legal area and their understanding based on scientific arguments, since this issue is far from having a uniform understanding regarding this issue. theme. Likewise, in the methodology of this article, the logical-deductive method will be used, with a basis and fulcrum in the bibliographic review on the aforementioned topic. Furthermore, it is argued that the main conclusions of this article show that the expressions Fundamental and Human Rights are more similar, and a link of differentiation between their positions is evident, as Fundamental Rights are described and stated in the Federal Constitution. Human Rights are intertwined with the freedom and equality that are established in the international order, where the content of the two is essentially the same, what differs between them is the level in which they are enshrined within the norms and/or laws. The idea is to establish that Fundamental Rights have a relationship with positive law and Human Rights are intertwined with pre-positive law. Keywords: Delimitation. Conceptual. Terminological. Rights. Fundamentals. Humans.

Problem setting. For many years, in Ukraine, as in many other countries, standard labour relations prevailed in the field of labour and employment, characterised by stability and duration, subordination and control of the employee to the employer, as well as the availability of social guarantees for employees. However, socio-economic changes, globalisation, the post-industrial revolution, and the development of information technologies that allow the use of labour, in particular, through digital platforms, have led to the formation and spread of non-standard labour relations characterised by instability and the lack of an adequate level of labour guarantees and working conditions, primarily in the areas of remuneration, working hours and rest periods, occupational safety and health, etc. analysis of recent researches and publications. In their studies, labour scholars have drawn attention to the need to consolidate non-standard forms of employment in Ukraine and to comprehensively reform labour legislation: S.V. Venediktov, S.V. Vyshnovetska, L.P. Garashchenko, V.P. Kokhan, Y.I. Svichkariova, O.G. Sereda, Y.V. Simutina, M.M. Shumylo, A.M.Yushko and others. In recent years, several monographic studies have been published on the problems of reforming and improving labour legislation with due regard to the need to ensure proper protection of social and labour rights in the realities of the digital era. At the same time, little or no attention has been paid to the challenges posed by the spread of such employment to the implementation and protection of fundamental labour rights proclaimed by the International Labour Organization, including freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; the effective abolition of child labour; the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and a safe and healthy working environment. Purpose of the research is to identify and characterise the challenges and threats of non-standard employment through the prism of basic principles and rights at work that are part of universally recognised human rights. article’s main body. Despite the fact that most of the attention in the world today is probably paid to the issues of access to labour rights and guarantees for so-called gig workers engaged in online platforms, who often face the inability to enjoy these rights, the problems of implementing internationally recognised fundamental labour rights go far beyond platform employment and extend to a much wider area of work that does not fall under the category of standard indefinite full-time employment. For example, in cases of concluding an employment contract with non-fixed working hours, the probability of employees’ “voluntary” refusal to exercise their fundamental rights and respond to possible abuses by the employer is very high and significantly increases the employer’s managerial powers. One of the most acute challenges of the digitalisation of the economy in Ukraine is the development of an adequate mechanism for the exercise by precarious workers, primarily those who work through online platforms, of one of their fundamental rights – the right to associate for the collective protection of their socio-economic interests. conclusions and prospects for the development. The development of the digital economy and the rise of nonstandard employment have led to a broad debate on the scope of labour law, while little attention has been paid to a comprehensive understanding of how these forms of employment affect the enjoyment of fundamental principles and rights at work. Yet, such an understanding is extremely necessary in view of the international community’s recognition of fundamental labour rights as human rights. Non-standard employment, especially when combined with precariousness or precariousness, can make it difficult or even impossible to ensure and implement fundamental ILO principles and rights at work, including freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining; effective prohibition of child labour; nondiscrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and a safe and healthy working environment. In view of this, proper enforcement of these rights as human rights requires systemic actions by governments and businesses aimed at both limiting the use of non-standard employment and further improving the mechanisms for the implementation and protection of labour rights regardless of employment status.

It is noted that digitalization has significantly transformed not only everyday practices and the structure of social relations but also posed a demand for public authorities to implement corresponding changes in the mechanisms of governance and regulation of interactions among members of society. Despite the growing relevance of human rights issues in the digital environment, the institution of human rights has not lost its fundamental role and continues to be a key element of the legal system. The article analyzes modern approaches in legal literature regarding the evolution of key concepts of information law, human rights to access information, trends in legal regulation of information, protection of information rights and information security. An important milestone in the development of the institution of human rights is the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, where for the first time in history, fundamental human rights and freedoms were comprehensively enshrined, taking into account the natural, political and social needs and interests of the individual (Individual). It was with the adoption of this document that it was declared that a person, his fundamental rights and freedoms are the main value. The world community sought to cover all possible spheres of social relations (public and private) that a person needs for normal life, enshrining fundamental rights and freedoms. The significance of this international legal act for the «human family» and each individual cannot be denied, but at the same time it can be stated that, adopted three quarters of a century ago, this document does not fully reflect the reality of the present, does not take into account the dynamics of the development of social relations, in particular, does not define human rights in the emerging information society, in the digital space. After all, even the approach to individualization and identification of the person himself is changing, digital profiles of citizens appear, digital passports and other documents are issued, moreover, «cyber people» appear – individuals with implanted subcutaneous microchips (capsules) with NFC (Near Field Communication) technologies, containing information, in particular, about personal and banking data.

For centuries, the protection of fundamental human rights has been part of the historical conceptual and constitutional legacy of the peoples on both sides of the Atlantic. Great thinkers from all nations have contributed towards the generation of human and fundamental rights. Nowadays these rights (or at least their substance) are universally recognised, beyond the continents of Europe and America. Virtually all the UN nations recognise them at least verbally. The fact that they are not put into effect, let alone observed, everywhere, does not alter their claim to validity. Practice and theory operate at different speeds, and politics carries the duty to change this.^ The academic world is only able to send out reminders and to encourage progress. The General Assembly of the UN adopted a "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" on 10 December 1948. Following on from the origin of their spiritual forefathers, it was rooted in the European and American declarations of human rights, and embodied human dignity, protection of personality, individual rights to freedom, equality under the law, basic judicial rights and rights to political codetermination. However, these traditional rights were extended to include more recent legal rights, which had become manifestly threatened through experiences in the Thirties and Forties, namely bans on torture and deportation, the right of asylum and the right to citizenship. Certain social, economic and cultural rights were also added. However, it must be noted that the Declaration has not acquired the status of a binding international legal rule, despite the fact that a minimum standard (irrespective of how this may be circumscribed), has by now become a constituent of customary international law. Further markers en route to an international Charter of Human Rights have included numerous special declarations and conventions, and in particular the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic and Social and

The European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights is a document which has attracted, in spite of its rather short history, a great interest. It is a first comprehensive bill of fundamental (human) rights adopted by the EU. On one hand, the Charter distinguishes itself from other international instruments by its original structure and large scope of declared rights, dividing into six chapters according to the underlying protected values. The Charter includes both “classic” human rights and freedoms, taken over from the European Convention of Human Rights, many “new” rights of economic and social nature, as well as the EU citizenship’s rights. On the other hand, the Charter still lacks a legally binding force. This should change by way of incorporation into the draft treaty establishing the constitution for Europe. Nevertheless, the Charter has some indirect effects already today. The present analysis has therefore focused rather on the scope of the Charter and the extent of the guaranteed rights. The main restriction arises from the fact that the Charter’s provisions are addressed to the institutions and bodies of the Union with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity, and to the Member States only when they are implementing Union law. From the point of view of the scope of beneficiaries, the Charter makes difference between the rights of everyone (all persons), the rights of EU citizens and the rights of nationals of the third states. The Charter also provides for the scope ratione materiae of fundamental rights to the effect that nothing in the Charter shall be construed as limiting or derogating from the human rights and fundamental freedoms recognized by the EU law, international agreements (in particular the European Convention of Human Rights) and by the constitutions of the Member States. A diverse nature of rights in the Charter has as a consequence that some of them Jack direct effect and may be applied only within the framework of EC/EU legislation or national law. Implementation of the Charter can be done first of all by judicial way, which would need a solution of concurrent relations between the ECJ and the ECHR. Another way of control consists of monitoring the policy of the Member States, ensured by reports of the EU Network of Independent Experts in Fundamental Rights.