Refine
Year of publication
Document Type
- Article (1469)
- Part of a Book (924)
- Working Paper (691)
- Editorship book (178)
- Contribution to a Periodical (176)
- Book (139)
- Doctoral Thesis (101)
- Review (45)
- Conference Proceeding (33)
- Case Study (16)
Language
- English (2965)
- German (774)
- French (48)
- Spanish (26)
- Other (11)
- Italian (7)
- Dutch (2)
- Multiple languages (1)
- Portuguese (1)
- Russian (1)
Keywords
- Centre for Sustainability (25)
- Germany (24)
- - (20)
- Centre for Fundamental Rights (18)
- China (16)
- Social entrepreneurship (13)
- European Union (12)
- Fertility (12)
- Außenpolitik (10)
- social innovation (10)
This paper provides an overview of the actual and likely labour market transformations caused by increasing use of Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies across the advanced economies, with a special focus on Germany. The scholarly debates on these issues mainly revolve around the impact of AI on the number and structure of jobs, and around AI-enabled management tools’ perpetuation and aggravation of work-related inequalities and discrimination. The study starts with a brief background of AI as a technology, with a focus on its definition, subfields, capabilities, and history. Following this, it reviews the discussions on the implications of AI use in the world of work and its ethical and political repercussions and continues with a summary of AI use and its impacts in German labour markets. It then discusses the current gaps in the relevant scholarly literature and identifies numerous opportunities for further research.
The investigation concludes by addressing two far-reaching implications of increasing utilisation of AI-enabled tools in labour markets. First, in the case that the current trends remain unchanged, the AI-driven future of work is likely to perpetuate and aggravate work-related inequalities and discrimination, diminishing further the prospects of decent work, fair remuneration and adequate social protection for all. Second, predictions provided by current studies only point out one possibility amongst many. Thus, we still have choices as to the advancement, adoption, and utilisation of workplace AI technologies in a way that brings benefit to all.
Digital automation has pervaded many areas of our daily activities, with serious repercussions for social, economic and political systems. Automation’s ever-enhancing capability to transform human lives has spawned a wide body of scholarly research, with inputs from social and economic sciences, engineering and technology. This paper1 provides a brief overview of the main arguments put forward by the researchers, particularly in labour economics, on the subject of digital automation, with a special focus on Germany. Such debates revolve around the impact of automation on the number of jobs performed by human labour and the restructuring of labour markets under the influence of automation. The overview starts with a short discussion about the meaning of digital automation. It then outlines the debates of how technology distributes work between humans and machines from the viewpoint of skill-biased technological change and routine-biased technological change research. This is followed by a summary of the way digital technologies have been restructuring the world of work.
The overview concludes by pointing out research gaps that are particularly relevant in the German context. It emphasizes that a new research agenda should incorporate the role of existing education and training regimes (VET), in particular in light of employment polarisation and the shrinking employment segment of jobs with mid-level pay and skills. Moreover, there is a lack of research that considers the insights of industrial sociology with regard to the renegotiation of work organisation in the process of automation. In particular, the role of institutional factors, such as workers’ representatives, in the form of trade unions or works councils, has largely been neglected by studies on labour economics. Finally, there should be more attention paid to the differentiated effects of automation on specific socio-economic groups, such as women and men, but also between different generations.
The COVID-19 pandemic not only ravaged human bodies but also had profound and possibly enduring effects on the health of political and legal systems, economies and societies. Almost overnight, governments imposed the severest restrictions in modern times on rights and freedoms, elections, parliaments and courts. Legal and political institutions struggled to adapt, creating a catalyst for democratic decline and catastrophic increases in poverty and inequality.
This handbook analyses the global pandemic response through five themes: governance and democracy; human rights; the rule of law; science, public trust and decision making; and states of emergency and exception. Containing 12 thematic commentaries and 25 chapters on countries of diverse size, wealth and experience of COVID-19, it represents the combined effort of more than 50 contributors, including leading scholars and rising voices in the fields of constitutional, international, public health, human rights and comparative law, as well as political science, and science and technology studies.
Taking stock after the onset of global emergency, this book provides essential analysis for politicians, policy-makers, jurists, civil society organisations, academics, students and practitioners at both national and international level on the best, and most concerning, practices adopted in response to COVID-19 - and key insights into how states and multilateral institutions should reform, adapt and prepare for future emergencies.
The asserted doctrine of unilateral humanitarian intervention has given rise to considerable debate in international law. This article revisits the use of force in Kosovo to critically appraise this debate. The arguments for and against the doctrine are schematically compared and contrasted. Their differences are methodological, but underlying factors are relevant. These may include a conflict of values (notably, sovereignty versus human rights), but certainly involve deep disciplinary problems evidenced by confusing international legal terminology and, especially, the contradictions inherent in identifying and changing rules of general/customary international law. Three factors are considered as potentially helpful in bridging these fault lines: state practice (unavoidably), the stability of the international system and accountability. The latter two, at least, sit uncomfortably with unilateralism.
The United Nations human rights treaties fulfil a central function in the global human rights promotion and protection system. By voluntarily acceding to those treaties, States bind themselves into a comprehensive framework of human rights obligations. Then, working in dialogue and cooperation with the Treaty Bodies set up to monitor and promote compliance with the treaties, States take steps over time to bring national laws, processes and practices into line with universal norms. However, when acceding to international human rights treaties,States often enter 'reservations' that limit, either generally or partially, the scope of application of the treaty in domestic law. So, for example, a State may make a general reservation to only accept obligations under a treaty insofar as those obligations are compatible with the tenets of a given religion; or may make a partial reservation to limit the application of a certain article
of a convention. These reservations have a significant negative impact on the on-the-ground enjoyment of human rights. If a State does not consider itself fully bound by a treaty to which it is Party, or does not consider itself bound by a certain article(s) of that treaty,then it is unlikely to take the necessary steps, at domestic level,to fully respect, protect or promote the right(s) in question. Between 2014-2016, the Universal Rights Group (URG) led a major international project to map all reservations to the core human rights conventions, and to better understand the extent and nature of these key checks on the universality of human rights. As part of the project, the URG was particularly interested in identifying and analysing reservations that are - or appear to be - motivated by doubts, on the part of the reserving State,as to the compatibility of the treaty in question with certain religious or belief systems. URG's analysis found that questions over compatibility of treaties or treaty provisions with religious belief, doctrine or dogma,are by far the most frequent reason, justification or basis for States' decisions to enter reservations to the UN human rights treaties. Indeed, religion-based or religion-influenced reservations account for over 40% of all reservations to the core international human rights treaties.
This article introduces the Comparative Regional Human Rights Regimes Symposium which marks a first attempt at a regime-level comparative analysis of the three main regional human rights courts and commissions. It does so with the aim of laying out why regime level comparative analysis matters and why access, interpretation and remedies offer core markers of a comparative research agenda. The article identifies three distinct contributions that regional comparison makes to comparative international human rights law. First, it allows us to go beyond the binary form that is prevalent in comparative human rights law scholarship that most often juxtaposes (selected elements of) the European and Inter-American human rights regimes, and less frequently the African-Inter-American, or African-European human rights regimes. Second, a comparative research agenda goes beyond existing scholarship on regional comparison that has been largely descriptive in character. Taking a holistic approach to regional human rights regimes, comparisons can be made over time and dynamics of divergences and convergences can be identified and explained. Third, a comparative research agenda allows us to locate regional human rights regimes as part of a more general global evolution of law and institutions. That is, through comparison, we are better placed to evaluate how regional human rights courts and commissions are inscribed in a broader development of regional and international law since the aftermath of World War II.
This article offers an empirically grounded interpretivist theory of the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights based on domestic judicial and political elite accounts of the legitimacy of the Court in Turkey, Bulgaria, United Kingdom, Ireland and Germany. The central argument of the article is that the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is based on a constant comparison between the values and goals of domestic institutions and the values and goals of the European Court of Human Rights. More specifically, the social legitimacy of the European Court of Human Rights is grounded in the logic of a fair compromise: What actors think they lose by according legitimacy to the European Court of Human Rights must be balanced by what they perceive to gain in return. Three factors organise how actors in different domestic settings struck a fair compromise in their domestic contexts: a) perception of domestic human rights conditions, b) commitment to cosmopolitan ideals of human rights and international law and c) commitment to domestic institutions.