No abstract

This article takes a critical look at Machine Translation of legal text, especially global legislation, through the discussion of Global-Regulation, a state of the art online search engine of the world's legislation in English. Part 1 explains the rationale for an online platform such as Global-Regulation. Part 2 provides a brief account of the history of the development of machine translation, and it describes some of the limits of the use of statistical machine translation for translating legal texts. Part 3 describes Neural Machine Translation (NMT), which is a new generation of machine translation systems Finally, Parts 4 outline the "big sky" thoughts on future directions for Global-Regulation.

No abstract

On 30 June 2016, the European Court of Human Rights (hereafter 'European Court') decided that a binational same-sex couple was discriminated against because they were not allowed to marry; and at the same time, they were unable to live in Italy as a couple. For nearly one decade, human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have submitted third-party interventions asking the European Court to recognize that unmarried same-sex couples should be treated differently from unmarried different sex couples when the first have no possibility of marrying. This article argues that the European Court has finally accepted what the NGOs have suggested since 2007, and that the decision in Taddeucci and McCall v. Italy signals a positive step forward from the 'analogous situation' doctrine towards recognizing indirect discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation for same-sex couples.

Laws and policies have an important role in shaping the discourse around sexuality and gender, and ultimately the media coverage on laws and policies dealing with sexual orientation and gender identity issues has an impact upon the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people. In many circumstances, LGBT people can benefit from more visibility in society. However, it has also been noted that the public understanding of sexuality and gender—also driven by the “media sensationalism” on the topic—can produce backlashes, especially from conservative/religious persons and political leaders. This entry discusses the point that media coverage can either hinder or facilitate LGBT people's human rights protection. For the benefit of LGBT communities, there is the need to further discuss how media covers legal and political discourse on LGBT people's human rights, and what consequences this media discourse has in the lives of LGBT people.