Existing approaches to ‘algorithmic accountability’, such as transparency, provide an important baseline, but are insufficient to address the (potential) harm to human rights caused by the use of algorithms in decision-making. In order to effectively address the impact on human rights, we argue that a framework that sets out a shared understanding and means of assessing harm; is capable of dealing with multiple actors and different forms of responsibility; and applies across the full algorithmic life cycle, from conception to deployment, is needed. While generally overlooked in debates on algorithmic accountability, in this article, we suggest that international human rights law already provides this framework. We apply this framework to illustrate the effect it has on the choices to employ algorithms in decision-making in the first place and the safeguards required. While our analysis indicates that in some circumstances, the use of algorithms may be restricted, we argue that these findings are not ‘anti-innovation’ but rather appropriate checks and balances to ensure that algorithms contribute to society, while safeguarding against risks.
Transitional states have elected divergent strategies in dealing with their pasts. Some have opted not to confront the past at all by invoking general amnesty laws, whereas others have determined that some form of accountability is needed. Postapartheid South Africa presents a novel illustration of the attempts of a transitional state to balance the legal, political, practical, and cultural interests of its society as it moves toward the democratic ideal. In this vein, the purpose of this paper is twofold: first, to examine whether individual amnesty was the optimal method of accountability for South Africa to deal with its past; and second, to analyze the extent to which the Amnesty Committee has succeeded in its application of the individual-amnesty provisions and the effects of those efforts.
The question of whether the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment extends to the acts of non-state actors continues to reflect a contentious issue in international human rights law. Through one of the most recent and under-analyzed manifestations of the debate, this article explores the extent to which the prohibition applies to trafficking in human beings. In doing so, it provides an analysis of the inherent limitations of the prohibition as applied to the acts of nonstate actors, as well as suggesting possibilities for extension of the scope of the prohibition through the principle of due diligence. By defining the parameters in this way, this article submits that victims will receive more concrete protection, as opposed to assertions that trafficking constitutes torture on the basis of the severity of the act and attraction to the special stigma of the label alone. I.
The question of whether the prohibition of torture and other ill-treatment extends to the acts of non-state actors continues to reflect a contentious issue in international human rights law. Through one of the most recent and under-analyzed manifestations of the debate, this article explores the extent to which the prohibition applies to trafficking in human beings. In doing so, it provides an analysis of the inherent limitations of the prohibition as applied to the acts of non-state actors, as well as suggesting possibilities for extension of the scope of the prohibition through the principle of due diligence. By defining the parameters in this way, this article submits that victims will receive more concrete protection, as opposed to assertions that trafficking constitutes torture on the basis of the severity of the act and attraction to the special stigma of the label alone.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.