Suchergebnisse

Abstract. The article aims to explore the public's fear of data being misused when using European Covid-19 contact-tracing applications. The point of departure lies in considering the research question of whether the Covid-19 pandemic has influenced the platformisation of traditional institutions, i.e., whether the design of Europe's proximity-tracing applications mimic the dataintensive web services of commercial platforms, namely commercial APIs and their data policies, in order to bypass the right to privacy. We accordingly argue that is vital to address the public's fears of governmental and corporate dataveillance as well as data misuse while using such apps. The investigation entails of a critical analysis of the Exposure Notification System framework designed by Apple and Google (or GAEN) and the #OstaniZdrav application. The article rejects the justification of the public's fear of governmental dataveillance, while recognising the possibility of corporate data misuse. Keywords: Covid-19 contact-tracing application, right to privacy, GDPR, API, protocol, metadata, dataveillance

Abstract. The article addresses the question of the role of the state in the protection of human rights and freedoms. Like states, rights and freedoms are also created on the basis of social conventions, and any reference to the universal nature or natural character of rights and freedoms is only an ideological moment in the pursuit of political goals. The basic prerequisite for the protection of rights and freedoms is the establishment of organised coercion in the form of state power which brings under its authority the multitude of different interests and diverse ways of implementing justice. The conclusive findings show that for its successful introduction into the lives of individuals, the moral discourse of universal human rights and freedoms needs effective state authority that embeds these rights and freedoms into the foundations of the legitimacy of its own existence. Keywords: Constitutionalism, the state, human rights and freedoms, Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes

This article addresses the deficiency in the area of human rights scholarship in International Relations (IR) by examining the theoretical advancements in IR theory that have led to the emergence of non-state collective actors as a pertinent research topic. It provides a review of the trajectory of the constructivist theoretical approach, which has brought major advancements in how international non-state actors are conceptualised in the human rights IR literature. This considers the limitations and implications of side-lining collective non-state actors within IR theory, arguing that expanding the theoretical understanding of how different collective actors are constituted and attributed with agency can enrich IR human rights scholarship. The article also proposes a potential way forward with respect to non-state collective actors in human rights in IR by identifying a research programme based on practiceoriented approaches to help broaden the ability of scholars to foster interdisciplinary conversations. Expanding along these lines would bridge the existing boundaries within scholarly and disciplinary contexts. Keywords: non-state actors, state-centrism, collectives, international relations, human rights, international actors, constructivism

Abstract. The aim of this article to identify and highlight limitations and challenges of the legal regulation of the use of facial recognition technology for surveillance purposes. The UN and the EU are seeking to develop robust human rights safeguards to regulate such practices, whereas civil society calls for a complete ban on it use for mass surveillance. The type of this technology makes it difficult to impose legal and democratic control over its lawful use and to prevent abuse. We conclude that the regulation of this area, no matter how restrictive, amounts to tacit approval of the mass use of this type of technology that opens the door to various ways of abusing human rights and freedoms, and whose justification from the perspective of the public interest is questionable.
Keywords: video surveillance, facial recognition technology, right to privacy, protection of personal data, Clearview AI

Magistrsko diplomsko delo z naslovom Glavna obravnava v upravnem sporu kot človekova pravica celovito obravnava vprašanje (ne)izvedbe glavne obravnave v upravnem sporu. Mednarodni in slovenski predpisi predvidevajo javne sodne postopke z neposrednim ustnim obravnavanjem zadev. Prvi odstavek 6. člena Evropske konvencije o varstvu človekovih pravic in temeljnih svoboščin določa, da je javna obravnava sestavni del pravice do poštenega sojenja. Ustava Republike Slovenije posredno ureja glavno obravnavo v upravnem sporu, in sicer zlasti v 22. členu (enako varstvo pravic), 23. členu (pravica do sodnega varstva) in 24. členu (javnost sojenja). Glavno obravnavo kot zakonsko materijo podrobneje urejajo določbe Zakona o upravnem sporu in Zakona o pravdnem postopku. Izhajajoč iz ugotovitev Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice, Ustavnega sodišča Republike Slovenije in Vrhovnega sodišča Republike Slovenije v magistrskem diplomskem delu zagovarjam dosledno izvedbo glavne obravnave, predvsem v primeru spornega dejanskega stanja in ko stranka njeno izvedbo izrecno zahteva. Vrhovno sodišče Republike Slovenije in Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije sta v novejši sodni praksi zavzela enotno stališče, da ima glavna obravnava v upravnem sporu enako naravo in smisel kot glavna obravnava v katerem koli drugem sodnem postopku. Ustavno sodišče Republike Slovenije je pravico do glavne obravnave v upravnem sporu opredelilo kot samostojno človekovo pravico, ki jo zagotavlja 22. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije. Pravica ni absolutna, zato morajo biti posegi vanjo zakonsko določeni ter prestati ustavna testa legitimnosti (tretji odstavek 15. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije) in sorazmernosti (2. člen Ustave Republike Slovenije). ; The master's thesis titled The main hearing in an administrative dispute as a human right comprehensively deals with issues regarding decision-making in an administrative dispute. International and Slovenian legal acts envisage public legal procedures with direct oral proceedings. The right to an oral hearing is an integral part of the right to a fair trial, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia indirectly regulates the right to a main hearing in an administrative dispute, especially in Article 22 (Equal Protection of Rights), Article 23 (Right to Judicial Protection) and Article 24 (Public Nature of Court Proceedings). The right to a main hearing is specified in the Administrative Dispute Act and the Contentious Civil Procedure Act. Building on the findings of the European Court of Human Rights, the Constitutional and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia, the master's thesis advocates for the consistent execution of the main hearing, particularly in cases where facts are being disputed and when a party explicitly demands it. The Constitutional and the Supreme Court of the Republic of Slovenia agreed that the main hearing possesses the same nature and meaning in an administrative dispute as it does in any other judicial proceeding. The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia has declared the right to a main hearing in an administrative dispute as an independent human right, which is guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. As the right is not absolute, the absence of the main hearing is only permissible in duly justified cases prescribed by law and when the Constitutional tests of legitimacy (paragraph 3 of Article 15 of the Constitution) and proportionality (Article 2 of the Constitution) are passed.

POVZETEK MEDNARODNI KAZENSKI PREGON IN ČLOVEKOVE PRAVICE TUJIH TERORISTIČNIH BORCEV Avtor: Rok Petročnik Mentorica: izr. prof. dr. Vasilka Sancin V magistrski nalogi sem raziskoval nastanek fenomena tujega terorističnega borca, njihov mednarodni kazenski pregon in kršitve njihovih temeljnih človekovih pravic v domačih kazenskih pregonih. Varnostni svet OZN je leta 2014 na podlagi VII. poglavja Ustanovne listine OZN sprejel Resolucijo 2178, ki podaja opis tujega terorističnega borca, vendar ne loči med oboroženimi spopadi in terorizmom. Resolucija 2178 opisuje tujega terorističnega borca kot posameznika, ki potuje v tujino z namenom izvedbe ali sodelovanja v terorističnem napadu, medtem ko je tuji borec posameznik, ki odpotuje v tujino z namenom pridružitve oboroženim spopadom. V raziskavi sem prišel do sklepa, da trenutno ne obstaja mednarodni kazenski pregon tujih terorističnih borcev, saj pregon izvajajo države same pred nacionalnimi sodišči. Varnostni svet OZN je pregon tujih terorističnih borcev preložil na države članice OZN, in sicer z vzpostavitvijo različnih odborov za nadzor izvajanja sankcij Varnostnega Sveta, kot so Sankcijski odbor 1267 in Skupina za analitično podporo in nadzor sankcij. V primerih Nada, Ahmed in Abdelrazik so nacionalna sodišča zaradi kršitev temeljnih človekovih pravic s sodbami razveljavila državne upravne akte, ki so vpeljevali sprejete protiteroristične resolucije Varnostnega sveta. Podobno je naredilo sodišče EU v primeru Kadi, kjer je bila razveljavljena uredba, ki je vpeljala sankcije Varnostnega sveta. Sodbe nacionalnih in sodišč v EU so bile glavni dejavnik za spremembo mednarodnopravnega okvirja terorizma OZN in za posledično večji poudarek na spoštovanju temeljnih pravic, ki jih zagotavlja Evropska konvencija o človekovih pravicah. ; ABSTRACT INTERNATIONAL PROSECUTION AND HUMAN RIGHTS OF FOREIGN TERRORIST FIGHTERS Author: Rok Petročnik Mentor: Vasilka Sancin, PhD, Professor In master's thesis i explored the emergence of the foreign terrorist fighter phenomenona, international prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters, and the violation of the fundamental rights of foreign terrorist fighters in domestic prosecutions. UN Security Council in 2014 adopted Resolution 2178 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. However, while the Resolution outlines the description of a foreign terrorist fighter, it fails to distinguish between armed conflicts and terrorism. Resolution 2178 defines foreign terrorist fighters as individuals who travel to a state other than their states of residence or nationality for the purpose of the perpetration, planning, or preparation of, or participation in, terrorist acts or the providing or receiving of terrorist training, including in connection with armed conflict, while foreign fighter is an individual who travels abroad with intention to join armed conflict. The research led to the conclusion that there is currently no international prosecution of foreign terrorist fighters because states carry it out before national courts. UN Security Council has placed the burden of prosecuting foreign terrorist fighters on UN Member States by establishing different committees monitoring the implementation of the Security Council sanctions, such as the 1267 Committee and the Analytical Support and Sanctions Monitoring Team. In the cases of Nada, Ahmed and Abdelrazik, national courts due to violations of fundamental rights, repealed national administrative acts that introduced the adopted UN Security Council counter terrorism resolutions. The Court of Justice of the EU made a similar decision in the case of Kadi by repealing the regulation introducing the UN Security Council sanctions. Judgements of national and EU courts were the main factor in changing the UN terrorism framework in terms of international law, thus shifting the focus on the respect of fundamental rights as guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights.

Sodba ESČP mora biti ustrezno implementirana na nacionalni ravni, zato bodo uporabljeni nadzorstveni mehanizmi Sveta Evrope. Ko ESČP izda zoper državo obsodilno sodbo, je posredovana Odboru ministrov, ki mu je na podlagi EKČP zaupana naloga nadzora nad izvršitvijo dokončne sodbe. Odbor ministrov ugotavlja v običajnem ali v razširjenem postopku, ali je država sprejela vse potrebne ukrepe za izvršitev naloženih obveznosti iz pravnomočne sodbe. Če je država izpolnila vse obveznosti iz sodbe, Odbor ministrov sprejme resolucijo, s katero konča nadzor. Združeno kraljestvo in Rusija sta državi, ki v zadnjih letih močno kljubujeta avtoriteti ESČP in zavračata izvršitev nekaterih sodb tega sodišča. V Rusiji so sprejeli sporni Zvezni ustavni zakon z dne 14. 12. 2015 št. 7-FKZ, ki je omogočil Ustavnemu sodišču Ruske federacije, da presoja skladnost sodb ESČP z Ustavo Ruske federacije. V primeru ugotovitve neskladnosti lahko Ustavno sodišče prepreči izvršitev sodbe ESČP. V Združenem kraljestvu že več let kljubujejo sodbi v zadevi Hirst proti ZK, tako da zavlačujejo s sprejemom zakonodajnih sprememb, ki jih je zahtevalo ESČP. Neizvrševanje sodb ima v obeh državah skupno točko – obe sta namreč ogrozili učinkovitost izvrševanja sodb ESČP ravno zaradi volilne pravice zapornikov. Kljubovanje ESČP je v Združenem kraljestvu ostalo na politični ravni, medtem ko je šla Rusija po drugačni poti, saj je sprejela zakonodajne spremembe prav z namenom, da ne bo izvrševala protiustavnih sodb ESČP. V Rusiji ne gre samo za razpravo o razmerju med strasbourškim sodiščem in domačimi sodišči tako kot v Združenem kraljestvu, ampak za kljubovanje države odločitvam v celoti, kar je zaskrbljujoče. Če hočejo ohraniti učinkovit sistem varstva človekovih pravic, si morajo Svet Evrope in njegove članice odločneje prizadevati za dosledno uresničevanje sodb ESČP. ; A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (abbreviated as ECtHR) must be properly implemented on a national level. For that reason, supervisory mechanisms of the Council of Europe will be used. When the ECtHR delivers a judgment against a state, it is passed on to the Committee of Ministers, which is entrusted with a task of supervising enforcement of a final judgment. The Committee of Ministers finds whether the State has taken all necessary measures to comply with obligations imposed by a final judgment. If the State has fulfilled all obligations, the Committee of Ministers shall adopt a final resolution. The UK and Russia are countries that have strongly defined authority of the ECtHR in the recent years. In several occasions, both states refused to enforce judgments. In Russia, they adopted controversial Federal Constitutional Law of 14 December 2015 no. 7-FKZ that has enabled the Constitutional Court to assess compliance of judgments of the ECtHR with the Constitution of the Russian Federation. If the Constitutional Court finds that a judgment of the ECtHR is not in compliance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation, it may prevent execution of a judgment. For many years, the UK has defied execution of a judgment in the case of Hirst v. the UK by delaying adoption of legislative changes that were required by the ECtHR. Failure to enforce judgments is a common point in both countries. In the UK, resentment against the ECtHR remains at political level. While in Russia, they implemented legislative changes with clear intention not to implement unconstitutional judgments of the ECtHR. If we want an effective system of human rights protection, we must continue to strive toward consistent implementation of judgments of the ECtHR.

Demokracija je sistem, je paradigma, ki se je brez volitev in udeležbe volivcev, že zaradi njene izvorne filozofske in družbene ideje ne da vzpostaviti in uresničiti. Ni je mogoče in tudi smelo se je ne bi vpeljati kot družbeni red kar tako, samo po sebi, kot še eno avtoritarno možnost z dejanjem avtoritarnega posameznika ali ozke skupine. Če je vzpostavljena, pa je v njenem temeljnem izhodišču, ki sloni na doslednem spoštovanju človekovih pravic, svoboščin in pravičnosti, niti ni mogoče v celoti uresničiti. Kot družbenopolitična pojavna oblika se namreč kaže kot sistem posredne ali neposredne vladavine njenega izvornega nosilca. Neposredna prihaja v konflikt z njeno dejansko uporabnostjo za vsa področja moderno strukturirane družbe, posredna se globoko in neizogibno oddaljuje od njenega bistva in smisla. Kljub temu so demokratične volitve še vedno temeljni, družbenosistemski element in pogoj za vzpostavitev demokratične družbe, zato se od tako vzpostavljenega sistema kot celote utemeljeno pričakuje, da bo volivcem in kandidatom v polni meri omogočil uresničiti njihovo ustavno in mednarodnopravno uveljavljeno volilno upravičenje in poslanstvo, druge upravičeno vpletene subjekte pa v skladu z demokratičnimi volilnimi standardi zadolžil za njihovo demokratično izvedbo, kontrolo in nadzor. Ker uresničevanje volilne pravice na volišču kot klasična oblika volitev s prihodom volivcev v »volilno urejen prostor ali stavbo« in oddajo papirnatih glasovnic v volilno skrinjo počasi, a zanesljivo izgublja svojo družbeno in politično funkcijo kot temeljni pogoj za njeno izvrševanje, je temeljna hipoteza predstavljene naloge zastavljala vprašanje, ali je tradicionalno volišče kot prostor in pravna kategorija uresničevanja ustavnega načela ljudske suverenosti in demokratične oblasti (še vedno) ustrezno zakonsko regulirano in ali zaradi novih načinov in tehnologij glasovanja ta njegova vloga postaja ustavno sporna. ; Democracy is a system, a paradigm which, due to its philosophical and social idea, cannot be established and realised without elections and voters' participation. It cannot and should not be introduced as a social system just like that, spontaneously, as another authoritarian option carried out by an authoritarian individual or a select group. However, when it is established, it cannot be fully realised in its fundamental starting point based on a consistent regard for human rights, freedoms and justice. As a socio-political phenomenon it appears as a system of direct or indirect reign of its original holder. It is directly in immediate conflict with its virtual practicability in all spheres of a modern structured society and indirectly it deeply and inevitably deviates from its essence and meaning. Nevertheless, democratic elections are still a fundamental social system element and a condition for the establishment of a democratic society. Therefore it is reasonable to expect from the established system as a whole to enable the voters and candidates to fully realize their constitutional and internationally established electoral entitlement and mission and to make it possible for the other legitimately involved subjects to be charged with their democratic implementation, control and supervision in accordance with democratic electoral standards. Since the exercise of voting rights at the polling station as a classic form of elections with the arrival of voters in an "electoral space or building" and the delivery of paper ballots in the electoral box slowly but doubtless loses its social and political function as a fundamental condition for its implementation, the fundamental hypothesis of the presented task raised the question whether the traditional polling place as a space and the legal category of the implementation of the constitutional principle of the people's sovereignty and democratic authority are (still) suitably legally regulated, or this role is becoming constitutionally controversial due to new methods and technologies of voting.

Listina o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije predstavlja osrednji dokument varstva temeljnih pravic v Evropski uniji, ki so se razvila skozi prakso Sodišča Evropske unije. Kot deklaracija je bila najprej slovesno razglašena 7. decembra 2000, pravna veljava in status primarnega prava Evropske unije pa ji je bil podeljen devet let kasneje z Lizbonsko pogodbo. Vsebina Listine o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije temelji na skupnih ustavnih tradicijah in mednarodnih obveznosti držav članic, Evropski konvenciji o varstvu človekovih pravic, socialnih listinah Evropske unije in Sveta Evrope, sodni praksi Sodišča Evropske unije ter Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice. Kljub temu pa je njena vsebina tudi inovativna in v nekaterih primerih širša. Tako je z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije, zagotovljena pravica do azila, kar predstavlja redkost v mednarodnih dokumentih varstva temeljnih pravic. V praksi jo tako Sodišče Evropske unije kot nacionalna sodišča velikokrat uporabljajo na področju migracij in azila. Sodišče Evropske unije igra pomembno vlogo pri harmonizaciji Skupnega evropskega azilnega sistema in zagotavljanju minimalnih standardov varstva pravic prosilcev za mednarodno zaščito skozi interpretacijo skladnosti določb sekundarne zakonodaje Evropske unije na področju azila in nacionalne zakonodaje z Listino o temeljnih pravicah Evropske unije. ; "Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union" represents a core bill of rights document within the European union which developed through the case law of the European Court of Justice. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union was solemnly announced on 7 December 2000 as a Declaration, only becoming legally binding nine years later with the entry into force of the Lisbon treaty, which granted it the status of primary law of the European Union. The contents within the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union is based on the constitutional traditions and international obligations common to member states, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights, Social Charters of the European union, and the Council of Europe, the case law of the European Court of Justice, and the European Court of Human Rights. However, it is also innovative and broader in some cases. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union provides a right to be granted asylum, which represents a rarity in international instruments of fundamental rights. It is often used in practice by the European Court of Justice and national courts in the field of migration and asylum. The European Court of Justice plays an important role in harmonization of the Common European Asylum System and in setting of minimum standards for protection of the rights of applicants for international protection through its interpretation in compliance of secondary legislation of the European Union and national legislation with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Demokracija je oblika oblasti, ki jo danes večina ljudi dojema kot najbližjo idealni ureditvi države, saj temelji na svobodi, enakosti in varnosti – ciljih, za katere bi si morala prizadevati sodobna družba. V uvodu, ki je hkrati prvo poglavje magistrske naloge, podajam opredelitve demokracije in ustavne demokracije na način, kot jih trenutno razumem sama. V drugem poglavju se ukvarjam z načeli in pogoji ustavne demokracije ter z ustavno demokracijo v Republiki Sloveniji. V tretjem poglavju poskušam poudariti pomen ustave. Najbolj me zanima, ali ustava kot najpomembnejši pravni in politični akt svobodo v demokratični ureditvi omejuje ali jo zagotavlja. Čeprav je demokracija nepredstavljiva brez svobode kot svojega temeljnega elementa, ta svoboda ne sme in ne more biti neomejena. Si lahko predstavljamo družbo, v kateri svoboda nima meje, v kateri ni vrhovnega zakona, na katerega bi se lahko vsak posameznik skliceval, ko njegove pravice ogroža država ali drug posameznik? Prvo ključno vprašanje, s katerim se v tem kontekstu ukvarjam, je del četrtega poglavja z naslovom »Človekove pravice in svoboščine – srž ustavne demokracije?«. V petem poglavju namenim pozornost Ustavnemu sodišču. Bistvo ustavne demokracije je Ustavno sodišče opredelilo v odločbi št. U-I-111/04 z dne 8. 7. 2004, ki jo predstavim na koncu magistrske naloge. V sklepu predstavim moj osebni pogled na politični sistem, kakšna je ustavna demokracija ter potrdim oziroma zavrnem postavljene hipoteze ; Democracy is a form of government that is perceived by most people today as the closest to the ideal form of a state, since it is based on freedom, equality and security – the goals that every modern society should aim for. The introduction of the master's thesis, which is also its first chapter, defines democracy and constitutional democracy from our point of view. The second chapter focuses on the principles and conditions of the constitutional democracy and briefly presents the constitutional democracy in the Republic of Slovenia. The third chapter tries to underline the significance of the Constitution. We were mostly interested if the Constitution as the most important legal and political act in a democratic systemrestricts or guarantees ourfreedom. Although democracy is unperceivable without freedom as its fundamental element, it must not and cannot be unlimited. Is it possible to imagine a society in which freedom is unlimited and where there is no supreme law one can refer to in case their rights are undermined by the state or another individual? The first key question that is raised in this context is part of the forth chapter, titled Human Rights and Liberties – Core of Constitutional Democracy? The fifth chapter deals with the Constitutional Court. The essence of the constitutional democracy was defined by the Constitutional Court in the U-I111/04 decree on July 8th, 2004, which is presented at the very end of our master's thesis. The conclusion encompasses our personal view of the political system, such as the constitutional democracy, and either confirms or refutes our set hypotheses.

V času begunske krize leta 2015 se je v Italiji in Grčiji razvil nov način hitrega upravljanja migracijskih tokov, t. i. pristop žariščnih točk, ki temelji na hitri identifikaciji, registraciji in odvzemu prstnih odtisov migrantov ter njihovi nadaljnji preusmeritvi v azilni postopek, postopek vračanja ali premestitve. Čeprav je bil pristop zasnovan kot začasni ukrep, ki naj bi se uporabljal, dokler se izredne razmere ne umirijo, je pristop v praksi implementiran kot trajni mehanizem identifikacije in registracije migrantov, s katerim je Evropska unija (v nadaljevanju: EU) dosegla spoštovanje obveznosti identifikacije migrantov s strani Italije in Grčije, že tako najbolj obremenjenih držav članic. Ker v postopkih identifikacije prihaja do hujših kršitev človekovih pravic, oviranja dostopa do azilnega postopka in diskriminacije na podlagi nacionalnosti, je določenim skupinam de facto odvzeta pravica do mednarodne zaščite. V postopkih vračanja prihaja do kršitev prepovedi vračanja in kolektivnih izgonov, postopki premestitve pa se v žariščnih točkah v praksi ne izvajajo. Uporaba pristopa žariščnih točk tako ni razbremenila Italije in Grčije in ni izboljšala položaja migrantov na poti v Evropo. Odprava sistemskih problemov pristopa, ki so v veliki meri posledica pomanjkanja celovite pravne ureditve in politične volje, bi zato morala zajemati pravno ureditev pristopa v enotnem dokumentu in odpravo spornih praks. Ker so izredne razmere, na katere se uporaba pristopa sklicuje, ob spremljanju političnih in socialnih trendov, v veliki meri predvidljive, bi moral biti poudarek pri izvajanju pristopa na zagotavljanju mednarodne zaščite in ne nadzoru zunanjih meja EU. ; During the refugee crisis in 2015 a new approach of swift migration management developed in Italy and Greece, the so called hotspot approach. The basis of the approach is swift identification, registration and fingerprinting of the incoming migrants for the purpose of redirecting them either to the asylum procedure, returns procedure or relocation procedure. Although designed as a temporary measure, used only until the emergency situation settles down, the approach is implemented as a permanent mechanism for identification and registration of migrants which helped the European union (hereinafter: the EU) achieve compliance from Italy and Greece, already the most burdened states, with their obligation to identify all incoming migrants. Serious human rights violations, obstruction of access to the asylum procedure and discrimination based on nationality occur during the identification process depriving certain groups of migrants of their right to asylum. Violations of the principle of non-refoulment and prohibition of collective expulsions occur during the returns procedures, while relocation procedures are not carried out in the hotspots. The use of the hotspot approach did not relieve the pressure on Italy and Greece nor improve the position of migrants coming to Europe. Systematic problems are largely the result of lack of legal framework and political will and should therefore be addressed with a unified regulation and the end of controversial practices. Since the emergency situation, on which the approach is based, can be largely predicted by observing the current social and political trends the main focus of the approach should be providing international protection instead of control of the EU external borders.

The decision by the Council of Europe to ter minate the Russian Federation's membership of the Council of Europe on 16 March 2022 makes the issue of legal certainty for aliens actively participating in the war in Ukraine as part of the Ukrainian Armed Forces completely unpredictable. The academic literature and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the field of the legal status of alien combatants is limited, and the International Criminal Court has not complet ed any cases on this topic. This article addresses the prin ciple of case law and, above all, the principle of legality with regard to aliens and their active participation in the armed forces of Ukraine. This issue has become cen tral since the Russian Federation may or may not grant these persons the status of prisoner of war according to the Third Geneva Convention, relating to Protocol I, or may characterise them as criminal offenders or terro rists. Keywords: aliens, combatants, mercenaries, prisoners of war, war, armed conflict, terrorists

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on older people's lives on a global scale but for some marginalised communities have seen a marked exacerbation of health and other inequalities. Research has highlighted the impact of the pandemic on lesbian, gay, bisexual and trans (LGBT+) people's lives, but less has been documented about the experiences of LGBT+ older communities and how their specific needs have been mediated. Community-based advocacy organisations are central to promoting LGBT+ human rights in the UK through its social movements, and this paper explores their role and significance during a distinct period of the UK mandatory isolation. Drawing on a case study approach based on qualitative interviews with six key LGBT+ community organisations in the UK, we captured their insights into how they navigated support for older people when faced with limited resources and the challenges posed by mandatory physical and social distancing. We position these events in current discourse about structural and health inequalities for LGBT+ ageing in the UK.