Search results

The recent exposure of the NSA documents has raised a great deal of concerns with regards to the effective control of companies that cooperate with intelligence agencies. It also exposed a network of secret government spying partnerships used to go around existing domestic guarantees and to spy on one's own citizens through the back door. The dread that both legal and technological means designed with legitimate purposes such as counter-terrorism and crime prevention are also employed for total social control is now out there. In many aspects it looks like we are experiencing the end of privacy and opting for a 'surveillance society' instead. In the clutter of pressing issues, most of the recent scholarly attention has focused on the assessment and reform proposals of the existing, but as it turns out inadequate with respect to actual rights protection, domestic legal frameworks. This has left the obligations of the intruders under international human rights law unconsidered. Therefore, the present paper aims at evaluating the legality of such surveillance programs under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Global Compact (UNGC) represents the world's largest corporate citizenship initiative today. Created under the auspices of the United Nations (UN) to encourage companies around the world to adopt sustainable and socially responsible policies, the UNGC brings together businesses, UN agencies and labour groups in search of compromises. In a phone interview with the Journal's team, Ursula Wynhoven, General Counsel and Head of the UN Global Compact, shared her views on current issues and challenges of the field. Before joining the UN, she was engaged with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on the development of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (MNEs). Ursula Wynhoven has also worked as a lawyer in governmental human rights agencies and private practices in the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia, and is an adjunct professor at the University of Reykjavik's School of Law in human rights and business.

Intro -- Series Information -- Editorial Office -- Foreword -- Contents -- About the Authors -- Summary -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Scope and Context -- 1.2 Research Questions -- 1.3 Research Approach -- 1.3.1 Conceptual Approach -- 1.3.2 Aspects to Compare -- 1.3.3 Countries to Compare -- 1.3.4 Methodology -- 1.4 Structure of This Book -- References -- 2 The Netherlands -- 2.1 General Situation -- 2.2 National Government Policies -- 2.3 Laws and Regulations -- 2.4 Implementation -- 2.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 3 Germany -- 3.1 General Situation -- 3.2 National Government Policies -- 3.3 Laws and Regulations -- 3.4 Implementation -- 3.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 4 Sweden -- 4.1 General Situation -- 4.2 National Government Policies -- 4.3 Laws and Regulations -- 4.4 Implementation -- 4.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 5 United Kingdom -- 5.1 General Situation -- 5.2 National Government Policies -- 5.3 Laws and Regulations -- 5.4 Implementation -- 5.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 6 Ireland -- 6.1 General Situation -- 6.2 National Government Policies -- 6.3 Laws and Regulations -- 6.4 Implementation -- 6.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 7 France -- 7.1 General Situation -- 7.2 National Government Policies -- 7.3 Laws and Regulations -- 7.4 Implementation -- 7.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 8 Romania -- 8.1 General Situation -- 8.2 National Government Policies -- 8.3 Laws and Regulations -- 8.4 Implementation -- 8.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 9 Italy -- 9.1 General Situation -- 9.2 National Government Policies -- 9.3 Laws and Regulations -- 9.4 Implementation -- 9.5 Regulatory Authorities and Enforcement -- References -- 10 Conclusions -- 10.1 Comparing Countries.