• Research softwareclose
• Other research productsclose
• 2012-2021close
• Open Access close
• Ghent University Academic Bibliography close

Time and again, a debate pops up on whether access to the internet should be made a human right. While some have favoured universal access thereto with as little restrictions as possible (for instance, La Rue or the UN Human Rights Council), others have argued against, as – for instance – technology was only an ‘enabler of rights’ (Cerf). Ten years ago, Paul De Hert and I could not but partake in this debate: in our 2012 article we saw more benefits than disadvantages of protecting internet access at the highest legal level. Back then, this debate concerned an option to access the internet. Over the past years, however, while the use of the internet – and, more broadly, the use of (new) technologies – has accelerated, it increasingly ceased to be a mere option, a choice, a (legal) entitlement or a (human) right. Rather, it has turned into a (de facto) obligation for anyone who exercises their rights or fulfils their duties. These days, for instance, various services have become available predominantly – and sometimes only – via the internet (for instance, banking services, passenger location forms or applications for social assistance, as depicted in I, Daniel Blake). Overall, life without (a ‘smart’ phone) internet access has become unduly burdensome and – at times – impossible. These developments beg many questions and some of them include whether and to what extent people could be (or: should be) forced to use the internet, or whether such an obligation conforms to democratic standards. These questions can be considered from many angles such as ethics (is it good?) or law (is it legal?), and, therein, human rights (does it interfere with these rights? is this interference proportionate?). Hence, in this blogpost, I look at whether the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR, European Convention) and the jurisprudence from the European Court of Human Rights (European Court) can protect individuals against such an obligation.

ispartof: ONCOGENE vol:41 issue:1 pages:146-146 ispartof: location:England status: published

In December 2019, the European Commission published the European Green Deal (EGD), an overarching policy framework to achieve climate neutrality in Europe by 2050. This thematic issue aims to understand the origins, form, development, and scope of the EGD and its policy areas. It uses the concept of turbulence to explore and assess the emergence of the EGD and the policy and governance choices associated with it. Focusing on different levels of governance, different policy domains, and different stages of policymaking, each contribution raises pertinent questions about the necessity of identifying sources of turbulence and of understanding how to govern with such turbulence, rather than against it. Overall, the articles in this issue demonstrate that, while specifying contextual factors, researching the sources of and responses to turbulence provides useful insights into the development, direction, and potential durability or advancement of EU climate governance.

A paradigm shift is taking place in spatial segregation research. At the heart of this shift is the understanding of the connectedness of spatial segregation in different life domains and the availability of new datasets that allow for more detailed studies on these connections. In this thematic issue on spatial underpinnings of social inequalities we will outline the foundations of the ‘vicious circles of segregation’ framework to shed new light on questions such as: What is the role of residential neighbourhoods in urban inequalities in contemporary cities? Have residential neighbourhoods lost their importance in structuring daily lives since important part of social interaction takes place elsewhere? How is residential segregation related to inequalities in other important life domains, in schools, at work and during leisure time? The vicious circles of segregation framework builds on the traditional approaches to spatial segregation, as well as on the emerging new research undertaken within the ‘activity space approach’ and ‘longitudinal approach’ to segregation. The articles in this thematic issue improve our understanding of how spatial segregation is transmitted from one life domain to another as people sort into residential neighbourhoods, schools, workplace and leisure time activity sites, and gain contextual effects by getting exposed to and interacting with other people in them.

Recent global social changes and phenomena like #MeToo and Time's Up Movement, the visibility of feminism in popular media (e.g., Beyonce or the TV series Orange is the New Black), the increase of datafication and fake news have not only put pressure on the media and entertainment industry and the content produced, but also generated critique, change and questions in the public debate on gender in general and (the backlash on) gender studies around the world. But are these phenomena also game changers for research on media and gender? In this thematic issue we want to provide insight in recent developments and trends in research on gender and media. What are the dominant ideas and debates in this research field and how do they deal with all of the changes in the media scape (e. g., platformization, the dominance of algorithms and datafication, slacktivism, and gender inequalities in media production). Moreover, how do current debates, theoretical insights and methods communicate with those in the past? The research field has changed rapidly over the last 10 years with repercussions on the conceptualisation of gender, its intersections with other identities markers (e. g., age, ethnicity, class, disabilities, sexualities, etc.), and media audiences' responses to these developments. We welcome contributions within the scope of gender and media and which are topical in the way they introduce new concepts, theoretical insights, new methods or new research subjects.