/library/oar/handle/123456789/11425 2026-06-12T01:28:50Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/147189 Title: Duty of care and environmental stewardship : a comparative analysis of the European Convention on Human Rights and the encyclical Laudato Si' Abstract: Abstract: Duty of Care and Environmental Stewardship This comparative study analyzes the conceptual convergence and key distinctions between the secular jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) and the moral-theological framework of Pope Francis’s Encyclical, Laudato Si’, in addressing the global environmental crisis. Both documents utilize the principle of the "common good" to balance economic interests against the collective need for environmental preservation, acting as complementary frameworks that define a State’s duty of care. Key Points of Overlap • Scientific Consensus & Urgency: Both sources are grounded in a solid scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change. They stress an acute urgency, noting that current mitigation efforts are falling short and the planet is approaching a ecological breaking point. • Institutional Obligations: The ECHR establishes that States have a positive obligation under Articles 2 and 8 to implement robust legislative and administrative frameworks to deter threats to life and well-being from pollution and natural disasters. Similarly, Laudato Si’ views a legally binding framework as indispensable to protecting ecosystems from unchecked economic power. • Intergenerational & Social Justice: Both frameworks champion intergenerational justice, warning against placing a "disproportionate burden" on future generations. They also prioritize the protection of vulnerable populations, such as the elderly in legal standing cases (e.g., KlimaSeniorinnen) and the global poor, who suffer the gravest consequences of environmental degradation. • Procedural Rights: There is strong synergy regarding transparency, public access to risk information, and the necessity of uncoerced public participation in environmental decision-making. Core Divergences • Scope of Protection: The ECHR remains strictly human-centric, protecting the environment only insofar as degradation impacts human rights. Conversely, Laudato Si’ rejects "tyrannical anthropocentrism," attributing intrinsic value to all living creatures independent of human utility. • Nature of Solutions: The ECHR operates within a judicial framework focused on state accountability, legal remedies, and financial redress. In contrast, Laudato Si’ posits that laws alone are insufficient if the underlying culture is corrupt, calling for a "bold cultural revolution," "ecological conversion," and the re-evaluation of market-driven logic. • Secular vs. Theological: While the ECHR utilizes secular legal mechanisms and a "fair balance" doctrine, Laudato Si’ frames the earth as a divine "creation" (rather than a system of "nature"), drawing on Judeo-Christian spiritual traditions to motivate the duty of care. Conclusion Aligned with recent global shifts, such as the May 2026 UN General Assembly resolution linking human rights to climate action, this analysis concludes that secular law and spiritual ethics are fundamentally complementary. Synthesizing the legal rigor and state accountability of the ECHR with the profound cultural transformation and "integral ecology" of Laudato Si’ offers a comprehensive framework necessary to truly safeguard our "common home". 2026-05-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/147172 Title: Rule of law and human rights in the era of artificial intelligence - keynote address Abstract: This keynote address examines the profound shift from traditional, human-centered governance rooted in clear written law to an era driven by automated code and algorithmic regulation. While artificial intelligence (AI) offers unparalleled public efficiency, its deployment across public administration, policing, and the judiciary presents a severe tripartite challenge to the Rule of Law: opacity, the erosion of legal certainty, and the displacement of human discretion. Key Themes & Challenges • Algorithmic Opacity & Due Process: The "black box" nature of proprietary AI systems obscures the transparency of human reasoning and the requirement for reasoned justification. When algorithms are used to deny social security benefits (as seen in the "Robodebt" or Dutch childcare scandals) or predict criminal behavior (e.g., COMPAS), individuals are deprived of their right to contest decisions, directly threatening due process and a fair trial. • Rules vs. Patterns: Traditional legal systems rely on stable, public, and predictable normative rules. Conversely, machine learning relies on statistical pattern recognition and probabilities, creating a fundamental tension that destabilizes legal foreseeability. • Erosion of Human Discretion: Over-reliance on AI risks "legal automation bias," where human decision-makers abdicate their independent judgment and constitutional duties to algorithmic outputs. • Human Rights Impacts: Beyond structural governance, AI deployment threatens basic human rights. Surveillance applications create a chilling effect on the right to privacy. Furthermore, predictive tools often automate and amplify historic systemic discrimination under a veneer of mathematical objectivity , while generative AI facilitates disinformation that destabilizes democratic shared realities. Regulatory Evolution & Conclusion The regulatory landscape has transitioned from voluntary ethical principles toward binding global governance and hard law. Frameworks like the European Union's risk-based AI Act, the Council of Europe's Framework Convention, and the Venice Commission’s Updated Rule of Law Checklist (December 2025) represent vital pivots toward "Legal Protection by Design". However, formal frameworks alone are insufficient; ensuring that technology does not hollow out human dignity demands strict human monitoring and active questioning. Ultimately, domestic and international courts will serve as the final bastions of democracy, ensuring that societal efficiency is balanced against the firm protection of human rights and the Rule of Law. 2026-05-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/146632 Title: Expropriations under Maltese Law Authors: Musumeci, Robert Abstract: This article offers a structured account and evaluative critique of expropriation under Maltese law, tracing its transition from the fragmented colonial framework of Chapter 88 to the codified regime of Chapter 573. Grounded in the dual constitutional and human rights guarantees of Article 37 of the Constitution of Malta and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR, the study maps out the boundary between the deprivation of property and control of use. It examines the evolution of "public purpose" judicial review, details prospective and historic remedial pathways for landowners (including Articles 41, 63, 64, 65, and 67), and critically analyzes valuation rules, interest calibrations, court cost allocations, and the "ceiling rule" constraints imposed on the Lands Arbitration Board. Testing domestic jurisprudence against Strasbourg's "fair-balance" standard, the analysis serves as a doctrinal map aimed at improving consistency, transparency, and timeliness in Maltese expropriation practice. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z /library/oar/handle/123456789/145621 Title: Spatial planning goals and values in selected national legal frameworks : a comparative study Authors: Nowak, Maciej J.; Baker, Matovu; Fast, Victoria; Fidélis, Teresa; Gagakuma, Desmond; Idiculla, Mathew; Levent, Tolga; Mitrea, Andrei; De Marchi Moyano, Bianca; Musumeci, Robert; Sharifi, Ayyoob; Tanku, Melaku; Dalla Torre, Julieta; Blaszke, Małgorzata Abstract: This article examines the legal foundations of spatial planning through a comparative analysis of twelve countries: Argentina, Bolivia, Canada, Ethiopia, Ghana, India, Japan, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Turkey, and Uganda. These countries were selected for their diverse geographic, political, and socio-economic contexts. Despite significant differences, the study finds a notable convergence in how planning goals and values are expressed in law. At the same time, it identifies recurring challenges in implementing these legal provisions, including weak enforcement, institutional fragmentation, and pressures from informal development and private interests. The findings point to a set of shared legal principles that underpin spatial planning across jurisdictions, offering a basis for reflecting on the potential for more universally applicable planning norms. 2026-01-01T00:00:00Z