إصدار

مجلد 3 عدد 1 (2023)

الذكاء الاصطناعي

المسئولية الجنائية عن خطاب الكراهية عبر الإنترنت أمام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية

دراسة تحليلية وتطبيقية على خطاب الكراهية ضد مسلمي الروهينجا في ماينمار
https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v3i1.114
د. رنا مصطفى أحمد فؤاد عيسوي
مدرس بقسم القانون الدولي العام بكلية الحقوق جامعة الإسكندرية

Corresponding Author(s) : د. رنا مصطفى أحمد فؤاد عيسوي

dr.rana.mostafa.law@alexu.edu.eg

مجلة القانون والتكنولوجيا , مجلد 3 عدد 1 (2023)

الملخص

لقد باتت الجرائم الدولية المرتكبة نتيجة لحملات الكراهية حقيقة حتمية تحتم التصدي لمنع ومعاقبة المسئولين عن هذه الحملات. ولقد ساهم الانترنت في تفاقم تلك الخطورة اذ يساعد في انتشار حملات الكراهية والأخبار الكاذبة على نطاق واسع وفي وقت سريع للغاية، الأمر الذي يستدعى انتباه المجتمع الدولي بأسره لمواجهة خطاب الكراهية المرتكب عبر الانترنت ومعاقبة المسئولين عنه. ولعل الإذن الصادر من الدائرة التمهيدية الثالثة للمحكمة الجنائية الدولية ببدء التحقيق في الجرائم المرتكَبة ضد مسلمي الروهينجا يفتح الباب لأول مرة لمعاقبة المسئولين عن حملات خطاب الكراهية المرتكبة عبر الانترنت والتي تكون سبباً في ارتكاب الجرائم الدولية الصادمة للضمير الإنساني والمقلقة للمجتمع الدولي بأسره؛ فمسلمي الروهينجا تعرضوا لحملات كراهية مروّعة عبر الانترنت حملتهم قسرا على النزوح إلي دولة بنجلاديش.  


وإزاء الضرورة الملحة لمحاكمة المسئولين عن خطاب الكراهية ضد مسلمي الروهينجا وما ترتب عليه من جرائم، يسعي هذا البحث بصفة استباقية إلي بيان قواعد انعقاد المسئولية الجنائية عن خطاب الكراهية المرتكب عبر الإنترنت أمام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية، وذلك من خلال دراسة تطبيقية على خطاب الكراهية الموجه ضد مسلمي الروهينجا في دولة ماينمار، وذلك من خلال ثلاث مطالب. ستقوم الباحثة في البداية بإعطاء نبذة قصيرة عن وضع مسلمي الروهينجا في دولة ماينمار، مع تسليط الضوء على خطاب الكراهية المرتكب ضدهم عبر الإنترنت، ثم سيتناول البحث دراسة مدى اختصاص المحكمة الجنائية الدولية بتناول خطاب الكراهية في دولة ماينمار رغم عدم كونها دولة طرف في ميثاق روما، وبعد ذلك، تتعرض الباحثة إلى بيان الأشخاص التي قد تنعقد مسئوليتهم الجنائية عن خطاب الكراهية المرتكب عبر الإنترنت ضد مسلمي الروهينجا.


الكلمات الرئيسية: المحكمة الجنائية الدولية ـ المسئولية الجنائية ـ خطاب الكراهية ـالانترنت – مسلمي الروهينجا

الكلمات المفتاحية

The International Criminal Court Criminal Responsibility Hate speech Internet Rohingya Muslims المحكمة الجنائية الدولية المسئولية الجنائية خطاب الكراهية الانترنت مسلمي الروهينجا
مصطفى أحمد فؤاد عيسوي ر. (2023). المسئولية الجنائية عن خطاب الكراهية عبر الإنترنت أمام المحكمة الجنائية الدولية: دراسة تحليلية وتطبيقية على خطاب الكراهية ضد مسلمي الروهينجا في ماينمار. مجلة القانون والتكنولوجيا, 3(1), 101–185. https://doi.org/10.54873/jolets.v3i1.114
تنزيل الاقتباسات
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX
المراجع
  1. أحمد بن بلقاسم، موقف القضاء الدولي من الجرائم المرتكبة ضد الروهينغيا، ٢٣/٤/٢٠٢٢، مجلة الحقوق والحريات، المجلد ١٠، العدد ١(٢٠٢٢)، ص. ١١٤-١١٦، متاح على الموقع التالي: https://www.asjp.cerist.dz/en/article/185713
  2. دوللي حمد نجار، الجرائم الدولية (المفهوم والأركان)، في كتاب (الجرائم التي تختص بها المحكمة الجنائية الدولية)، إعداد (محمد أمين المهدي، شريف عتلم، دوللي حمد)، اللجنة الدولية للصليب الأحمر، الطبعة الثانية، ص.١٩٠-١٩٢
  3. طارق سرور، الاختصاص الجنائي العالمي، دار النهضة العربية (القاهرة)، الطبعة الأولي، ٢٠٠٦
  4. مازن مطيع مسلم العبيسات، جريمة النقل القسري للمدنيين كإحدى جرائم الإبادة الجماعية، رسالة دكتوراه، كلية الحقوق-جامعة عين شمس،٢٠٢٠
  5. محمود شريف بسيوني، المحكمة الجنائية الدولية: نشأتها ونظامها الأساسي مع دراسة لتاريخ لجان التحقيق الدولية والمحاكم الجنائية الدولية السابقة، مطابع روزاليوسف، ٢٠٠١
  6. مصطفي أحمد فؤاد، القانون الدولي العام- الجزء السادس: القانون الدولي الجنائي، بدون ناشر
  7. وثيقة أركان الجرائم باللغة العربية، https://cilrap-lexsitus.org/ar/elements-of-crime
  8. Decision on the “Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute”, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18, 16 September 2018
  9. Decision on the request of the Union of the Comoros to review the Prosecutor’s decision not to initiate an investigation, ICC-01/13, 16 July 2015, para.17
  10. Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorisation of an Investigation into the Situation in the People’s Republic of Bangladesh/Republic of the Union of Myanmar, ICC-01/19-27, 14 November 2019.
  11. Decision Pursuant to Article 15 of the Rome Statute on the Authorization of an Investigation into the Situation in the Republic of Kenya, ICC-01/09, 31 March 2010
  12. ICC-ASP/7/20/Add.1, https://asp.icc-cpi.int/sites/asp/files/asp_docs/ICC-ASP-7-20-Add.1-SWGCA%20Arabic.pdf
  13. Prosecution’s Request for a Ruling on Jurisdiction under Article 19(3) of the Statute, 9 April 2018, ICC-RoC46(3)-01/18-1
  14. Prosecutor v. Bemba et al., Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the statute, ICC-01/05-01/13
  15. Prosecutor v. Bemba, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute on the Charges of the Prosecutor Against Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo, No.ICC-01/05-01/08, 15 June 2009
  16. Prosecutor v. Blé Goudé, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges against Charles Blé Goudé, ICC-02/11-02/11-186
  17. Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, Decision Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/04-02/06, 9 June 2014
  18. Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/07, 7 March 2014
  19. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/06, 29 January 2007
  20. Prosecutor v. Lubanga, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute, ICC-01/04-01/06, 14 March 2012
  21. Prosecutor v. Mbarushimana, Decision on the Confirmation of Charges, ICC-01/04-01/10, 16 December 2011
  22. Prosecutor v. Ruto et al., Decision on the Confirmation of Charges Pursuant to Article 61(7)(a) and (b) of the Rome Statute, ICC-01/09-01/11, 23 January 2012
  23. Request for authorisation of an investigation pursuant to article 15, ICC-01/19-7, 4 July 2019
  24. The Office of the Prosecutor, Situation in the Republic of Korea: Article 5 Report, June 2014, para.39 https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/otp/SAS-KOR-Article-5-Public-Report-ENG-05Jun2014.pdf
  25. The Office of the Prosecutor, Situation on Registered Vessels of Comoros, Greece and Cambodia: Article 53(1) Report, 6 November 2014, p13., Fn.(21), https://www.icc-cpi.int/sites/default/files/iccdocs/otp/OTP-COM-Article_53(1)-Report-06Nov2014Eng.pdf
  26. Prosecutor v. Duško Tadić, Judgement, IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316152416.001
  27. Prosecutor v. Galić, Judgment, IT-98-29-T, 5 December 2003
  28. Prosecutor v. Kordić, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-T, 26 February 2001
  29. Prosecutor v. Kupreškić et al., Judgment, IT-95-16-T, 14 January 2000
  30. Prosecutor v. Milošević, Judgment, IT-98-29/1-A, 12 November 2009
  31. Prosecutor v. Milutinović et al., Judgment, IT-05-87-T
  32. February 2009
  33. Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, Judgment, IT-03-68-A, 3 July 2008
  34. Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Judgment, IT-05-88-A, 30 January 2015
  35. Prosecutor v. Popović et al., Judgment, IT-05-88-T, 10 June 2010
  36. Prosecutor v. Šainović et al, Judgment, IT-05-87-A, 23 January 2014
  37. Prosecutor v. Stanilav Galić, Judgement, IT-98-29-A, 30 November 2006
  38. Prosecutor v. Tihomir Blaškić, Judgement, IT-95-14-A, 29 July 2004
  39. Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Judgment, ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998
  40. Prosecutor v. André Ntagerura et al., (Judgment and Sentence), ICTR-99-46-T, 25 February 2004
  41. Prosecutor v. André Ntagerura, et al., Judgement, ICTR-99-46-A, 7 July 2006
  42. Prosecutor v. Kalimanzira, Judgment, ICTR-05-88-T, 22 June 2009
  43. Prosecutor v. Kayishema et. al., Judgment, ICTR-95-1-T, 21 May 1999
  44. Prosecutor v. Mrkšić & Šljivančanin, Judgment, ICTR-95-13/1-A, 5 May 2009
  45. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Judgment, ICTR-99-52-A, 28 November 2007
  46. Prosecutor v. Nahimana et al., Judgment, ICTR-99-52-T, 3 December 2003
  47. Prosecutor v. Nyiramasahuko et al., ICTR-98-42-A, 14 December 2015
  48. Prosecutor v. Ruggiu, Judgment, ICTR-97-32-I, 17 June 2000
  49. Prosecutor v. Vincent Rutaganira, ICTR-95-1C-T, 14 March 2005
  50. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (The Gambia v. Myanmar): Request for the Indication of Provisional Measures, Order of 23 January 2020
  51. ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2007
  52. PCIJ, The Jurisdiction of the Courts of Danzig, Series B, No.15, 3 March 1928
  53. ECtHR, Delfi AS v. Estonia, Application no. 64569/09, 16 June 2015
  54. ECtHR, Eva Glawischnig-Piesczek v Facebook Ireland, Case C-18/18, Judgment, 3 October 2019
  55. ECtHR, SABAM v. Netlog NV, Case C-360/10, Judgment, 16 February 2012.
  56. ECtHR, Scarlet Extended SA V. SABAM, Case C-70/10, Judgment, 24 November 2011
  57. Amendments to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court on the Crime of Aggression, 11 June 2010, p.1 https://treaties.un.org/doc/Treaties/2010/06/20100611%2005-56%20PM/CN.651.2010.pdf
  58. Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 9 December 1948, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 78, p. 277
  59. International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD), 7 March 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 660, p.195
  60. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 16 December 1966, United Nations, Treaty Series, Vol.999, p.1057
  61. Rome Statute, United Nations, 17 July 1998, Treaty Series, vol. 2187, p. 3
  62. Criminal Code Amendment (Sharing of Abhorrent Violent Material) Bill 2019, https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/bills/s1201_first-senate/toc_pdf/1908121.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf
  63. Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32000L0031&from=EN.
  64. Germany Network Enforcement Act (2017), https://www.bmjv.de/SharedDocs/Gesetzgebungsverfahren/Dokumente/NetzDG_engl.pdf?__blob=publicationFile&v=2
  65. New Zealand Harmful Digital Communications Act (2015), https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2015/0063/latest/whole.html#DLM6512505
  66. Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material, 47 U.S. Code § 230, http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/47/230
  67. The Information Technology [Intermediaries Guidelines (Amendment) Rules] 2018 (India), https://www.meity.gov.in/writereaddata/files/Draft_Intermediary_Amendment_24122018.pdf
  68. Anne Peters, Beyond Human Rights: The Legal Status of the Individual in International Law, Translated by Jonathan Huston, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316687123
  69. Antonio Cassese, International Law (2nd ed.), Oxford University Press (OUP), 2005
  70. Christian Tomuschat, Human Rights Between Idealism and Realism (3rd ed.), OUP, 2014
  71. De Hemptinne, R. Roth, E. Van Sliedregt, M. Cupido, M. Ventura, & L. Yanev (eds.) Modes of Liability in International Criminal Law, Cambridge University Press, 2019
  72. Gideon Boas, Omission Liability at the International Criminal Tribunals: A Case for Reform, in S. Darcy and J. Powderly (eds.), Judicial Creativity at the International Criminal Tribunals (OUP, 2010), pp.204-226. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199591466.003.0010
  73. Gregorgy S. Gordon, Atrocity Speech Law, OUP, 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190612689.001.0001
  74. Katharine Fortin, The Accountability of Armed Groups under Human Rights Law, OUP, 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198808381.001.0001
  75. Michael Vagias, The Territorial Jurisdiction Of The International Criminal Court: Certain Contested Issues, Bynkers Hoek Publishing, 2011
  76. Orna Ben-Naftali, ‘The Obligations to Prevent and to Punish Genocide’, in Paola Gaeta ed. The UN Genocide Convention: A Commentary, OUP, 2009, pp. 27-56
  77. Paola Gaeta, ‘The Interplay between the Geneva Conventions and International Criminal Law’, in Andrew Clapham, Paola Gaeta, Marco Sassoli (eds) The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary, OUP, 2015, pp. 737-741
  78. Roland Portmann, The Legal Personality in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511779848
  79. Simone Gorski, ‘Individuals in international law’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of International law, OUP, 2013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/law:epil/9780199231690/e829
  80. Stéphane Bourgon, ‘Jurisdiction Ratione Loci’, in (Antonio Cassese et al. eds) The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, OUP, 2002
  81. Tommi Aromäki, The International Criminal Court’s Jurisdiction over Incitement to Genocide in the Internet Era: Some Special Situations, Master Thesis, Faculty of law/ University of Helsinki, 2021, available on https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/331013
  82. Bregje Bongers, The ICC’s Territorial Jurisdiction on the Myanmar Situation: Justly Extending it to Include the Alleged Crime of Deportation?, Thesis, Tilburg University, 2019, available on http://arno.uvt.nl/show.cgi?fid=149081
  83. Milica Nesic, Online Hate Speech: Against Strict Internet Intermediaries’ Liability as a Solution for Ensuring Victims’ Protection, LL.M Thesis, Central European University (2018), pp.72-84, http://www.etd.ceu.edu/2019/nesic_milica.pdf.
  84. Andrea Gattini, ‘Breach of the Obligation to Prevent and Reparation Thereof in the ICJ’s Genocide Judgment’, EJIL, Vol.18(4), 2007, pp.695-713 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm038
  85. Anne-Marie Slaughter, ‘Rough Regimes and the Individualization of International Law’, New England Law Review, Vol.36, 2002, pp.815-824
  86. Caleb H. Wheeler, ‘Human Rights Enforcement at the Borders: International Criminal Court Jurisdiction over the Rohingya Situation’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.17, 2019, pp. 609-631 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqz029
  87. Carlos E. Gomez, ‘The International Criminal Court's Decision on the Rohingya Crisis: The Need for a Critical Redefinition of Trans-Border Jurisdiction to Address Human Rights’, California Western International Law Journal, Vol.50, 2019, pp.177-205
  88. Douglas Guilfoyle, ‘The ICC pre-trial chamber decision on jurisdiction over the situation in Myanmar’, Australian Journal of International Affairs, Vol.73, 2019, pp.2-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10357718.2018.1538316
  89. Etienne Ruvebana & Marcel Brus, ‘Before It’s too Late: Preventing Genocide by Holding the Territorial State Responsible for Not Taking Preventive Action’, Netherlands International Law Review, Vol.62, 2015, pp.25-47 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40802-015-0010-5
  90. Jacob Katz Cogan, ‘The Regulatory Turn in International Law’, Harvard International Law Journal, Vol.52(2), 2011, https://harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/15/2011/07/HILJ_52-2_Cogan1.pdf
  91. John H. Knox, ‘Horizontal Human Rights Law’, AJIL, vol.102(1), 2008, pp.1-47 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0002930000039828
  92. Lars C. Berster, ‘‘Duty to Act’ and ‘Commission by Omission’ in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol. 10, 2010, pp.619-646 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181210X527046
  93. Manuel J.Ventura, Aiding and Abetting and the International Criminal Court’s Bemba et al. Case: The ICC Trial and Appeals Chamber Consider Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute’ International Criminal Law Review, (2020), Vol.20(6), pp. 1138-1166 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/15718123-bja10031
  94. Mark Gibney, ‘Genocide and State Responsibility’, Human Rights Law Review, Vol.7(4), 2007, pp.7 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/hrlr/ngm032
  95. Marko Milanovic, ‘Is the Rome Statute Binding on Individuals (And Why We Should Care)’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.9(1), 2011, pp.25-52 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqq070
  96. Marko Milanović, ‘State Responsibility for Genocide: A Follow-Up’, European Journal of International law (EJIL), Vol.18(4), 2007, pp.669-694 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chm043
  97. Michael Duttwiler, ‘Liability for Omission in International Criminal Law’, International Criminal Law Review, Vol.6, 2006, pp.1-61 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/157181206777066745
  98. Michael Vagias, ‘The Territorial Jurisdiction of the ICC for Crimes Committed Through the Internet, Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol.21(3), 2016, pp.523-540 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jcsl/krw021
  99. Mohamed Badar & Polona Florijančič, ‘Assessing Incitement to Hatred as a Crime against Humanity of Persecution’, The International Journal of Human Rights, Vo.24(5), 2020, pp.656-687 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13642987.2019.1671356
  100. Muskaan Wadhwa, ‘The ICC's Exercise of Jurisdiction over the Deportation of Rohingyas: Critiquing the Reading in of the Objective Territorial Doctrine in Article 12(2)(A) of the Rome Statute’, Nalsar Student Law Review, Vol. XV, 2021, pp.13-24, available on https://home.heinonline.org
  101. Payam Akhavan, ‘Preventing Genocide: Measuring Success by What Does Not Happen’, Criminal Law Forum, 2011, pp.1-33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10609-011-9130-8
  102. Payam Akhavan, ‘The Radically Routine Rohingya Case: Territorial Jurisdiction and the Crime of Deportation under the ICC Statute’, Journal of International Criminal Justice, Vol.17, 2019, pp.325-345 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jicj/mqz012
  103. Philippe Kirsch and John T.Holmes, ‘The Rome Conference on an International Criminal Court: The Negotiating Process’, American Journal of International law (AJIL), Vol.93(1), 1999, pp.2-12 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2997952
  104. Shannon Fyfe, ‘Tracking Hate Speech Acts as Incitement to Genocide in International Criminal Law’, Leiden Journal of International law, Vol.30, 2017, pp.523-548 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156516000753
  105. Shannon Raj Singh, ‘Move fast and break societies: the weaponization of social media and options for accountability under international criminal law’, 8(2) Cambridge International Law Journal, Vol.8(2), 2019, pp.331- 342 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/cilj.2019.02.08
  106. Thomas E.Davies, ‘How the Rome Statute Weakens the International Prohibition on Incitement to Genocide’, Harvard Human Rights Journal, Vol.22, 2009, pp.245- 270
  107. Wibke K. Timmermann, ‘The Relationship between Hate Propaganda and Incitement to Genocide: A New Trend in International Law Towards Criminalization of Hate Propaganda’, Leiden Journal of International law, Vol.18, pp.257-282 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0922156505002633
  108. ‘Military Structure’, https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/myanmar/tatmadaw-4.htm
  109. ‘Myanmar rejects UN accusation of 'genocide' against Rohingya’, 29 August 2018 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45338986
  110. ‘Sticks and Stones: Hate Speech Narratives and Facilitators’, C4ADS, 15 February 2016, https://c4ads.org/reports/sticks-and-stones/
  111. ‘Top Myanmar Buddhist Body Bans Hardline Group MaBaTha’, 23 May 2017, http://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/top-myanmar-buddhist-body-bans-hardline-group-ma-ba-tha
  112. Ana Srovin Coralli, ‘A Word on criminal Omission and its Prominence in International Criminal Law’, 26 of July 2022, https://opiniojuris.org/2022/07/26/a-word-on-criminal-omission-and-its-prominence-in-international-criminal-law/
  113. Article 12 updated 1 September 2020, https://cilrap-lexsitus.org/clicc/12/12 .
  114. Buddhism and State Power in Myanmar’, 5 September 2017, https://www.crisisgroup.org/asia/south-east-asia/myanmar/290-buddhism-and-state-power-myanmar
  115. Caleb Quinley, ‘Myanmar Defectors Describe Military Culture of Abuse, fear’, 8 March 2022, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/8/myanmars-army-defectors-describe-a-culture-of-abuse-and-fear
  116. Chad de Guzman, ‘Meta’s Facebook Algorithms ‘Proactively’ Promoted Violence Against the Rohingya, New Amnesty International Report Asserts’, 28 September 2022, https://time.com/6217730/myanmar-meta-rohingya-facebook/
  117. Christina Fink, ‘Dangerous Speech, Anti-Muslim Violence and Facebook in Myanmar’, 17 September 2018, https://jia.sipa.columbia.edu/dangerous-speech-anti-muslim-violence-and-facebook-myanmar#26 .
  118. Daisuke Wakabayashi, ‘Legal Shield for Websites Rattles Under Onslaught of Hate Speech’, 6 August 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/06/technology/section-230-hate-speech.html
  119. Dave Piscitello, ‘The Dark Web: The Land of Hidden Services’, 27 June 2017, https://www.icann.org/en/blogs/details/the-dark-web-the-land-of-hidden-services-27-6-2017-en
  120. Department of Justice’s review of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, https://www.justice.gov/archives/ag/department-justice-s-review-section-230-communications-decency-act-1996
  121. Evan Osnos, ‘Can Mark Zuckerberg Fix Facebook Before It Breaks Democracy’, 10 September 2018, https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/09/17/can-mark-zuckerberg-fix-facebook-before-it-breaks-democracy
  122. Five Ways Hate Speech Spreads Online, 2 May 2018, https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/02/us/hate-groups-using-internet/index.html
  123. Geoff Curfman, ICC Jurisdiction and the Rohingya Crisis in Myanmar, 9 January 2018, https://www.justsecurity.org/50793/icc-jurisdiction-rohingya-crisis-myanmar/ .
  124. George Sadek, Egypt, ‘President Ratifies Anti-Cybercrime Law’, 5 October 2018, https://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/egypt-president-ratifies-anti-cybercrime-law/
  125. Isabella Banks, ‘International Criminal Liability in the Age of Social Media: Facebook’s role in Myanmar’, February 13 2019, https://www.publicinternationallawandpolicygroup.org/lawyering-justice-blog/2019/2/13/international-criminal-liability-in-the-age-of-social-media-facebooks-role-in-myanmar
  126. Jacob Mchangama and Joelle Fiss, ‘The Digital Berlin Wall: How Germany (Accidentally) Created a Prototype for Global Online Censorship’, November 2019, http://justitia-int.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Analyse_The-Digital-Berlin-Wall-How-Germany-Accidentally-Created-a-Prototype-for-Global-Online-Censorship.pdf
  127. Jamie Tarabay, ‘Myanmar’s military: The power Aung San Suu Kyi can’t control”, 6 December 2017, https://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/21/asia/myanmar-military-the-real-power/index.html
  128. Janet H. Anderson, ‘Liking Genocide on Facebook’, 4 February 2019, https://www.justiceinfo.net/en/other/40164-liking-genocide-on-facebook-myanmar-rohingya.html
  129. Jean-Baptiste Maillart, ‘The Limits of Subjective Territorial Jurisdiction in the Context of Cybercrime’, ERA Forum (19), pp.375-390, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12027-018-0527-2#citeas DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-018-0527-2
  130. Jenny Domino, ‘Crime as Cognitive Constraint: Facebook’s Role in Myanmar’s Incitement Landscape and the Promise of International Tort Liability’, 2 March 2020, https://ssrn.com/abstract=3529968.
  131. Jenny Dominon, ‘Crime as Cognitive Constraint’, op.cit, p.27.
  132. Jermy Malcolm, ‘Will Big Content Derail Argentine’s New Intermediary Law’, 27 March 2018, https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/03/will-big-content-derail-argentinas-new-intermediary-law
  133. Khemthong Tonsakulrungruang, Study of Intermediary Liability in Thailand: Hate Speech, The Online Intermediary Liability Research Project, Washington School of Law, https://www.law.uw.edu/media/1406/thailand-intermediary-liability-of-isps-hate-speech.pdf
  134. Laignee Barron, ‘Aung San Suu Kyi says Myanmar’s Rohingya crisis could have been “handled better”’, 13 September 2018, https://time.com/5394791/aung-san-suu-kyi-rohingya-crisis-handled-better/
  135. Maliha Khan, ‘Is Social Media Inciting Violence in Myanmar?’, 13 April 2018, https://www.thedailystar.net/star-weekend/social-media-inciting-violence-myanmar-1561876
  136. Marco Longobardo, ‘Symposium on the Genocide Convention: Is the Duty to Prevent Genocide an Obligation of Result or an Obligation of Conduct according to the ICJ?’, May 16, 2019, https://www.ejiltalk.org/symposium-on-the-genocide-conventionis-the-duty-to-prevent-genocide-an-obligation-of-result-or-an-obligation-of-conduct-according-to-the-icj/
  137. Marta Bo., Crimes against the Rohingya: ICC Jurisdiction, Universal Jurisdiction in Argentine, and the Principle of Complementarity, 23 December 2019, http://opiniojuris.org/2019/12/23/crimes-against-the-rohingya-icc-jurisdiction-universal-jurisdiction-in-argentina-and-the-principle-of-complementarity/
  138. Moe Moe, ‘Parliament approves funds for internet oversight body’, 21 March 2018, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/parliament-approves-funds-internet-oversight-body.html
  139. Myanmar: Government’s approach to ‘hate speech’ fundamentally flawed, op.cit; Zaw Zaw Htwe, Aung Kyaw Nyunt, ‘Critics rail against govt budget for monitoring of Facebook’ , 22 March 2018, https://www.mmtimes.com/news/critics-rail-against-govt-budget-monitoring-facebook.html
  140. Myanmar: Government’s approach to ‘hate speech’ fundamentally flawed, 4 February 2020, https://www.article19.org/resources/myanmar-governments-approach-to-hate-speech-fundamentally-flawed/
  141. Nicolas Carrillo-Santarelli, ‘Crossing the Rubicon: Major Developments on the Human Rights Obligations of Corporations’, 12 March 2020, https://www.justsecurity.org/69064/crossing-the-rubicon-major-developments-on-the-human-rights-obligations-of-corporations/
  142. Oliver Slow, ‘Facebook Ban on Myanmar Military Officials Sparks Debate’, 6 September 2018, https://www.voanews.com/a/facebook-ban-on-myanmar-military-officials-sparks-debate/4560180.html
  143. Paul Mozur, ‘A Genocide Incited on Facebook, with Posts from Myanmar’s Military’, 15 October 2018, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/15/technology/myanmar-facebook-genocide.html
  144. Pedro Vilela, ‘Brazilian Civil Rights Framework for the Internet’ , 9 May 2016, https://irisbh.com.br/en/brazilian-civil-rights-framework-for-the-internet-2/
  145. Preventing Atrocities: Five Key Primers, September 2014, https://freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/Preventing%20Atrocities%20Five%20Key%20Primers.pdf
  146. Radhika Kapoor and Sharngan Aravindakshan, ‘Hate Speech as Persecution: Tackling the Gordian Knot’, 12 August 2020, https://www.ejiltalk.org/hate-speech-as-persecution-tackling-the-gordian-knot/
  147. Raisa Urribarri et al., ‘Venezuela Constitutional Law against Hatred or Tolerance and Peaceful Coexistence’, 8 November 2017, https://wilmap.law.stanford.edu/entries/constitutional-law-against-hatred-tolerance-and-peaceful-coexistence
  148. Rod McGuirk, ‘Australia could jail social media execs for showing violence’, 4 April 2019, https://apnews.com/article/f610bc28846846aaa530af62196afa95
  149. Rodion Ebbighausen, ‘Inciting Rohingya Hatred on Social Media’, 25 August 2018, https://www.dw.com/en/inciting-hatred-against-rohingya-on-social-media/a-45225962
  150. Rohingya Crisis: Situation Analysis November 2017, 22 November 2017, ACAPS, https://reliefweb.int/report/bangladesh/rohingya-crisis-situation-analysis-november-2017
  151. Sam Shead, Youtube, ‘Facebook, Twitter targeted by strict new social media laws in Australia. Here’s what it means’, 4 April 2019, https://www.businessinsider.com.au/youtube-facebook-twitter-targeted-by-strict-new-social-media-laws-in-australia-heres-what-it-means-2019-4
  152. San Yamin Aung, ‘Ignoring ethnic Parties will hurt NLD in 2020’, 10 July 2019, https://www.irrawaddy.com/opinion/analysis/ignoring-ethnic-parties-will-hurt-nld-in-2020.html
  153. San Yamin Aung, ‘Myanmar Military: Rakhine internet blackout still required to protect military secrets’, 24 June 2020, https://www.irrawaddy.com/news/burma/myanmar-military-rakhine-internet-blackout-still-required-protect-military-secrets.html
  154. Sebastian Strangio, ‘Facebook Fails to Detect Hate Speech Against Rohingya, Report Claims’, 22 March 2022, https://thediplomat.com/2022/03/facebook-fails-to-detect-hate-speech-against-rohingya-report-claims/
  155. Shashishkala Gurpur and Aakarsh Banyal, ‘Revisiting Omission Liability at the ICC in the Wake of Evolving Weapons Technology’, 11 February 2021, https://opiniojuris.org/2021/02/11/revisiting-omission-liability-at-the-icc-in-the-wake-of-evolving-weapons-technology/
  156. Shuchi Agrawal and Rupam Das, ‘Inciting Genocide over Cyberspace: Invoking Territorial Jurisdiction of the ICC’, 30 October 2021, https://nliu-cril.weebly.com/blog/inciting-genocide-over-cyberspace-invoking-territorial-jursidction-of-the-icc
  157. Stephanie Nebehay, ‘U.N calls for Myanmar Generals to be Tried for Genocide, Blames Facebook for incitement’, 27 August 2018, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-myanmar-rohingya-un/u-n-calls-for-myanmar-generals-to-be-tried-for-genocide-blames-facebook-for-incitement-idUSKCN1LC0KN
  158. Steve Stecklow, ‘Why Facebook is losing war on hate speech in Myanmar’, 25 august 2018, https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/myanmar-facebook-hate/
  159. Stockholm Declaration on Genocide Prevention, 2004, http://www.preventgenocide.org/prevent/conferences/StockholmDeclaration28Jan2004.htm
  160. Swe Win, ‘ The Tatmadaw is the Mother and the Father!’- inside the militarized schools training’, 30 January 2019, https://myanmar-now.org/en/news/the-tatmadaw-is-the-mother-and-the-father-inside-the-militarised-schools-training-myanmars ;
  161. Syed Zain Al-Mahmood, ‘Timeline: A Short History of Myanmar’, 23 December 2016, https://www.wsj.com/articles/BL-IRTB-33124
  162. The Manila Principles on Intermediary Liability, 2015, p.25-29 https://www.eff.org/files/2015/07/08/manila_principles_background_paper.pdf#page=26 .
  163. Timothy Mclaughlin, ‘How Facebook’s Rise Fueled Chaos and Confusion in Myanmar’, 7 June 2018, https://www.wired.com/story/how-facebooks-rise-fueled-chaos-and-confusion-in-myanmar/
  164. To amend the Communications Decency Act to encourage providers of inter-active computer services to provide content moderation that is politically neutral, 116th Congress (1st session), https://www.hawley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/2019-06/Ending-Support-Internet-Censorship-Act-Bill-Text.pdf
  165. UK to introduce world first online safety laws, 8 April 2019, https://www.gov.uk/government/news/uk-to-introduce-world-first-online-safety-laws
  166. UN Documents for Myanmar, https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-documents/myanmar/
  167. YU Wenguang, ‘Internet Intermediaries’ Liability for Online Illegal Hate Speech’, Frontiers of Law in China, Special Issue (Paradigm of Internet Regulation in the European Union and China), Vol.13(3), 2018, http://www.law.ruc.edu.cn/upic/20181009/20181009123217940.pdf DOI: https://doi.org/10.5771/9783845293820-48
  168. ‘Genocide threat for Myanmar’s Rohingya greater than ever, investigators warn Human Rights Council’, 16 September 2019, https://news.un.org/en/story/2019/09/1046442
  169. A/HRC/RES/34/22, 3 April 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.12987/9780300155464-022
  170. Countering Online Hate Speech, UNESCO publishing, 2015, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000233231
  171. Detailed findings of the Independent International Fact-Finding Mission on Myanmar, A/HRC/42/CRP.5, 16 September 2019
  172. Draft Articles on the Law of Treaties with Commentaries, 1966, p.219, para.8, https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/commentaries/1_1_1966.pdf
  173. Formulation of the Nuremberg Principles, Report of the International Law Commission covering its second session, 5 June–29 July 1950 (GAOR, 5th sess. Suppl. No. 12 (A/1316), YBILC 1950 II
  174. One-pager on "incitement to hatred": The Rabat threshold test, 20 April 2020, https://www.ohchr.org/en/documents/tools-and-resources/one-pager-incitement-hatred-rabat-threshold-test
  175. Rebecca Mackinnon et al., ‘Fostering Freedom Online: The Role of Internet Intermediaries, UNESCO Series on Internet Freedom’, 2014, https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000231162
  176. Report of the ILC, 70th session, 30 April–1 June and 2 July–10 August 2018, https://legal.un.org/ilc/reports/2018/english/a_73_10_advance.pdf
  177. Report of the Independent International Fact-Finding mission on Myanmar, A/HRC/39/64, 12 September 2018
  178. Report of the Special Rapporteur on minority issues (Rita Izśak), A/HRC/28/64, 5 January 2015
  179. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, A/HRC/38/35, 6 April 2018
  180. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, A/HRC/43/59, 4 March 2020
  181. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, A/74/342, 30 August 2019
  182. Report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Myanmar, A/72/382, 8 September 2017
  183. S/PRST/2017/22, 6 November 2017 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0036-1594877
  184. S/RES/1161 (1998), 9 April.
  185. S/RES/1572 (2004), 15 November 2004
  186. Statute of the International Tribunal for Rwanda, 8 November 1994, https://legal.un.org/avl/pdf/ha/ictr_EF.pdf
  187. Understanding Hate speech, https://www.un.org/ar/hate-speech/understanding-hate-speech/what-is-hate-speech
  188. United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner (OHCHR), Mission Report of OHCHR Rapid Response Mission to Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh, 13-24 September 2017, https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/Countries/MM/CXBMissionSummaryFindingsOctober2017.pdf
  189. Updated Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, 25 May 1993, https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/statute-international-tribunal-prosecution-persons-responsible
  190. Vitit Muntarbhorn, Study on the prohibition of incitement to national, racial or religious hatred: Lessons from the Asia Pacific Region, https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/Expression/ICCPR/Bangkok/StudyBangkok_en.pdf
  191. World Summit Outcome Document, A/RES/60/1, 24 October 2005
Read More
الذاتية للمؤلف غير متاحة
Crossref
Scopus
Google Scholar
Europe PMC
Share |
تنزيل هذا الملف
PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 723

التنزيلات

بيانات التنزيل غير متوفرة بعد.