Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Contemporary Challenges and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age

  • Published:
International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The article analyzes the impact of modern digital technologies used in the information society on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law in general. Both positive and negative aspects of such impact are considered. The importance of this topic is due to the need for further deepening of scientific knowledge related to the development of the rule of law in the information society and insufficient research from the legal point of view of current theoretical problems of the rule of law in the digital era. The purpose of this article is to study the rule of law as a principle of the modern state of the 21st century and to study the problems in matters of human rights that have arisen with the development of modern digital technologies. The study of this issue is quite relevant, considering the conclusions, made as a result of our work, can be taken into account in further theoretical developments of international and national human rights protection aimed at improving the effectiveness of human rights judicial protection and improving current legislation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data will be available on request.

References

  1. Sardak, S., I. Britchenko, R. Vazov, and O. P. Krupskyi. 2021. Life cycle: formation, structure, management. Ikonomicheski Izsledvania 30 (6): 126–142.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Novikovas, A., L. Novikoviene, R. Shapoval, and K. Solntseva. 2017. The peculiarities of motivation and Organization of Civil Defence Service in Lithuania and Ukraine. Journal of Security and Sustainability Issues 7 (2): 369–380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Bigo, D. 2019. Shared Secrecy in a Digital Age and a transnational world. Bringing in the Public Intelligence on the Frontier Between State and Civil Society 3 (34): 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Ishunin, V. A., and K. A. Zenin. 2020. Characteristics of topical problems of Interaction of Atate Authorities with the media in the context of a Terrorist threat. Economic and Humanitarian Research of Regions 6: 85–89.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Oliynyk, V. M. 2019. Philosophical and legal understanding of the essence of the Principle of the rule of Law in Modern Society. Legal Scientific Electronic Journal 3: 262–265.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Razmetaeva, Yu. S. 2016. Privacy in the Information Society: problems of Legal understanding and regulation. Scientific Herald of Uzhhorod National University 37 (1): 45–49.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Razmetaeva, Yu. S. 2020. Democracy, Human Rights and the internet. Law and Society 1: 104–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Rudik, O. 2019. The agenda of the European Commission 2019–2024: New Guidelines for Europeanization. Theory and History of Public Administration 6: 35–45.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Suzor, N. 2018. Digital Constitutionalism: Using the Rule of Law to Evaluate the Legitimacy of Governance by Platforms. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2056305118787812.

  10. European Court of Human Rights. 1990. Kruslin v. Franc. Application No. 11801/85. https://doi.org/hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{%22fulltext%22:[%22Kruslin%22],%22documentcollectionid2%22:[%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22],%22itemid%22:[%22001-57626%22]}.

  11. UN Security Council. 2004. Report of the Secretary-General: The rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies. https://undocs.org/sp/S/2004/616.

  12. Venice Commission. 2011. Report Approved by the Venice Commission at Its 86th Plenary Session. https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-AD(2011)003rev-ukr.

  13. Symonides, J. 2003. Human Rights: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement: International Protection, Monitoring, Enforcement (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315197944.

  14. Inshyn, M., and O. Moskalenko. 2018. Ensuring Freedom of Labor in Ukraine in the context of labor emigration. Baltic Journal of Law and Politics 11 (2): 1–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2016. Resolution on the Promotion, Protection and Exercise of Rights on the Internet. http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/d_res_dec/A_HRC_38_L10_rev1.docx.

  16. National Congress. 2018. Brazil Internet Bill of Rights. https://itsrio.org/wpcontent/uploads/-2018/02/v5_comcapa__pages_miolo_Brazil-Internet-Bill-of-Rights-A-closer-Look.pdf.

  17. Council of the European Union. 1981. Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list/-/conventions/treaty/108.

  18. Council of the European Union. 2014. EU Human Rights Guidelines on Freedom of Expression Online and Offline. https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/default/files/eu_human_rights_guidelines_on_freedom_of_expression_online_and_offline_en.pdf.

  19. Council of the European Union. 2016. Committee of Ministers: selection and most recent Adopted Texts. https://www.coe.int/en/web/freedom-expression/committee-of-ministers-adopted-texts/-/asset_publisher/aDXmrol0vvsU/content/recommendation-cm-rec-2014-6-of-the-committee-of-ministers-to-member-states-on-a-guide-to-human-rights-for-Internet-users-adopted-by-the-committee-of-?_101_INSTANCE_aDXmrol0vvsU_viewMode=view/.

  20. Garlick, M., and I. Michal. 2022. Human mobility, Rights and International Protection: responding to the Climate Crisis. Forced Migration Review 69: 58–61.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Digital Security Lab. 2022. The Declaration on the Future of the Internet was Adopted: What Changes Await The Digital Environment? https://dslua.org/publications/pryyniato-deklaratsiiu-pro-maybutnie-internetu-iaki-zminy-chekatymut-na-tsyfrove-seredovyshche/.

  22. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber). 2014. Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos and Mario Costeja González. Application No. 62012CJ0131. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A62012CJ0131.

  23. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. 2019. OHCHR and Privacy in the Digital Age. https://www.ohchr.org/en/issues/digitalage/pages/digitalageindex.aspx.

  24. Supreme Court of the United States. 2014. Riley v. California, 134 S. Ct. 2473. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13-132_8l9c.pdf.

  25. Supreme Court of the United States. 2018. Carpenter v. United States, No. 16–402, 585 U.S. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-402_h315.pdf.

  26. Council of Europe for Human Rights. 2014. Rule of Law on the Internet and the Rest of the Digital World. https://rm.coe.int/the-rule-of-law-on-the-internet-and-in-the-wider-digital-world-issue-p/16806da51c.

  27. Clapham, A. 2007. Human Rights: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  28. Yaroshenko, O. M., O. V. Moskalenko, A. M. Sliusar, and N. M. Vapnyarchuk. 2018. Commercial Secret as an Object of Labour Relations: Foreign and International Experience. Journal of Legal, Ethical and Regulatory Issues 21(Special Issue 1).

  29. Vibert, F. 2018. Making a 21st Century Constitution. Playing Fair in Modern Democracies. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA,USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  30. Zarsky, Z. 2019. Privacy and Manipulation in the Digital Age. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/til-2019-0006/html.

  31. General Assembly of the United Nations. 1996. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Retrieved from https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_043#Text.

  32. Council of Europe. 1950. Convention on the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/995_004#Text.

  33. Santaniello, M., N. Palladino, and M. C. Catone. 2018. The Language of Digital Constitutionalism and the role of National Parliaments. International Communication Gazette. https://journals.sagepub/).com/doi/abs/10.1177/1748048518757138.

  34. Volodovska, V., and M. Dvorovy. 2019. Human Rights Online: Agenda for Ukraine. Kyiv: NGO “Laboratory of digital security”.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Mann, M., A. Daly, M. Wilson, and N. Suzor. 2018. The limits of (Digital) Constitutionalism: exploring the privacy-security (Im)Balance in Australia. International Communication Gazette 80 (4): 369–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ruggie, J. G. 1998. What makes the World Hang together? Neo-Utilitarianism and the Social Constructivist Challenge International Organization 52 (4): 855–885.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Celeste, E. 2017. The irish constitution and the Challenges of the Digital Age. Is it time for a Bunreacht na hÉireann 2.0? https://ulsites.ul.ie/law/sites/default/files/Edoardo%20Celeste%20-%20Challenges%20of%20the%20Digital%20Age.pdf.

  38. Melenko, S. G., and O. D. Chepel. 2022. International Protection of Human Rights. Chernivtsi: Chernivtsi. national University named after Yu. Fedkovicha.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Verlos, N. 2020. Teleological dominants of the reception in the context of the realization of the Concept of transnational constitutionalism. Visegrad Journal on Human Rights 1 (3): 40.

    Google Scholar 

  40. European Court of Human Rights. 2012. Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey. Application no. 3111/10. Retrieved from https://doi.org/hudoc.echr.coe.int/fre#{%22itemid%22:[%22002-7328%22]}.

  41. Androschuk, G. 2019. EU Court: Google Won the Dispute on the Right to Be Forgotten. Legal Gazettehttps://yur-gazeta.com/publications/practice/zahist-intelektualnoyi-vlasnosti-avtorske-pravo/sud-es-google-vigrav-spir-shchodo-prava-na-zabuttya.html.

  42. Brownsword, R., E. Scotford, and K. Yeung. 2017. The Oxford Handbook of Law, Regulation and Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Latkovska, T. A., A. V. Marushchak, and U. O. Oleksiy. 2021. Legal and theoretical problems of defining Internet Banking in Ukraine. Financial and Credit Activity: Problems of Theory and Practice 1 (36): 27–34.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Gnatenko, K. V., O. M. Yaroshenko, M. I. Inshyn, N. M. Vapnyarchuk, and O. H. Sereda. 2020. Targeted and effective use of State and Non-State Social Funds. International Journal of Criminology and Sociology 9: 2861–2869.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Yurchenko, M. M., and N. I. Kostova. 2021. International Protection of Human Rights: Educational and Methodological Manual. Odesa: ODUVS.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Freedom on the Net. 2022. Internet Freedom Scores. Retrieved from https://freedomhouse.org/countries/freedom-net/scores.

Download references

Funding

The authors did not receive support from any organization for the submitted work.

No funding was received to assist with the preparation of this manuscript.

No funding was received for conducting this study.

No funds, grants, or other support was received.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Philosophy and Social-Humanitarian Disciplines, National Academy of Statistics, Accounting and Audit, 04107, 1. Pidhirna Str, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Petro S. Korniienko

  2. Department for Notary, Enforcement Procedure and Advocacy, Litigation Institute of Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60 Volodymyrska Str., 01033, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Oleh V. Plakhotnik

  3. Department of Administrative Law, Procedure and Administrative Activity, Dnipropetrovsk State University of Internal Affairs, 49005, 26 Gagarin Ave, Dnipro, Ukraine

    Hanna O. Blinova

  4. Department of Theory and History of Law and State, Educational and Scientific Institute of Law, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, 60 Volodymyrska Str., 01033, Kyiv, Ukraine

    Zhanna O. Dzeiko & Gennadii O. Dubov

Authors
  1. Petro S. Korniienko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Oleh V. Plakhotnik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Hanna O. Blinova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Zhanna O. Dzeiko
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Gennadii O. Dubov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Authors’ contributions are equal.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Oleh V. Plakhotnik.

Ethics declarations

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Consent to Participate

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Consent for Publication

All individual participants agreed to be included in the study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare they have no financial and competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Korniienko, P.S., Plakhotnik, O.V., Blinova, H.O. et al. Contemporary Challenges and the Rule of Law in the Digital Age. Int J Semiot Law 36, 991–1006 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09963-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11196-022-09963-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation