The Introduction explores the basic outlines of various feminist legal theories, including liberal feminism, radical feminism, relational feminism, socialist feminism, critical race feminism and postmodern feminism. It takes up some of the major conflicts between these contrasting views as well as points of overlap and explores the ways in which each has influenced legal reform movements as well been influenced by them.
Ben Wagner, Matthias C. Kettemann and Kilian Vieth
In a digitally connected world, the question of how to respect, protect and implement human rights has become unavoidable. As ever more human beings, organizational systems and technical devices transition online, realizing human rights in online settings is becoming ever more pressing. When looking at basic human rights such as freedom of expression, privacy, free assembly or the right to a fair trial, all of these are heavily impacted by new information and communications technologies. While there have been many long-standing debates about the management of key Internet resources and the legitimacy of rules applicable to the Internet – from legal norms to soft law, from standards to code – it is only more recently that these debates have been explicitly framed in terms of human rights. The scholarly field that has grown in response to these debates is highly interdisciplinary and draws from law, political science, international relations, geography and even computer science and science and technology studies (STS). In order to do justice to the interdisciplinary nature of the field, this Research Handbook on Human Rights and Digital Technology: Global Politics, Law and International Relations unites carefully selected and reviewed contributions from scholars and practitioners, representing key research and practice fields relevant for understanding human rights challenges in times of digital technology.
Stephen C. McCaffrey, Christina Leb and Riley T. Denoon
Jacco Bomhoff, Agatha Brandão de Oliveira and Lucia Bíziková
This first case expresses a post-war yearning for deparochialisation. At stake was the legal effect of a forum-selection clause in an international maritime contract. Decided by the United States Supreme Court in 1972, it marks the beginning of a process of liberalisation of contractual choice of forum, that would extend progressively from adjudication to arbitration. One might say that the siren of free trade lures international jurisdiction into the nets of party autonomy. The dispute arises from a towage contract between an American corporation (Zapata) and a German corporation (Unterweser), in which the main obligation was to move an oil rig from Louisiana to the Adriatic Sea. The contract contained the following forum-selection clause: ‘Any dispute arising must be treated before the London Court of Justice.’ Unterweser’s deep-sea tug Bremen departed Louisiana on 5 January 1968, however, during transportation a severe storm arose while the Bremen was in international waters. The rig was damaged and was towed to Tampa, Florida, the nearest port of refuge. Despite the contractual provisions, on 12 January, Zapata commenced a suit in admiralty in the United States District Court at Tampa, seeking damages against Unterweser in personam and the Bremen in rem, alleging negligent towage and breach of contract. Unterweser invoked the forum clause and moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction or on forum non conveniens grounds. Alternatively, the German corporation requested to stay the action pending submission of the dispute to the London Court of Justice.