Analysis of the Prohibition of abuse of the Right to the Free Flow of Information from the Perspective of the International Human Rights System
Akhlāq-i zīstī i.e., Bioethics Journal,
Vol. 12 No. 1 (1401),
3 December 2022
,
Page 1-14
https://doi.org/10.22037/bioeth.v12i1.39312
Abstract
Background and Aim: In the international human rights system, the right to receive and publish information is considered one of the basic human rights, but according to human rights documents, this right is not absolute and comes with conditions, criteria and limitations. The purpose of the current research is to find ways to prevent the abuse of the right to receive and publish information.
Methods: This research is of theoretical type and the research method is Qualitative content analysis; The method of data collection is library which has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.
Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.
Results: The principle of prohibiting the abuse of the right; Whether as a part of the principle of good faith or the principle of harmlessness or as an independent principle, it limits the free flow of information and is an exception to the right to receive and disseminate information. Based on this, a narrow and precise reading of it should be given so that it does not play the role of distorting the freedom of expression. Under a general rule, the abuse of the right can be cited as a limitation of the right to receive and disseminate information when it is stated in the relevant laws and in accordance with the standards of democratic societies.
Conclusion: The following article, considering the abstractness and fluidity of the concept of abuse of right, while trying to get a more precise approach to the concept of the mentioned principle, has reviewed criteria such as bad faith and deviation from the social goal of the right as the criteria of abuse of the right and proposed the criterion of "unconventional conscious damage" for this purpose. So from the point of view of this article, abuse of the right to receive and disseminate information occurs only when a person, organization or country behaves with full knowledge in the free flow of information in a way that leads to unusual damage to others.
Please cite this article as:
Saeidi M, Raei M, Atrian F. Analysis of the Prohibition of abuse of the Right to the Free Flow of Information from the Perspective of the International Human Rights System. Akhlaq-i zisti, i.e., Bioethics Journal. Special Issue on Law and Ethics Innovations. 2022; e1.
- Free Flow of Information; Freedom of Information; Right to Receive and Publish Information; Goodwill; Harmless Rule; Freedom of Speech
How to Cite
References
Colin A, Capitan H. Traité de droit civil. Paris: Dalloz; 1953. p.102.
Katouzian N. Abuse of the right or fault in the implementation of the right. Journal of the Faculty of Law and Political Sciences. 2006; 21(1): 103-115. [Persian]
Karimi A, Kandsari H. The logical relationship between the jurisprudential rule of harmlessness and the western rule of abuse of rights. Comparative Research Quarterly of Islamic and Western Laws. 2013; 2(1): 135-166. [Persian]
Ghestin J, Gooubeaux G. Traité de droit civil - Introduction générale. Paris: L.G.D.J; 1993. p.697.
Ameli M. Wasayil al-Shia. Qom: Al al-Bayt Institute; 1991. Vol.25 p.5, 429. [Arabic]
Koleini M. Al-Kafi. Tehran: Dar al-Kitab al-Islamiyya; 1988. Vol.5 p.293. [Arabic]
Sadouq A. Man la Yahzuruho al-Faqih. Qom: Jame'eye Modaresin; 1992. Vol.4 p.334. [Arabic]
Ansari M. Fraied al-Asul. Qom: Majma al-Fikr al-Islami; 1998. Vol.1 p.535. [Arabic]
Khorasani M. Kafayah al-Asul. Qom: Al al-Bayt Institute; 1988. Vol.1 p.381. [Arabic]
Bojnoordi M. Al-Qawaied al-Fiqhiyyah. Qom: Al-Hadi; 1998. Vol.1 p.214. [Arabic]
Khomeini R. Tahzeeb al-Asul. Qom: Jame'eye Modaresin; 2002. Vol.2 p.22. [Persian]
Damad M. Rules of jurisprudence, civil sector, ownership, responsibility. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publishing Center; 2007. Vol.1 p.142. [Persian]
Ostadi R. "Defects", annulment of marriage. Ahl al-Bayt Jurisprudence Quarterly. 2009; 58(15): 94-128. [Persian]
Kalina V, Milokhova A. Civil law principle of good faith as an ethical and legal category. RSUH/RGGU BULLETIN. Series Economics. Management. Law. 2018; 1(3): 125-133.
Jafarzadeh G, Saraf H. Good faith in international contracts with universal rules or exceptional provisions. Journal of Legal Research. 2005; 41(8): 126-146. [Persian]
Whiteman M. Digest of International Law. Washington D.C: Government Printing Office; 1965. Vol.5 p.224.
Zamani Q. Legitimacy of economic sanctions the combination of prohibiting the abuse of rights with the normative hierarchy of fundamental human rights in the international system. Appendix published in the "International Economic Law". Tehran: Shahre Danesh; 2018. p.2. [Persian]
Jafari A, Heydari A. Measuring the feasibility of the jurisprudential rule of good faith. Journal of Fiqh and Fundamentals of Islamic Law. 2016; 2(50): 329-344. [Persian]
Available at: https://www.refworld.org/cases,ECH R,3ae6b6fb8.html. Retrieved on: January 04, 2020.
Palevic M, Djordjevic S. Freedom of information and abuse of media in the process of globalization. Webology. 2013; 10(1): 11-20.
W P and Others v. Poland (decision), 2 September 2004 [ECtHR].
Available at: http://www.associationline.org/guide book/action/read/section/jurisprudence/chapter/7/decision/218. Retrieved on: January 04, 2020.
Garaudy V. France A. no.65831/01, Decision 24 June 2003.
Available at: https://www.hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng# {%22 itemid%22:[%22001-23829%22]}. Retrieved on: January 04, 2020.
Mozafar M. Principles of jurisprudence. Qom: Al-Nashar al-Islami Institute; 2009. Vol.2 p.360. [Arabic]
Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/world/ 2017/dec/14/6700-rohingya-muslims-killed-in-attacks-in-myanmar-says-medecins-sans-frontieres. Retrieved on: March 11, 2020.
Ameli M. Wasayil al-Shia. Qom: Al al-Bayt Institute; 1991. Vol.17 p.341. [Arabic]
LeFebvre R, Franke V. Culture Matters: Individualism vs. Collectivism in Conflict Decision-Making. Societies. 2013; 3(1): 128-146.
Triandis H. Collectivism v. Individualism: A Reconceptualisation of a Basic Concept in Cross-cultural Social Psychology. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2020. p.60.
- Abstract Viewed: 285 times
- PDF (فارسی) Downloaded: 147 times