Распространенные ошибки в понимании прав человека
The purpose of this article is to examine the causes and consequences of the formation in a non-democratic state of the digital infrastructure of control and suppression of society. As a research method, a comparative case study was used in the interpretation of A. Lijphart and a cross-temporal comparison, as an analysis of dynamic changes in specific periods of time. It should be noted that the comparison here also serves as a special view at the political phenomenon (in this case, the use of digital technology in autocracies). The theoretical foundations of the emergence of modern autocracies and the reasons for increasing government attention to technology are considered. Specific examples consider the use of digital technologies to control society and strengthen the political regime of autocracies. Both political and socio-economic aspects of the functioning of modern authoritarian systems are revealed on the example of the China and the Philippines. At the end of the text is considered the probability of the spread of such practices in modern Russian Federation. Based on a theoretical and practical analysis, the authors come to the following conclusions: autocracies use digital technological infrastructure to form a system of control over citizens; the technological leader in the formation of such control systems is China, which exports elements of the technological infrastructure to other autocracies through state-owned corporations; In the Russian Federation, after a number of legislative changes in the information sphere, with the support of the China, elements of control over the internet and a system of big data collection subordinate to the state are being formed.
The Olympic Games of 1980 and 2014 present a case study in the hosting of sport mega-events by repressive regimes. In both cases, the authoritarian government sought hosting rights in order to enhance their own legitimacy, an aim that was largely met at home but at the cost of incurring damaging criticism abroad about human rights violations. In both cases, the Games sparked debates about how sporting events could be most effectively used to improve human rights overall. These debates revolved around familiar poles: on the one hand, claims that the events could help spur reform, and on the other hand, the argument that hosting would lead to heightened abuses. In 1980 even before the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan triggered a large- scale boycott, some voices in Western Europe and the United States were arguing that Moscow should be spurned because of the Soviet Union’s record of repression. In 2014 though some boycott calls were made, boycotting seemed a less compelling tactic. Instead, reformers hoped to achieve results through public pressure. In the final tally, the results of both Games suggest that sports mega-events in repressive regimes are likely to lead to more repression.
The article is devoted to the problem of comparison between the international human rights law and the international humanitarian law. It is demonstrated on the basis of particular cases from the European Court of Human Rights practice that all attempts to erase the boarders between two spheres of international law are dangerous and counterproductive.