This paper considers the forms of vaccine nationalism specific to responses to SARS-CoV-2. First, it considers the initial vaccine responses to SARS-CoV-2 and how the competition unfolded in a broader, global sense. The second part considers the way the European Union adopted its own type of nationalism, despite claiming to distinguish itself as more humanitarian and equitable in approaching COVID-19 vaccine production, supply, and distribution. The creation of the export control mechanism, and the threat of its use, was itself an (...) expression of Euro-nationalism in action. The need to do so was largely a product of the EU’s own making, given its own contractual relationships with the pharmaceutical companies. Finally, this paper contends that the advocacy for vaccine passports, championed by the EU, served to cause parochial ruptures in the bloc for commercial reasons. (shrink)

This paper assesses the approach to indefinite detention adopted by the Australian government, suggesting that it is a product of incremental reasoning favouring procedure over observing substantive rights. Specific emphasis is given to the category of detainees deemed to be refugees, but assessed as a pressing security threat. The United Nations Human Rights Committee has found such approaches in violation of international law. Disproportionate measures, it is argued, have been taken regarding such a class of refugees, in direct violation of (...) the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The trend towards such detention, however, is an international one, a security trend that defers legal judgment to that of the executive in what can be termed a form of governmentality in action. That trend received considerable impetus from the post-September 11, 2001 detention regime in Guantánamo Bay. (shrink)

Edward Snowden's revelations of massive data collecting surveillance conducted by the U.S. National Security Agency in June 2013 suggest that Franz Kafka's vision of a surveillance state has been globalised. A movement has developed in response to it urging reforms on an international scale. One feature of this debate lies in the idea of a global right to privacy. A global right to privacy suggests a global freedom from unjustified, bulk surveillance beyond the reaches of judicial oversight. While there are (...) international covenants protecting the right to privacy, opinions on how such a right is enforced differ. This paper examines the nature of such a privacy right, its universal feasibility, and the arguments against it. It argues that privacy must keep pace with the technological applications that undermine it. (shrink)

The decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Google Spain v AEPD and Mario Costeja González enshrined the “right to forget” in the jurisprudence of the European Union. The judgment caused concern to transparency and open information advocates in terms of pitting a right to forget against the general right of the public to know. This, as this paper will argue, is a false distinction. The Internet is, and has always been, a regulated space. Nor (...) is the right to free expression, even in its American form, absolute. While there are genuine concerns about how the balance is struck, evolving practice is likely to identify what cases deserve deletion, to those that do not. The biggest challenge lies in how, and who, tests that balance as to what is removed from the search engines of the Internet. Finding material is important but forgetting may be just as vital to liberties as well. (shrink)

Containing the spread of pandemic transmission tends to go hand in hand with a surveillance regime that tracks movement, transmission and those who contract the virus or disease. An enduring legacy of the COVID-19 crisis will be the incremental development of surveillance technologies, ostensibly purposed to identify the threat and spread of a pandemic, giving birth to what amounts to the pandemic surveillance state. Whether this is seen as an undesirable outcome depends very much on the field of expertise and (...) the relevant slant. Health professionals and epidemiologists favor more surveillance; privacy and data security advocates fear a further denuding of protections. This paper examines the dangers of such technologies and efforts to seek a middle ground on app technologies designed to protect privacy. Such designs may, in time, seem more hopeful than actual. (shrink)