CC BY
55УДК 342.7
SOME ASPECTS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH WITHIN DIGITAL SPACE IN THE MODERN WORLD
Abdildina Danara Bagdatovna
Senior researcher of the department of international law and comparative legal studies of the Institute of legislation and legal information of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Master of Law, Republic of Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, email:[email protected]
Kulikpaeva Mira Zhumagazyevna
Head of the department of international law and comparative legal studies of the Institute of legislation and legal information of the Republic of Kazakhstan, PhD, Republic of Kazakhstan, Nur-Sultan, email: [email protected]
Keywords: freedom of speech, digitalization, the Internet, human and civil rights, access to information
Abstract. The article is devoted to the transformation of freedom of speech within the digital space. With the development of communication platforms on the Internet, from small forums to social networks and news portals with millions of users and readers, freedom of speech, has obtained an unprecedented scope of distribution and thus has faced a number of problematic aspects in the last decade.
The authors methodically consider the main aspects of this freedom, such as its content and the subject structure of legal relations. Taking into account the fact that freedom of speech is not absolute, i.e. it may be subject to restrictions, authors will pay special attention to the grounds and the methods of its restriction.
Nowadays state authorities in order to prevent distribution of illegal and inappropriate content apply such measures as blocking of website, search engine filtering and content removal from website. As universal practice shows the application of these measures requires compliance with certain rules: the imposed restrictions must be based on the law, be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The authors consider the main aspects of application of protection measures and also provide examples from Kazakhstani practice. At the same time, the article notes that a certain role in the appointment of one of these measures is played by the extraterritorial nature of the Internet. Experience of foreign countries defines that states extend their jurisdiction even in cases when servers of website located abroad or when a person who posted the illegal content is a foreign citizen.
Thus, the authors made an attempt to analyze the characteristic features of freedom of speech on the Internet and make a forecast of its further development.
ЦАЗ1РГ1 ЭЛЕМДЕГ1 ЦИФРЛЬЩ КЕЩСТ1КТЕГ1 СвЗ БОСТАНДЫГЫНЬЩ КЕЙБ1Р АСПЕКТ1ЛЕР1 ТУРАЛЫ
Данара Багдатовна Абдильдина
КР Зацнама жэне цуцыцтыц ацпарат институты халыцаралыц цуцыц жэне салыстырмалы цуцыцтану бeлiмMц ага гылыми цызметкерi, зац гылымдарыныц магистрi, Нур-Султан ц., Казацстан Республикасы; e-mail: [email protected]
Мира Жумагазыевна Куликпаева
КР Зацнама жэне цуцыцтыц ацпарат институты халыцаралыц цуцыц жэне салыстырмалыцуцыцтану бвлiмiнiц басшысы, PhD, Нур-Султан ц., Казацстан Республикасы; e-mail: [email protected]
TYUiu создер: свз бостандыгы, цифровизация, интернет, адам жэне азаматтыц цуцыцта-ры, ацпаратца цол жеттзу
Аннотация. Мацала цифрлыц кецiстiктегi свз бостандыгын трансформациялауга ар-налган. Интернеттегi байланыс платформаларыныц дамуымен, кiшiгiрiм жабыц форумдар-дан бастап, миллиондаган пайдаланушылар мен оцырмандары бар элеуметтж желтер мен жацалыцтар порталдарына дейт свз бостандыгы бурын-соцды болмаган таралу аясына ие бола отырып, соцгы онжылдыцта б\рцатар проблемалыц аспектшерге тап болды. Авторлар
осы бостандыцтыц нег1зг1 аспекттерт, атап айтцанда, оныц мазмуны мен цуцыцтыц цаты-настардыц субъективтг цурамын эдгстемелж тургыдан царастырады. Свз бостандыгы аб-солюттг емес болгандыцтан, язни шектеулерге ушырауы мумкт болгандыцтан, оны шектеу неггздерг мен эд1стер1не ерекше назар аударылады.
БYгiнгi тацда уэктеттг органдар зацсыз жэне цолайсыз контенттщ алдын алу мацса-тында пайдаланатын неггзгг шаралары сайтты бугаттау, ¡здеу жуйест CYзу жэне вебсайт-тан мазмунды жою болып табылады. Осы шараларды цолдану, элемдгк тэжгрибе корсетт отырзандай, нацты ережелердг сацтауды талап етедг: енг1з1лет1н шектеулер зацза неггз-делуг, демократиялыц цогамда молшерлес жэне цажеттг болуы тис Авторлармен оларды цолданудыц неггзгг аспект1лер1 царастырылады, сондай-ац цазацстандыц тэж\рибеден мы-салдар келтгредг. Сонымен цатар, мацалада осы шаралардыц бгрш тагайындауда Интернет желгсшц эксаумацтыц сипатца ие болуы белгш б1р ролд\ атцаратыны айтылган. Халыцара-лыц тэжгрибе корсеткендей, мемлекеттер оздершц юрисдикциясын сайт шетелдж болган немесе зацсыз мазмунды орналастырган адам шетелдгк азамат болган жагдайда да тара-тады.
Осызан орай, авторлар интернеттегг соз бостандыгыныц сипаттамалыц ерекшелк терт талдауза жэне соз бостандыгыныц одан эр1 дамуына болжам жасауза тырысты.
О НЕКОТОРЫХ АСПЕКТАХ СВОБОДЫ СЛОВА В ЦИФРОВОМ ПРОСТРАНСТВЕ В СОВРЕМЕННОМ МИРЕ
Абдильдина Данара Багдатовна
Старший научный сотрудник отдела международного права и сравнительного правоведения Института законодательства и правовой информации Республики Казахстан, магистр юридических наук, Республика Казахстан, Нур-Султан, email: [email protected]
Куликпаева Мира Жумагазыевна
Руководитель отдела международного права и сравнительного правоведения Института законодательства и правовой информации Республики Казахстан, PhD, Республика Казахстан, Нур-Султан, email: [email protected]
Ключевые слова: свобода слова, цифровизация, интернет, права человека и гражданина, доступ к информации
Аннотация. Статья посвящена трансформации свободы слова в рамках цифрового пространства. С развитием платформ общения в интернете, от небольших закрытых форумов до социальных сетей и новостных порталов с миллионами пользователей и читателей, свобода слова, получив небывалую до этого сферу распространения, в последнее десятилетие сталкивается с рядом проблемных аспектов.
Авторы методично рассматривают основные аспекты данной свободы, таких как её содержание и субъектный состав правоотношений. Ввиду того, что свобода слова не является абсолютной, т.е. может подлежать ограничениям, особое внимание будет уделено основаниям и методам её ограничения.
На сегодняшний день основными мерами, используемыми уполномоченными органами в целях предотвращения неправомерного и неприемлемого контента, являются блокировка сайта, фильтрация поисковых систем и удаление контента с вебсайта. Применение данных мер, как показывает мировая практика, требует соблюдения четких правил: вводимые ограничения должны быть основаны на законе, являться соразмерными и необходимыми в демократическом обществе. Авторами рассматриваются основные аспекты их применения, а также приводятся примеры из казахстанской практики. При этом, в статье отмечается, что определенную роль в назначении одной из данных мер играет экстерриториальный характер сети Интернет. Международная практика показывает, что государства распространяют свою юрисдикцию даже в тех случаях, когда сайт является иностранным или когда лицо, разместившее неправомерный контент, является иностранным гражданином.
Таким образом, авторами предпринята попытка проанализировать характерные особенности свободы слова в сети Интернет и сделать прогноз дальнейшего развития свободы слова.
It is widely known that from the human rights perspective two major areas of Internet regulation have been privacy and freedom of expression/
speech. The progress of means of communication in digital space has changed the freedom of speech in a certain way. One was given an opportunity
to express his thoughts to the wide audience and one was given an access to large amount of information. So, for the state authorities the main concerns in this sphere are: how to control illegal content and how to control legal but potentially harmful content without unduly infringing on the right to freedom of speech [1, p.17].
Freedom of speech in the digital space can be characterized by the clash of competing interests of a wide range of subjects. Participants of these legal relations can be divided into three large groups:
1) the state as the guarantor of protection of public order and security;
2) an Internet user, whose actions, in fact, lead to the conflict of interests of the participants;
3) entities whose activities are related to the provision of Internet services.
The third group includes many participants: Internet providers, website administrators, hosting companies (hosting providers), social networks, search engines, etc.
Relationships can arise between two groups of subjects (for example, state-user, state-Internet provider), and between all of the three groups. Participation of certain entities from the third group is determined by the subject of the dispute or imposed restrictions.
At the same time, a number of factors justify the complexity of state regulation: the speed of information distribution, the transboundary nature of the network, sophisticated process of user identification. Moreover, unlike television and newspapers, which also have a multi-million audience, the Internet rarely require from a mere user thorough editing of his material. All of the above can serve as a fertile ground for the emergence of various kinds of offenses:
1) distribution of inappropriate / illegal content (materials that violate moral standards and norms of national legislation);
2) distribution of materials that offend the feelings of other users;
3) publication and distribution of information discrediting someone's honor and dignity;
4) distribution of materials that violate copyright;
5) distribution and publication of content that threatens national security and public order, agitates for violent actions (hate speech).
This list is not exhaustive, but it reflects the main violations arising from the use of free speech on the Internet.
All international agreements (Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948,
Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter - the ECHR), Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of 1969 (hereinafter - the ICCPR) establish that freedom of speech consists of two elements - unhampered expression of one's opinion and access to information1. At the same time that right, which is not absolute, may be subject to restrictions from state, the grounds for which are enshrined in the ICCPR (paragraph 3 of article 19) and the ECHR (paragraph 2 of article 10).
According to the ICCPR, restrictions must be established by law and must be necessary for respect of rights, reputation of others and protection of national security, public order, public health or morals. Moreover, the ECHR defined additional grounds: protection of territorial integrity, prevention of disturbances and crime, prevention of disclosure of the confidentially received information, or protection of authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
Nowadays constitutions of the majority of countries contain universally enshrined standards for guaranteeing freedoms and human rights. Article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan determines that, firstly, «freedom of speech and creativity are guaranteed. Censorship is prohibited», secondly, «Everyone has the right to freely receive and distribute information in any way not prohibited by law», thirdly, «Propaganda or campaigning for a violent change of the constitutional order, violation of the integrity of the Republic, undermining the security of the state, war, social, racial, national, religious, class and tribal superiority, as well as the cult of cruelty and violence are prohibited». Thus, article 20 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan guarantees freedom of expression and receipt of information and establishes the grounds for its restriction.
Regulations in the sphere of freedom of speech are applied to the Internet space as well, which is confirmed both by the practice of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter - the ECtHR) and by the recommendations issued by international organizations. For example, the Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member states on the human rights of Internet users2, the UN Guidelines on Human Rights for Business3. The imposed restrictions must be based on law, be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. This requirement was especially emphasized by the ECHR in the Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey case. The court pointed out that introduction of restricting measures requires
1 General comment No. 34, CCPR/C/GC/34. Human Rights Committee. Electronic access: https://undocs.org/ CCPR/C/GC/34
2 Рекомендация CM/Rec(2014)6 Комитета Министров Совета Европы для государств-членов о правах человека интернет-пользователей. Электронный доступ: https://search.coe.int/cm/Pages/result_details.aspx?ObjectID =09000016805c6f85#P118_25200 (дата обращения от 12.05.20)
3 Руководящие принципы ООН по правам человека для бизнеса 2011 года. Электронный доступ: http://www. ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/GuidingPrinciplesBusinessHR EN.pdf (дата обращения от 12.05.20)
a clear legal basis that establishes the scope of restrictions and the right to challenge them in court4.
With the increase of restrictions of Internet freedom, the methods of state control are slowly becoming less visible [2, p.183]. Among the most prominent measures applied by authorities are: blocking website, filtering website in search engines, and removing content from website.
Blocking, filtering or suspension of access to the Internet content are technical measures designed to restrict access to information or resources. Such actions are usually taken by an Internet service provider (Internet service provider) through hardware and software that block the receipt or the display of certain content on the devices of Internet users. The goal of such hardware and software is to block the Domain Name System (DNS) or Uniform Resource Locator (URL). In turn, requests to remove content are sent to website administrator (web-site operator) or server owner (host).
Application of these measures is not always perceived favorably by the owners of Internet platforms (as well as in cases of additional liability of hosting sites for violation of copyright by their users). For example, in 2014 Ilya Azar's article «Ust-Kamenogorsk People's Republic. Whether Russians are waiting for «polite people» in Kazakhstan» posted in the Meduza Internet portal was recognized by the local executive body as inciting ethnic hatred and calling for violation of the country's territorial integrity. The website was blocked on the territory of Kazakhstan. It is not known whether Kazakhstani authorities had previously contacted the Meduza administration before the blocking, but given that the article is still on the website, it can be assumed that the administration had rejected the removal request5.
Still, there are some positive examples of cooperation. In some cases, state authorities deal with the issue through diplomatic channels. Thus, publication of the article «Why Kazakhstan seeks to return to China» published at the end of March 2020 on the Chinese portal www.sohu.com was discussed on the intergovernmental level. On April 14, 2020, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Kazakhstan, during a meeting with the Chinese Ambassador to Kazakhstan Zhang Xiao, expressed the protest against the article to the People's Republic of China. In the evening of the same day, the article was removed from the website6.
Also, despite the fact that the Internet is
identified as a space without borders, the territorial boundaries of states, nevertheless, have an impact on the methods of interaction between stakeholders. In particular, in cases when illegal content is posted on the servers located outside the territory of a state the legislation of which the posted content violates. In this regard, we should mention such aspects of relations arising in the Internet space as their transboundary nature and, as a consequence, state extraterritorial jurisdiction, which implies the ability of state to exercise jurisdiction outside its territory. In the doctrine of international law, full jurisdiction of state is «the power of state to prescribe the behavior and ensure the implementation of its prescriptions by all legal means at its disposal» [3, p. 330]. Jurisdiction according to its territorial scope can be territorial and extraterritorial [4, p. 38].
As Professor R.M. Valeev notes, «if the interests of the state are somehow affected or the subject of the legal relationship is a citizen of this state, it can claim the exercise of its jurisdiction» [5, p. 400]. In this regard, the academic has identified grounds for the extension of criminal jurisdiction of state outside its territory:
a) the acts were committed abroad by his citizen;
b) the acts were committed against his citizen;
c) acts that cause damage to this state (protection of state interests in the field of national security, financial stability, etc.);
d) acts that are defined as crimes under international law [5, p.419-420].
Nowadays states, concerned about the protection of private data, cybercrime, copyright, tend to adopt laws that have an extraterritorial effect. National legislation of such states as Malaysia, Germany affecting freedom of expression and extending its power beyond the host state and regulations of the EU were analyzed.
In 2015, Malaysia passed amendments to the Sedition (Amendment) Act, which empowered sessions courts to order the removal from the Internet of publications calling for rebellion, causing damage to person or property, inciting racial, interclass and religious hatred7. Pursuant to Section 3 of Article 2 of the Extra-Territorial Offenses Act 1976, the offenses defined in the Official Secrets Act 1972 and Sedition Act 1948 committed by any citizen or resident, any place without and beyond the limits of Malaysia shall be
4 European Court of Human Rights, the case of Ahmet Yildirim v. Turkey № 3111/10 of 18.12.2012. Electronic access: http://hudoc.echr. coe.int/fre?i=001-115705 (date of access 04.08.20)
5 Meduza.io is blocked in Kazakhstan prior to the expertise results. Publication at the news portal Tengrinews. kz. Electronic access: https://tengrinews.kz/kazakhstan_news/internet-resurs-meduzaio-zablokirovan-kazahstane-rezultatov-264341/ (date of access 03.08.20)
6 Publication about «Kazakhstan 's belonging to China» entails a note of protest. Publication at the news portal Azattyq. Electronic access: https://rus.azattyq.org/a/kazakstan-and-china-note-of-protest/30553220.html (date of access 03.08.20)
7 The Sedition Act 1948. Electronic access: https://www.cljlaw.com/files/bills/pdf/2015/MY_FS_BIL_2015_17.pdf (date of access 02.08.20)
punished under the law as if the crime had been committed in Malaysia8.
In 2017 the European Union adopted the Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws9. Article 9 of the Regulation establishes powers of competent authorities of the Member States of the Union responsible for consumer protection. In accordance with subparagraph (g) of paragraph 4 of Article 9 of the Regulation, in cases where there are no other effective means to stop or prohibit the violation covered by this Regulation and in order to avoid the risk of causing serious harm to the collective interests of consumers, the competent authorities may:
(i) remove content or restrict access to the online interface or order the display of an explicit warning to consumers when accessing the online interface;
(ii) order the hosting provider to remove, disable or restrict access to the online interface; or
(iii) where appropriate, order domain registries or registrars to delete a fully qualified domain name and allow the competent authority concerned to register it.
Furthermore, according to paragraph 40) of the preamble of the Regulation «The enforcement challenges that exist go beyond the frontiers of the Union, and the interests of Union consumers need to be protected from rogue traders based in third countries». Thus, without a court ruling European agencies and bodies for protection of interests and consumer rights at their discretion of are eligible to issue an order to remove and block sites which are located outside the European Union may be issued.
The Network Enforcement Act (NetzDG) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) adopted in 2017 in the Federal Republic of Germany caused a great stir in the world community10. It represents a certain interest for us as it reflects common tendencies in the regulation of freedom of speech in the digital space: growing responsibilities of intermediaries and extraterritorial power of state.
The Act was adopted as a measure to protect network users from inciting hatred and disinformation on the Internet. That, in turn, put pressure on social networks and online media, number of users of which exceeds 2 million, to promptly respond to user complaints and remove illegal content from their websites.
According toArticle 2 oftheAct, social networks that receive more than 100 complaints about illegal
content during a calendar year are required to compile semi-annual reports on the consideration of complaints about illegal content on their platforms and publish these reports in the Federal newspaper and on their website no later than one month after the end of the corresponding half-year.
The greatest public concern was caused by Art. 3 of the Act, which imposed the obligation on social networks to remove or block access to content that is manifestly unlawful within 24 hours from the receipt of the complaint. In relation to the rest of the illegal content (the Act does not specify what kind of content) the time frame is extended up to 7 days. Failure to fulfill these obligations will result in a fine of up to 5 million euros.
The Act applies to any platform, regardless of whether it falls under the jurisdiction of the Federal Republic of Germany, where hate speech can be downloaded or viewed by a citizen or a resident of the Federal Republic of Germany.
According to the UN Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, D. Kaye, the obligations imposed on private companies by this Act raise concerns about freedom of expression. The Special Rapporteur also notes that «A ban on the dissemination of information based on vague and ambiguous criteria, such as «insult» or «slander», is incompatible with Article 19 of the ICCPR. The list of violations is broad and includes violations that do not require the same level of protection. In addition, many of the violations covered by the draft law strongly depend on the context, which the platforms are not able to assess»11. The imposition of heavy fines also, according to the Special Rapporteur, may constitute undue interference with freedom of speech. Overall, the report notes, high fines and tight time frames can lead to overregulation of the web, which will result in the removal of even legitimate content in order to prevent any complaints about internet platforms.
According to paragraph 2-1 of the Article 25 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan «On Mass Media», the owner, editor-in-chief (editor) of the mass media (web-sites are acknowledged as mass media) shall be liable for distribution of messages and materials containing propaganda or agitation of a violent change of the constitutional order, violation of the integrity of the Republic of Kazakhstan, undermining the security of the state, war, social, racial, national, religious, class
o
The Extra-territorial Offences Act1976. Electronic access: http://www.agc.gov.my/agcportal/uploads/files/ Publications/LOM/EN/Act%20163.pdf (date of access 02.08.20)
9 Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2017 on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws and repealing Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004. Electronic access: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2017/2394/oj (date of access 04.08.20)
10 Network Enforcement Act 2017. Electronic access: https://germanlawarchive.iuscomp.org/?p=1245 (date of access om 04.08.20)
11 Mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion andprotection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression OL DEU 1/2017. Electronic access: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/0pinion/Legislation/0L-DEU-1-2017.pdf (date of access om 05.08.20)
and tribal superiority, the cult of cruelty, violence and pornography, regardless of the source of their origin12. Still, the Law does not indicate how, to what extent responsibility should be distributed between these parties.
Overregulation by social media, web-sites can also represent a measure directed against their assumable liability as nowadays there is no accurate and effective model of defining the liability of intermediaries (hosts, administrators, etc.) in the Internet. Thus, overregulation can be described as a protection measure for web-site owners and administration.
Unreasonable application of blocking, filtering and removal of content constitute violations of freedom of speech. These violations are facilitated by the lack of appropriate legal regulation or the absence of clear legal framework that establishes the grounds for imposing restrictions, the scope of restrictions and the possibility of challenging them in court.
In the doctrine of international law, state, as noted by the Soviet scientist D.B. Levin, «bears international legal responsibility for internationally illegal actions of individuals, own citizens or foreigners committed on its territory. Strictly speaking, it is responsible not for the actions of private individuals as such, but for the behavior of their bodies, which did not prevent such actions or did not punish their perpetrators, although they were obliged to do so» [4, p.81]. Thus, we can conclude that even though the state relinquishes its power to control and regulate the Internet space, it remains responsible for protection and observation of constitutionally guaranteed human and civil rights and freedoms.
In this regard, it is quite common when state's desire to protect citizens from the influence of illegal content results in the excessive assignment of responsibility to Internet intermediaries, which, in turn, affects the end user and his freedom of speech. Furthermore, as some academics note, different protections of freedom of speech may create intercultural or cross-cultural conflict on the Internet [7, p.733].
Thus, such advantages of the Internet as its transboundary nature, the speed of information distribution, global interconnection, lack of complete control, and the rapid development of technologies have led to the high complexity of regulation of freedom of speech in the Internet. Also, it should be noted that rights and responsibilities of Internet intermediaries tend to expand every year. By imposing the obligation for the Internet intermediaries to observe, control and protect public order in the digital space, states to some extent delegate part of their competence in the field of protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens.
Recent arguments between the social network Twitter and the administration of US President Donald Trump indicate that inner regulation of social media becomes stiffer than legislation in this sphere13. Thus, users are restricted in their rights and can be banned without the right for challenging the decision of the platform administration. State legislation does not impose any imperatives for social media platforms in this sphere. We suppose that further participation and presence of the Internet intermediaries in the digital space will play an increasing and more powerful role in the enjoyment of freedom of speech.
ЛИТЕРАТУРА
1. Rikke Frank J0rgensen, Internet and Freedom of expression. Electronic access: https://www. ifla.org/ files/assets/faife/publications/ife03.pdf
2. Alan Sears, Protecting freedom of expression over the Internet: an international approach. Electronic access: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=ndjicl
3. Международное право. Общая часть: учеб. для студентов юрид. фак. и вузов /Лукашук И.И.; Рос. акад. наук, Ин-т государства и права, Академ. правовой ун-т. — Изд. 3-е, перераб. и доп. — М.: Волтерс Клувер, 2005. — 432 с.
4. Международное уголовное право. Учебник/Лукашук И.И., Наумов А.В. - М.: Спарк, 1999. - 287 с.
5. Международное право. Общая часть: Учебник / Отв. ред. Валеев Р.М., Курдюков Г.И. - М.: Статут, 2011. - 543 с.
6. Левин Д.Б. Ответственность государств в современном международном праве. - М.: Международные отношения, 1966. - 152 с.
7. Kitsuron Sangsuvan, Balancing Freedom of Speech on the Internet under International Law. North Carolina Journal of International Law, vol.39, 2014. P.701-755
REFERENCES
1. Rikke Frank J0rgensen, Internet and Freedom of expression. Electronic access: https://www.
12 The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated 23 July 1999 No. 451-I "On mass media". Electronic access: http:// adilet.zan.kz/eng/docs/Z990000451_ (date of access 06.08.2020)
13 «Donald Trump made a tweet. Why did it split Facebook». Publication from 03.06.20 on the bbc.com. Electronic access: https://www.bbc.com/russian/news-52908944 (date of access 03.06.20)
ifla.org/files/assets/faife/publications/ife03.pdf
2. Alan Sears, Protecting freedom of expression over the Internet: an international approach. Electronic access: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1032&context=ndjicl
3. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Obshhaja chast': ucheb. dlja studentov jurid. fak. i vuzov / Lukashuk I.I.; Ros. akad. nauk, In-t gosudarstva i prava, Akadem. pravovoj un-t. — Izd. 3-e, pererab. i dop. — M.: Volters Kluver, 2005. — 432 s.
4. Mezhdunarodnoeugolovnoepravo. Uchebnik/LukashukI.I.,NaumovA.V.-M.:Spark, 1999.-287s.
5. Mezhdunarodnoe pravo. Obshhaja chast': Uchebnik / Otv. red. Valeev R.M., Kurdjukov G.I. -M.: Statut, 2011. - 543 s.
6. Levin D.B. Otvetstvennost' gosudarstv v sovremennom mezhdunarodnom prave. -M.Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 1966. - 152 s.
7. Kitsuron Sangsuvan, Balancing Freedom of Speech on the Internet under International Law. North Carolina Journal of International Law, vol.39, 2014. P.701-755
УДК 349.6
О ПРЕДЕЛАХ ЭКОЛОГИЧЕСКОГО НОРМИРОВАНИЯ ПО ЗАКОНОДАТЕЛЬСТВУ РЕСПУБЛИКИ БЕЛАРУСЬ И ДРУГИХ ГОСУДАРСТВ-ЧЛЕНОВ ЕВРАЗИЙСКОГО ЭКОНОМИЧЕСКОГО СОЮЗА
Гашникова Тамара Владимировна
Начальник отдела проблем укрепления законности в сфере экономической деятельности государственного учреждения «Научно-практический центр проблем укрепления законности и правопорядка Генеральной прокуратуры Республики Беларусь», кандидат юридических наук, докторант Белорусского государственного университета; г. Минск, Республика Беларусь; e-mail: [email protected]
Ключевые слова: Нормирование в области охраны окружающей среды, экологическое нормирование, нормативы качества окружающей среды, нормативы предельно допустимых воздействий, техническое регулирование, санитарно-эпидемиологическое нормирование, Евразийский экономический союз.
Аннотация. В статье проводится анализ общего и особенного в правовом регулировании экологического нормирования в государствах-членах Евразийского экономического союза. Сопоставляются нормы природоохранных актов Республики Беларусь, Российской Федерации, Республики Казахстан, Кыргызской Республики и Республики Армения, посвященные правовому институту экологического нормирования. Констатируется, что, не смотря на схожий в целом подход, в государствах-членах Евразийского экономического союза имеются концептуальные различия в определении перечней нормативов, устанавливаемых в рамках экологического нормирования. Рассматриваются взгляды, имеющиеся в доктрине экологического права, на круг вопросов, охватываемых экологическим нормированием. Данной проблемой занимались В.В. Петров, Т.В. Петрова, И.О. Краснова, Ю.Г. Максимова, Н.В. Кичигин, Д.И. Шакирова и ряд других авторов. Обращается внимание на некоторые нормативные положения, имеющиеся в модельном законодательстве Содружества Независимых Государств, Экологическом кодексе Французской Республики.
Проведенное исследование позволяет сделать вывод о том, что концепция экологического нормирования окончательно не сформирована, на национальных уровнях происходит поиск возможных вариантов построения этого правового механизма. В качестве оптимальной модели рассматривается модель, основывающаяся на комплексном взгляде на существо экологического нормирования.
В плане проходящих процессов евразийской интеграции анализируются работы, затрагивающие вопросы гармонизации, унификации нормативных правовых актов государств-членов Евразийского экономического союза, среди которых работы Т.Н. Михалевой, А.А. Каширкина, А.Н. Морозова, Е.А. Свадковской. Опираясь на нормы Договора о Евразийском экономическом союзе, указывается на целесообразность взаимодействия государств-членов Евразийского экономического союза для формирования гармонизированного подхода к правовой регламентации экологического нормирования.
