International Law

DISASTER MANAGEMENT ACT, 2005 & EPIDEMIC DISEASES ACT, 1897: LOOKING AT THE PANDEMIC THROUGH A DISABILITY INCLUSION LENS Tiyasha Neogi, Law Student, 4th Year, BALLB at Lloyd Law College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh Download Manuscript ABSTRACT The pandemic has redefined the current world order and the functioning of society in a variety of ways. The rippling effects of the pandemic has been felt by the world at large and has impacted the global population in a myriad of ways. However, its effect on the disabled community has further marginalized an already vulnerable community. It is important to analyse the laws set in place for the pandemic on inclusion of the disabled community.  The Disaster Management Act came into existence in 2005 and was the first legislation to give a uniform frame for responding to disasters. While the Act in Section 12(ii) speaks about special provisions during disasters for widows and orphans, it is silent on inclusivity and special provisions for Persons with Disabilities. While the Disaster Management Act does not specify inclusivity in terms of PWDs, it can be read in tandem with The Rights of Persons with Disability Act which promises inclusivity and provides equal protection and safety in terms of disasters. The Epidemic Diseases Act which came into existence in 1897 as a response to Bombay’s bubonic plague in the Pre-Independence Era, however, has no clause for special provisions for PWDs. Covid-19 has shown the glaring difference between legislations and their execution, especially when it comes to PWDs. When it comes to implementation, there is a lack of inclusivity in the safety and preventive measures taken. Equity and inclusivity in legislations and public policies can only be achieved if PWDs are invited to form part of the decision-making process and are not merely recipients of the policies and legislations.

DEMYSTIFYING THE IDEA OF INTANGIBLE CULTURAL HERITAGE THROUGH THE LENS OF HUMAN RIGHTS Danish Chandra, Law Student, Vivekananda Institute of Professional Studies Download Manuscript ABSTRACT The relationship between human rights and cultural heritage law is critical, but it has received insufficient attention in the literature, particularly among human rights experts. Cultural heritage has several elements and characteristics that have strong human rights dimensions (both positive and negative), including its role in cultural identity formation and affirmation, its relationship to the thorny notion of cultural diversity, the problem of cultural traditions or practices that flout human rights standards, and the potential of heritage to exclude and serve as the vehicle for expressing social and political tensions. The paper sketches out a trend to broaden the understanding of certain basic aspects of human rights, as well as some theoretical issues that cultural heritage raises, such as relativist perspectives and claims for collective rights. Cultural rights, while vital, are not the only human rights that apply to cultural heritage protection, and an attempt is made to assess the substance and effectiveness of existing intangible cultural heritage instruments in light of other relevant human rights. Although recent cultural heritage legislation has responded more to human rights demands, the soft law nature of the legislation and the strong reservation of State sovereignty are limiting factors; thus, at stake is the question, if human rights are well understood and applied, can they have a direct impact on intangible cultural heritage protection and who should control stewardship and the benefits of intangible cultural heritage.

EMANCIPATING LEGAL PERSONHOOD OF ARTIFICIALLY INTELLIGENT MACHINES Kanishka Naruka, Law Student, University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur Harsh Singh, Law Student, Amity Law School, Lucknow, India Download Manuscript ABSTRACT The twenty-first century is coined to be the century of technology. Gradual as well as rapid advancement in technology has given birth to several new concepts. Of all these innovations artificial intelligence is the most remarkable one. AI is a machine with the exceptional computational ability which is designed to give desired outputs using human cognitive skills in such a manner that the outputs are not distinct from a human’s output. Artificial intelligence has become more powerful than ever in recent years. It was progressively added to existing technologies, but it quickly gained traction, allowing for the creation of new gadgets as well as new applications and capabilities for current ones. The primary purpose of AI has been to organize and process the accumulated unstructured data to recognize patterns and draw meaningful conclusions, which has become increasingly important owing to the proliferation of data. Technological advancement is one of the pushing factors in the development of legislation. Secondly, the task of identifying the personality of AI machines is very challenging. When we acclaim legal entities the company suffers a monetary loss generally, but when it comes to intelligent machines, they can cause harm which may be fatal at times. Also, artificial intelligence regulation has the potential to cause infiltration into the privacy regime; it is imperative to have control over the accuracy and extent of data fed up in machines as it has been reported several times that some of the surveillance machines have penetrated the personal life of individuals. Finding the responsible party is thus extremely arduous since businesses would be more than delighted to direct all allegations to the machine and go unpunished. However, in law, only a legal person can be attributed with criminal liability, and therefore, for attributing criminal liability to artificial intelligence technology, it is crucial to assess its standing as a legal person. This research endeavor aims at assessing the legal personhood of Artificial Intelligent Machines.