Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Anesthesiology Cardiology Dermatology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology General Medicine Geriatrics Hematology Infectious Diseases Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Obstetrics and Gynecology Oncology Pediatrics Psychiatry Radiology Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery Urology
Congress Coverage
2024 ESMO Congress 2024 ERS Congress 2024 EASD Congress 2024 ESC Congress 2024 EAN Congress 2024 ASCO Annual Meeting 2024 ACC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

EASD 2024

Keep up to date with the top stories from the 60th EASD Annual Meeting with our congress hub page.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Neuroethics
Published in:

Open Access 01-04-2023 | Original Paper

Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought

Author: Nora Hertz

Published in: Neuroethics | Issue 1/2023

Login to get access

Abstract

Progress in neurotechnology and Artificial Intelligence (AI) provides unprecedented insights into the human brain. There are increasing possibilities to influence and measure brain activity. These developments raise multifaceted ethical and legal questions. The proponents of neurorights argue in favour of introducing new human rights to protect mental processes and brain data. This article discusses the necessity and advantages of introducing new human rights focusing on the proposed new human right to mental self-determination and the right to freedom of thought as enshrined in Art.18 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Art. 9 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). I argue that the right to freedom of thought can be coherently interpreted as providing comprehensive protection of mental processes and brain data, thus offering a normative basis regarding the use of neurotechnologies. Besides, I claim that an evolving interpretation of the right to freedom of thought is more convincing than introducing a new human right to mental self-determination.
Footnotes
1
Oliver Müller and Stefan Rotter [1]: The authors define neurotechnologies as “the assembly of methods and instruments that enable a direct connection of technical components with the nervous system”.
 
2
Similarly, pharmaceutical interventions on the brain are becoming more precise and effective, see: Nita A Farahany [2].
 
3
For a deeper analysis on neurotechnologies and artificial intelligence, see: Orsolya Friedrich and Andreas Wolkenstein [3]; Philipp Kellmeyer [4]; Stephen Rainey and Yasemin J Erden [5].
 
4
There is also great potential for using BCIs to communicate with patients suffering from locked-in syndrom, see for example: Ujwal Chaudhary, Ioannis Vlachos et al. [12]; Liam Drew [13].
 
5
The term “neurorights” was introduced by Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno: Marcello Ienca and Roberto Andorno [14]. The notion is now often associated with the Neurorights Foundation < https://​neurorightsfound​ation.​org/​ > accessed 01 August 2022. In this paper, the term “neurorights” is used as an umbrella term for newly proposed human rights that are aimed to protect the “mind”.
 
6
This initiative regards the constitutional level. However, international human rights and constitutional rights are connected. Constitutional rights must be consistent with international human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted 10 December 1948) and international human rights treaties ratified by the respective state. Therefore, claims for new constitutional rights may indicate that the international human rights regime has deficiencies which the state seeks to remedy at the constitutional level. See also: Gerald L Neuman [16]. Another initiative pointing in this direction is the adoption of the (non-binding) Charter of Digital Rights by Spain in 2021 which dedicates one article to “Digital rights in the use of neurotechnologie” (Art. XXIV) < https://​portal.​mineco.​gob.​es/​RecursosArticulo​/​mineco/​ministerio/​participacion_​publica/​audiencia/​ficheros/​Charter%20​of%20​Digital%20​Rights.​pdf > accessed 01 August 2022.
 
7
Legal human rights are human rights that are legally recognised; they can be distinguished from universal moral rights, see: Samantha Besson [17], 28: “The law makes universal moral rights human rights, either by recognizing them as legal rights or by creating them in recognition of certain fundamental universal moral interests. This understanding of the relationship between moral and legal human rights is one of mutuality”. On the correspondence between moral and legal human rights, see: Silja Voeneky [18], 151.
 
8
Council of Europe, European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, adopted 4 November 1950 (entry into force 3 September 1953).
 
9
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights adopted by GA. Res. 2200A (XXI), 16 December 1966, entered into force 23 March 1976, 999 U.N.T.S. 171 (entry into force 23 March 1976).
 
10
For a comprehensive analysis of human rights limitations, see: Frédéric Mégret [23], 99.
 
11
However, treatments that do not meet the threshold of Art. 3 ECHR are usually considered under Art. 8 ECHR, which is not addressed by Ienca and Andorno. See for example: Ursula Kilkelly [24], 366.
 
12
The authors do not elaborate on the right to cognitive liberty, but refer to the existing conceptualisations of this right, which are outlined below .
 
13
For an analysis of the applicability of Art. 3 ECHR regarding the use neurotechnologies, see: Sjors Ligthart [31].
 
14
Sjors Ligthart, Thomas Douglas, Christoph Bublitz et al. [32]: The authors argue convincingly against the introduction of a new right to mental privacy because the existing jurisprudence of the ECtHR on Art. 8 ECHR provides sufficient protection or can be coherently further developed. However, the ECHR is a regional human rights instrument, and the presented reasoning leaves open whether this can also be said about the interpretation of Art. 17 ICCPR.
 
15
Sjors Ligthart [33]: Considering the right to (negative) freedom of expression (Art. 10 ECHR) in cases of brain reading.
 
16
Jan C Bublitz [34].
 
17
The Council of Europe launched a strategic action plan which includes the assessment of the sufficiency of the existing human rights framework to address the issues raised by the application of neurotechnologies: [35]. Marcello Ienca [36], argues for the necessity of Neurorights. The International Bioethics Committee published a report on ethics and neurotechnologies in which it calls for the adaptation of existing human rights and, if necessary, the introduction of new human rights: UNESCO [37].
 
18
For a similar interpretation, see: United Nations-General Assembly (UNGA) [40] para 25, adding as a fourth dimension that states should foster “an enabling environment for freedom of thought”.
 
19
Bublitz only states that they can go beyond indoctrination, coercion and brainwashing, Bublitz [26] 401.
 
20
American Convention on Human Rights adopted 22 November 1969 (entered into force 18 July 1978).
 
21
Arab Charter on Human Rights adopted by the Council of the League of Arab States on 22 May 2004 (entered into force 15 March 2008).
 
22
William A Schabas [42] Art. 18, para 10.
 
23
Leela Förderkreis E.V. and others v. Germany, App No 58911/00 (ECtHR 6 November 2008) para 80; Campbell and Cosans v. the United Kingdom, App no 7511/76; 7743/76 (ECtHR 25 February 1982) para 36.
 
24
Schabas [42] on Art. 18, para 20.
 
25
See above Introduction.
 
26
See above Introduction.
 
27
However, knowing that one’s thoughts are being read could lead to the avoidance of certain thoughts, and may thus also constitute an interference. UNGA [40] para 54: speaks about “self-censorship”.
 
28
Sinan Işık v. Turkey, App. No. 21924/05 (ECtHR 2 May 2010) para 42; UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) [45], para 3.
 
29
A conclusive statement on this would require a careful analysis of the scope of protection of the right to private life (Art. 8 ECHR, Art. 17 ICCPR), which also protects personal data and privacy and could provide adequate protection (see Rainey et al. [41]), as well as the right to freedom of (non)-expression), see Ligthart [33].
 
30
Salonen v Finland App no 27868/95 (ECtHR 2 July 1997) para 2; Alegre [38].
 
31
There is still no scientific consensus on what thoughts are and how they are formed. Peter Carruthers, for example, argues that thoughts are “amodal, abstract events, meaning that they are not sensory experiences” and that they do not become conscious, see: Steve Ayan [46].
 
32
Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties adopted by the UN General Assembly on 23 May 1969 (entry into force 27 January 1980); Schabas [42] Introduction, para 16, 17; David Harris, Michale O´Boyle, Colin Warbrick et al. [47], 5.
 
33
Edgar W Vinacke, Daniel E Berlyne and Robert J Sternberg [48]: “Thought, or thinking, is considered to mediate between inner activity and external stimuli. In everyday language, the word thinking covers several distinct psychological activities”.
 
34
In this direction: Schabas, [42] on Art. 19, para 9: “The private freedom to have and form opinions thus overlaps with freedom of thought guaranteed by Art. 18. Freedom of thought, therefore, contributes to freedom of opinion in that opinions usually represent the result of a thought process”.
 
35
Considering the debate on epistemic rights could be useful when addressing this issue. The debate turns around the question who is entitled to which information, knowledge, or truth, and how to protect knowers and knowns individually and collectively: [45, 49] Mathias Risse [50]; Catherine Kerner and Mathias Risse [51].
 
36
Schabas [42] on Art. 18, para 10. This includes for example cases of indoctrination, see also: Christoph Grabenwarter [52], on Art. 9, para 5.
 
37
Schabas [42] on Art. 18, para 19; HRC [45] para 5.
 
38
Christoph Bublitz [53], 1316; see also: Ligthart [33] 17.
 
39
Harris, O´Boyle, Warbrick [47] 99; Schabas [42] on Art. 7 ICCPR, para 26.
 
40
Sometimes the authors propose both: Bublitz [26] argues, for example, for the introduction of the right to mental self-determination, but also for a reinterpretation of the right to freedom of thought, see Bublitz [34]. Ienca and Andorno [21] propose a reconceptualisation of the existing human right to mental integrity besides the introduction of three new human rights.
 
41
Von der Decken and Koch [19] 8: The different levels of recognition are the idea, the emergence, the full recognition (grounded in a formal source of public international law), while not every right might pass all three stages. The formal sources of public international law are those mentioned in Art. 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice (adopted 26 June 1945, entry into force 24 October 1945).
 
42
United Nations Human Rights Council, ‘Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights’ (June 2011), < https://​www.​ohchr.​org/​Documents/​Publications/​GuidingPrinciple​sBusinessHR_​EN.​pdf > accessed 01 August 2022.
 
43
Jens T Theilen [67] discusses how to distinguish evolutive interpretation from “overexpansive” interpretations and questions the possibility to draw a line [66].
 
44
Tyrer v UK, App no 5856/72 (ECtHR 25 April 1978) para 31: The Convention is a “living instrument […] which must be interpreted in the light of present-day conditions”. Roger Judge v. Canada, CCPR/C/78/D/829/1998 (HRC 13 August 2003) para 10.3: The Covenant “should be interpreted as a living instrument and the rights protected under it should be applied in context and in the light of present-day conditions”. Harris, Boyle, Warbrick et al. [47], 17: The traveaux préparatoirs and historical arguments are secondary for the interpretation of the Convention.
 
45
An example for the refocusing of a human right could be seen in the interpretation of Art. 8 ECHR with regard to environmental protection, see: Grabenwarter [52] on Art. 8, para 18. For more examples, see: Rainey et al. [41] 70, 75; Schlütter [71] 311: on introducing substantive new dimensions to existing human rights, using conscientious objection as an example.
 
46
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women adopted by the UNGA on 18 December 1979 (entry into force 3 September 1981).
 
47
Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights adopted by the UNESCO on 19 October 2005.
 
48
Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, Oviedo, 4 April 1997 (entry into force 1 December 1999).
 
49
The ECtHR referred to the Universal Declaration on Bioethics and Human Rights and the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine in a judgment on reproductive medical treatments (sterilisations) and the interpretation of Art. 8 ECHR but has not yet introduced any new “genetic right”, see: Evans v United Kingdom App no 6339/05 (ECtHR 10 April 2007). For an analysis of “genetic rights”, see: Roberto Andorno [74], 345.
 
50
One example are the resolutions of the UN Human Rights Council on the right to an healthy environment and the “greening” of existing human rights, see: Nora Jauer [75]; Elena Cima [76]. On the importance of soft law in the case law of the ECtHR for demonstrating consensus, see: Angelika Nußberger [77]; Helfer [63]; Tzevelekos [59].
 
51
See above section “The Interpretation of Existing Human Rights – The Right to Freedom of Thought”.
 
52
The Universal Declaration on the Human Genome and Human Rights adopted by the UNESCO on 11 November 1997; International Declaration on Human Genetic Data adopted by the UNESCO on 16 October 2003. For a deeper analysis of the declarations, see: Fruzsina Molnár-Gábor [79], 218 et seq; see also: Silja Vöneky [80], 368.
 
53
See above Tyrer v UK (n 42).
 
54
See above section “The Interpretation of Existing Human Rights – The Right to Freedom of Thought”.
 
55
This is also proposed by the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, UNGA [40] para 96. Beyond this, the question of the implementation of the right to freedom of thought and the establishment of a governance framework arises. See, for example, Philipp Kellmeyer [81], arguing for making existing human rights more actionable and justiciable. For a comprehensive proposal for brain data governance, see: Marcello Ienca, Joseph J Fins, Ralf J Jox et al. [82]. One of the first efforts to govern neurotechnologies are the recommendations of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD): OECD [83].
 
56
For this critique, see also: Michalowski [84] 410.
 
57
For this critique, see also Hurst Hannum [85], 436: stating that the concrete obligations of states are not made clearer by introducing new human rights.
 
58
Bublitz argues that the absolute nature of the right to freedom of thought impedes its practical relevance, see: Bublitz [34] 30, 31.
 
59
See above "The Interpretation of Existing Human Rights – The Right to Freedom of Thought".
 
60
Susi [54] 26: speaks about “Discursive Practice”; see also: Andreas von Arnauld and Jens T Theilen [86], 35: stating that claims for new rights are often „rhetorical rather than juridical”.
 
61
Anne Peters [87], 393: Peters proposes a differenciation between human rights and international subjective rights to overcome this problem. A famous proposal for quality control of new human rights was made by Alston [78].
 
62
Currently, the introduction of other new human rights is also being discussed, e.g. the right to a healthy environment or the right to development.
 
63
On the other hand, rights inflation might not only be an objection to the introduction of new rights but also to the “overexpansive” interpretation of existing rights (expansionism), see: Theilen [67] 840 et seq: The author also warns against the politization of the inflation objection and a “mindset of gatekeeping”.
 
Literature
1.
Müller, Oliver, and Stefan Rotter. 2017. Neurotechnology: Current developments and ethical issues. Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience 11: 93.CrossRef
2.
Farahany, Nita A. 2019. The costs of changing our minds. Empory Law Journal 77.
3.
Friedrich, Orsolya, and Andreas Wolkenstein. 2021. Introduction: Ethical Issues of Neurotechnologies and Artificial Intelligence. In Clinical neurotechnology meets artifcial intelligence, eds. Friedrich, Wolkenstein, Bublitz, Jox, Racine.
4.
Kellmeyer, Philipp. 2019. Artificial intelligence in basic and clinical neuroscience: Opportunities and ethical challenges. Neuroforum 25: 241.CrossRef
5.
Rainey, Stephen, and Yasemin J. Erden. 2020. Correcting the brain? The convergence of neuroscience, neurotechnology, psychiatry, and artifcial intelligence. Science and Engineering Ethics 26: 2439.CrossRef
6.
Kellmeyer, Philipp. 2021. Big brain data: On the responsible use of brain data from clinical and consumer-directed neurotechnological device. Neuroethics 14: 98.CrossRef
7.
Coates McCall, Iris, and Anna Wexler. 2020. Peering into the mind? The ethics of consumer neuromonitoring devices. In Ethical dimensions of commercial and DIY neurotechnologies, eds. Bárd, Hildt.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
Chaudhary, Ujwal, Ioannis Vlachos, et al. 2022. ‘Spelling interface using intracortical signals in a completely locked-in patient enabled via auditory neurofeedback training. Nature Communications 13: 1236.CrossRef
13.
Drew, Liam. 2022. The brain-reading devices helping paralysed people to move, talk and touch. Nature 604: 416.CrossRef
14.
15.
16.
Neuman, Gerald L. 2003. Human rights and constitutional rights: Harmony and dissonance. Stanford Law Review 55 (5): 1863.
17.
Besson, Samantha. 2018. Justifications. In International human rights law, eds. Moeckli, Shah, Sivakumaran.
18.
Voeneky, Silja. 2018. Human rights and legitimate governance of existential and global catastrophic risks. In Human rights, democracy, and legitimacy in a world of disorder, eds. Voeneky, Neuman.
19.
von der Decken, Kerstin, Nikolaus Koch. 2020. Recognition of new human rights. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights, eds. von Arnauld, von der Decken, Susi.
20.
Yuste, Rafael, Sara Goering, Blaise Agüera y Arcas, et al. 2017. Four ethical priorities for neurotechnologies and AI. Nature 551: 159.CrossRef
21.
Ienca, Marcello, and Roberto Andorno. 2017. Towards new human rights in the age of neuroscience and neurotechnology. Life Sciences Society and Policy 13 (1): 5.CrossRef
22.
Ienca, Marcello. 2021. On neurorights. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 15: 701258.CrossRef
23.
Mégret, Frédéric. 2018. Nature of obligations. In International human rights law, eds. Moeckli, Shah, Sivakumaran.
24.
Kilkelly, Ursula. 2009. Art. 8: The right to respect for private and family life, home, and correspondence. In Law of the european convention on human rights, eds. Harris, O’Boyle, Warbrick, et al.
25.
Lavazza, Andrea. 2018. Freedom of thought and mental integrity: The moral requirements for any neural prosthesis. Frontiers in Neuroscience 12: 82.CrossRef
26.
Bublitz, Jan C. 2020. The nascent right to psychological integrity and mental self-determination. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights, eds. von Arnauld, von der Decken, Susi.
27.
Sententia, Wrye. 2004. Neuroethical considerations: Cognitive liberty and converging technologies for improving human cognition. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1013: 221.CrossRef
28.
29.
Bublitz, Jan C. 2013. My mind is mine!? Cognitive liberty as a legal concept. In Cognitive enhancement, eds. Hildt, Franke.
30.
Farahany, Nita A. 2012. Incriminating thoughts. Stanford Law Review 64: 352.
31.
Ligthart, Sjors. 2019. Coercive neuroimaging technologies in criminal law in Europe – Exploring the legal implications for the prohibition of Ill-treatment (Art. 3 ECHR). In Regulating new technologies in uncertain times, ed. Reins.
32.
Ligthart, Sjors, Thomas Douglas, Bublitz Christoph, et al. 2020. Forensic brain-reading and mental privacy in european human rights law: Foundations and challenges. Neuroethics 4: 311.
33.
Ligthart, Sjors. 2020. Freedom of thought in Europe: do advances in ‘brain-reading’ technology call for revision? Journal of Law and the Biosciences 7 (1): 1.CrossRef
34.
Bublitz, Jan C. 2021. Freedom of thought as an international human right: Elements of a theory of a living right. In The law and ethics of freedom of thought, volume 1 – neuroscience, autonomy, and individual rights, eds. Blitz, Bublitz.
35.
36.
Ienca, Marcello. 2021. Common human rights challenges raised by different applications of neurotechnologies in the biomedical field. Council of Europe.
37.
38.
Alegre, Susie. 2017. Rethinking freedom of thought for the 21st century. EHRLR 221.
39.
McCarthy-Jones, Simon. 2019. The autonomous mind: The right to freedom of thought in the twenty-first century. Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence 2: 19.CrossRef
40.
41.
Rainey, Bernadette, Pamela McCormick, and Clare Ovey (eds). 2021. Jacobs,White and Ovey – The European convention on human rights, 459.
42.
Schabas, William A. 2019. U.N. International covenant on civil and political rights: Nowak's CCPR commentary.
43.
44.
Cumper, Peter. 2009. Article 9: Freedom of religion. In Law of the european convention on human rights, eds. Harris,O´Boyle, Warbrick et al.
45.
United Nations Human Rights Committee. General Comment No. 22, Article 18 (Freedom of Thought, Conscience or Religion), (30 July 1993) CCPR/C/21/Rev.1/Add.4.
46.
47.
Harris, David, Michale O´Boyle, Colin Warbrick, et al. 2009. Law of the european convention on human rights.
48.
49.
Murdoch, Jim. 2012. Protecting the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion under the European convention on human rights. Council of Europe.
50.
Risse, Mathias. 2021. The fourth generation of human rights: Epistemic rights in digital lifeworlds. Moral Philosophy and Politics 8 (2): 351.CrossRef
51.
Kerner, Catherine, and Mathias Risse. 2021. Beyond porn and discreditation: Epistemic promises and perils of deepfake technology in digital lifeworlds. Moral Philosophy and Politics 8 (1): 81.CrossRef
52.
Grabenwarter, Christoph. 2014. European convention on human rights commentary.
53.
Bublitz, Christoph. 2015. Cognitive liberty or the international human right to freedom of thought. In Handbook of neuroethics, eds. Clausen, Levy.
54.
Susi, Mart. 2020. Novelty in new human rights. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights, eds. von Arnauld, von der Decken, Susi.
55.
Thürer, Daniel. 2009. Soft law. In Max Planck Encyclopedias of public international law, ed. Wolfrum.
56.
Boyle, Alan. 2018. Soft law in international law-making. In International law, ed. Evans.
57.
Choudhury, Barnali. 2018. Balancing soft and hard law for business and human rights. International and Comparative Law Quarterly 67: 961.CrossRef
58.
Shelton, Dinah. 2006. Normative hierarchy in international law. American Journal of International Law 100 (2): 291.CrossRef
59.
Tzevelekos, Vassilis P. 2016. The making of international law human rights law. In Research handbook on the theory and practice of international lawmaking, eds. Brölmann, Radi.
60.
Thirlway, Hugh. 2015. Human rights in customary law: An attempt to define some of the issues. Leiden Journal of International Law 28 (3): 495.CrossRef
61.
Riedel, Eibe. 2014. Rethinking human rights – Real reforms in procedure and substance? In Aus Kiel in die Welt: Kiel’s contribution to international law, eds. Delbrück, Heinz et al.
62.
Bódig, Mátyás. 2016. Soft law, doctrinal development, and the general comments of the UN Committee on economic, social and cultural rights. In Tracing the roles of soft law in human rights, eds. Lagoutte, Gammeltoft-Hansen, Cerone.
63.
Helfer, Lawrence R. 1993. Consensus, coherence and the European convention on human rights. Cornell International Law Journal 26: 133.
64.
65.
van Alebeek, Rosanne, and André Nollkaemper. 2012. The legal statuts of decisions by human rights treaty bodies. In UN human rights treaty bodies: Law and legitimacy, eds. Keller, Ulfstein.
66.
van Boven, Theo. 2018. Categories of rights. In International human rights law, eds. Moeckli, Shah, Sivakumaran.
67.
Theilen, Jens T. 2021. The inflation of human rights: A deconstruction. Leiden Journal of International Law 34: 831.CrossRef
68.
Mowbray, Alastair. 2009. An examination of the European court of human rights’ approach to overruling its previous case law. Human Rights Law Review 9: 179.CrossRef
69.
Bernhardt, Rudolf. 1999. Evolutive treaty interpretation, especially of the European convention on human rights. 42 German YB Int'l L 11.
70.
van Drooghenbroeck, Sébastien., and Cecilia Rizcallah. 2019. The ECHR and the essence of fundamental rights searching for sugar in hot milk. German Law Journal 20: 904.CrossRef
71.
Schlütter, Birgit. 2012. Aspects of human rights interpretation by the UN treaty bodies. In UN human rights treaty bodies: Law and legitimacy, eds. Keller, Ulfstein.
72.
Letsas, George. 2010. Strasbourg’s interpretive ethic: Lessons for the international lawyer. European Journal of International Law 21 (3): 509.CrossRef
73.
Dothan, Shai. 2019. The three traditional approaches to treaty interpretation: A current application to the european court of human rights. Fordham International Law Journal 42: 765.
74.
Andorno, Roberto. 2020. The relevance of human rights for dealing with the challenges posed by genetics. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights, eds. von Arnauld, von der Decken/Susi.
75.
76.
Cima, Elena. 2022. ‘The right to a healthy environment: Reconzeptualizing human rights in the face of climate change‘. RECIEL 31 (1): 38.CrossRef
77.
Nußberger, Angelika. 2018. Hard law or soft law – Does it matter? Distinction between different legal sources in the jurisprudence of the ECtHR. In The European convention on human rights and general international law, eds. van Aaken, Motoc.
78.
Alston, Philip. 1984. Conjuring up new human rights: A proposal for quality control. The American Journal of International Law 78 (3): 607.CrossRef
79.
Molnár-Gábor, Fruzsina. 2017. Die internationale Steuerung der Biotechnologie am Beispiel des Umgangs mit neuen genetischen Analysen.
80.
Vöneky, Silja. 2010. Recht, Moral und Ethik.
81.
Kellmeyer, Philipp. Neurorights – A human-rights based approach for governing neurotechnologies. In The Cambridge Handbook of Responsible Artificial Intelligence: Interdisciplinary Perspectives, eds. Vöneky, Kellmeyer, Müller, Burgard. (10/2022 forthcoming).
82.
Ienca, Marcello, Joseph J. Fins, Ralf J. Jox, et al. 2022. Towards a governance framework for brain data. Neuroethics 15: 20.CrossRef
83.
84.
Michalowski, Sabine. 2020. ‘Critical Reflections on the Need for a Right to Mental Self-Determination’, in: von Arnauld/von der Decken/Susi (eds), The Cambridge Handbook of New Human Rights (CUP 2020).
85.
Hannum, Hurst. 2016. ‘Reinvigorating human rights for the twenty-first century‘. HRLR 16: 409.
86.
von Arnauld, Andreas, and Jens T. Theilen. 2020. Rhetoric of rights. A topical perspective on the functions of claiming a “Human Right to …”. In The Cambridge handbook of new human rights, eds. von Arnauld, von der Decken, Susi.
87.
Peters, Anne. 2014. Jenseits der Menschenrechte: Die Rechtsstellung des Individuums im Völkerrecht.
88.
Neuman, Gerald L. 2018. Human rights, treaties, and international legitimacy. In: Human rights, democracy, and legitimacy in a world of disorder, eds. Voeneky, Neuman.
89.
Bublitz, Jan C., and Reinhard Merkel. 2014. ‘Crimes against minds: On mental manipulations, harms and a human right to mental self-determination. Criminal Law, Philosophy 8 (1): 51.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Neurorights – Do we Need New Human Rights? A Reconsideration of the Right to Freedom of Thought
Author
Nora Hertz
Publication date
01-04-2023
Publisher
Springer Netherlands
Published in
Neuroethics / Issue 1/2023
Print ISSN: 1874-5490
Electronic ISSN: 1874-5504
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-022-09511-0

Other articles of this Issue 1/2023

Neuroethics 1/2023 Go to the issue

Original Paper

Mental Integrity in the Attention Economy: in Search of the Right to Attention

Original Paper

Neurorights as Hohfeldian Privileges

Original Paper

The Ethics of Memory Modification: Personal Narratives, Relational Selves and Autonomy

Review Paper

Present and Emerging Ethical Issues with tDCS use: A Summary and Review

Original Paper

Merging Minds: The Conceptual and Ethical Impacts of Emerging Technologies for Collective Minds

Original Paper

Philosophical foundation of the right to mental integrity in the age of neurotechnologies

Advances in Alzheimer's

Alzheimer's research and care is changing rapidly. Keep up with the latest developments from key international conferences, together with expert insights on how to integrate these advances into practice.

This content is intended for healthcare professionals outside of the UK.

Supported by:
  • Lilly
Developed by: Springer Healthcare IME
Learn more
Image Credits