“You shall have the thought”: habeas cogitationem as a New Legal Remedy to Enforce Freedom of Thinking and Neurorights

IF 2.6 4区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
José M. Muñoz, José Ángel Marinaro
{"title":"“You shall have the thought”: habeas cogitationem as a New Legal Remedy to Enforce Freedom of Thinking and Neurorights","authors":"José M. Muñoz, José Ángel Marinaro","doi":"10.1007/s12152-024-09551-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Despite its obvious advantages, the disruptive development of neurotechnology can pose risks to fundamental freedoms. In the context of such concerns, proposals have emerged in recent years either to design human rights de novo or to update the existing ones. These new rights in the age of neurotechnology are now widely referred to as “neurorights.” In parallel, there is a considerable amount of ongoing academic work related to updating the right to freedom of thought in order to include the protection of “freedom of thinking” (i.e., freedom of thought itself) and not only its social manifestations. Neurorights such as cognitive liberty, free will, mental freedom, and mental self-determination come into play here. Importantly, freedom of thought has often been considered a prerequisite for all the other fundamental freedoms and rights. In any case, just as other rights require additional legal instruments to guarantee their compliance, substantial neurorights will probably require specific complementary developments in procedural law. In relation to this, there is a long tradition of <i>habeas corpus</i> as an emergency remedy to enforce the rights of a citizen against illegal or arbitrary detention. More recently, the <i>habeas data</i> writ has been proposed and admitted in certain countries to guarantee a person’s ownership of their personal data. In this article, we propose to expand this procedural apparatus by incorporating a third habeas, which we call <i>habeas cogitationem</i>: a writ aimed primarily at enforcing the right to freedom of thinking (and, subsidiarily, the rest of neurorights) against direct, harmful interferences in a person’s thought process by both public and private perpetrators.</p>","PeriodicalId":49255,"journal":{"name":"Neuroethics","volume":"31 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Neuroethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s12152-024-09551-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite its obvious advantages, the disruptive development of neurotechnology can pose risks to fundamental freedoms. In the context of such concerns, proposals have emerged in recent years either to design human rights de novo or to update the existing ones. These new rights in the age of neurotechnology are now widely referred to as “neurorights.” In parallel, there is a considerable amount of ongoing academic work related to updating the right to freedom of thought in order to include the protection of “freedom of thinking” (i.e., freedom of thought itself) and not only its social manifestations. Neurorights such as cognitive liberty, free will, mental freedom, and mental self-determination come into play here. Importantly, freedom of thought has often been considered a prerequisite for all the other fundamental freedoms and rights. In any case, just as other rights require additional legal instruments to guarantee their compliance, substantial neurorights will probably require specific complementary developments in procedural law. In relation to this, there is a long tradition of habeas corpus as an emergency remedy to enforce the rights of a citizen against illegal or arbitrary detention. More recently, the habeas data writ has been proposed and admitted in certain countries to guarantee a person’s ownership of their personal data. In this article, we propose to expand this procedural apparatus by incorporating a third habeas, which we call habeas cogitationem: a writ aimed primarily at enforcing the right to freedom of thinking (and, subsidiarily, the rest of neurorights) against direct, harmful interferences in a person’s thought process by both public and private perpetrators.

"你应拥有思想":作为实施思维自由和神经权利的新法律补救措施的思考人身保护令
尽管神经技术具有明显的优势,但其颠覆性的发展可能会给基本自由带来风险。鉴于这种担忧,近年来出现了重新设计人权或更新现有人权的建议。这些神经技术时代的新权利现在被广泛称为 "神经权利"。与此同时,学术界正在开展大量与更新思想自由权有关的工作,以纳入对 "思想自由"(即思想自由本身)的保护,而不仅仅是对其社会表现形式的保护。认知自由、自由意志、精神自由和精神自决等神经权利在这里都会发挥作用。重要的是,思想自由常常被认为是所有其他基本自由和权利的先决条件。无论如何,正如其他权利需要额外的法律文书来保障其实施一样,实质性神经权利也可能需要程序法的具体补充发展。在这方面,长期以来,人身保护令一直是一种紧急补救措施,用以落实公民免受非法或任意拘留的权利。最近,某些国家提出并接受了数据人身保护令,以保障个人对其个人数据的所有权。在本文中,我们建议通过纳入第三种人身保护令(我们称之为 "思考人身保护令")来扩展这一程序性机制:这一令状的主要目的是执行思考自由权(其次是其他神经权),使其免受公共和私人行为人对个人思考过程的直接、有害干扰。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Neuroethics
Neuroethics MEDICAL ETHICS-
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.10%
发文量
31
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Neuroethics is an international, peer-reviewed journal dedicated to academic articles on the ethical, legal, political, social and philosophical questions provoked by research in the contemporary sciences of the mind and brain; especially, but not only, neuroscience, psychiatry and psychology. The journal publishes articles on questions raised by the sciences of the brain and mind, and on the ways in which the sciences of the brain and mind illuminate longstanding debates in ethics and philosophy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信