vol. 2 núm. 3 (2020): enero - junio

The obsession with data accumulation is behind the exciting purposes put into the possibilities of information and communication technologies. From this single perspective it is usually quite common to talk about opportunities and,  associated with it, challenges. But these challenges are focused on favoring the expansion of these technologies to any area that suits them. In the midst of this exaltation, less attention is paid to the risks of exclusion, but also to the control and domination that this may imply. Precisely counteracting these dangers is one of the great challenges of the Law to safeguard the civil andpolitical guarantees of the members of the democratic society or, otherwise, to contribute to the establishment of totalitarian regimes, equally subject to legality, but not to the idea of justice.This concern is what we will try to make explicit by returning to it about the false dichotomy that is established between freedom and security, on which the so-called criminal law of the enemyabounds and how much this involves the failure of the system of guarantees in a democratic and legal State.

La introducción de la e-administración y la e-justicia en Colombia tienen antecedentes más allá de la actual coyuntura generada por la COVID-19. Para hacer una reflexión ordenada sobre la irrupción de las TIC en la administración y justicia colombianas es necesario exponer la forma en que la e-administración y la e-justicia fueron introducidas institucionalmente al país. Adoptando definiciones académicas de los dos términos analizados, se buscaron normas de carácter general (administrativo y judicial) e instrumentos de planeación nacional o sectorial. La exposición muestra que el desarrollo de la e-administración y la e-justicia en Colombia está en un nivel bajo respecto de la subregión suramericana pero aceptable respecto del mundo. Así mismo, el proceso de la e-administración tiene un recorrido y resultados más amplios que los de la e-justicia. Finalmente, se puede concluir que la cantidad y calidad de los instrumentos de planeación es mayor que la materialización normativa y de gestión que han tenido en la e-administración y la e-justicia.

This article of reflection analyses the normative evolution of cybersecurity in the European Union (EU) during the last years. It also seeks to determine its impact on actors, resources and priorities. The starting hypothesis is that cybersecurity is progressively becoming a priority in the European political agenda, for two reasons. The first is more evident and concerns the growing importance of the cyber dimension in the daily life of all actors of the international system: population, institutions, firms, national and international organizations, governmental and no governmental. The second reason is directly related with the role of the EU institutions in regional integration. EU must provide the framework for the intergovernmental cooperation, the coordination of national actions, resources and strategies of the twenty-seven Members. They share, in the great majority of cases, threats, risks and challenges against their cybersecurity.

Non-traditional security threats (NTS) has been included on ASEAN’s regional security agenda. Among these NTS threats, defined by transnational and non-military nature, we found transnational crimes, migrations, environment threats, infectious diseases, people smuggling or food shortages. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the relevance of non-traditional security threats in the international system. ASEAN reassertedits commitment to NTS approach in 2015 with APSC Blueprint 2025 publication. This paper analyzes ASEAN’s non-traditional security agenda, including its background and principal effects. NTS inclusion on Security Community as recurrent practice is becoming a part of ASEAN’s identity.

The voluntarist disruptive hopes in the full application of artificial intelligence (AI) in the field of the Judiciary does not enervate an inescapable –and inevitable– reality such as the reformulated and growing link between AI and the Administration of Justice. And more specifically, between the algorithm and thejudicial decision. However, throughout the text, it will be shown that, to this day, the direct replacement of human activity in the judicial decision is purely chimerical in the short and medium term. Another thing is the activities related to the judicial prediction of the private platforms that use AI, fully developed and implemented (with some criminal reluctance as in France). Along with this prescient commercial activity, only in two areas can a timid disruption in the judicial field be rigorously affirmed: the possibilities offered by simple automation in the process and the use of automatic data processing technologies in the audiovisualfield. Disadvantages related to potentially discriminatory bias; the pure search for the technological imitation of the guidelines of human behavior; the denaturation of the heuristic principle or technical incapacity, such as the still incomplete processing of human language, are too many servitudes to consider robotjudges even more than a fiction.

High levels of perception of insecurity can have negative effects on people’s well-being, such as making them feel isolated or vulnerable, avoid certain places, increase private investment in security and fragmenting their sense of community. On top of that, high levels of insecurity perception can, in turn, increase crime levels. In Colombia, the insecurity perception rate is almost four times higher than the rate of citizens affected by anoffence. Hence, the objective of this research is to identify the main explanatory factors of the perception of insecurity in the cities of Colombia, through a multiple regression model based on five theories of perception of insecurity and the information from the Survey of Coexistence and Citizen Security of 2016. The main results of the research show that the variables associated with the theories of social networks, victimization and uncivility are the ones with the higher explanatory power of the perception of insecurity in Colombia.

The destruction of cultural heritage has become a constant weapon during armed conflicts. The cases of Palmira and Sana’a are paradigmatic of these dynamics; nevertheless, there have been differences between the international responses to both cases. Taking into account variables such as the space that bothstates occupy in the international power structure, different actors involved, Islamic state factor and the relationship between heritage and identity this paper analyzes international reactions towards both sites to study the ecosystem generated around each case study. To do so, reactions to both cases will be confrontedusing categories created using the models of Heritage for Peace and Al Quntar & Daniels. The review confirms a differentiated problematization of both cases in the international public agenda.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is gradually changing the whole life of society and, as a consequence, the Law who rule this society. With recent progress in digitized data acquisition,  machine learning and computing infrastructure, AI applications are expanding into areas that were previously thought to be only a matter of human experts. It is, in addition, irrelevant whether people believe that technology generates need, or need invents technology, the result will be the same: there is no turning back. The EU is trying to adapt to this new scenario, the main goal, a real Herculean task, is based on making compatible, on one hand, respec  fundamental rights, and on the other hand,  the risks which involve the new techs. In this review article,we outline recent breakthroughs in AI technologies and their practical applications, identify the challenges for further progress in AI systems and how they could couple in the current legal framework. We consider White Paper on Artificial Intelligence a starting point to implement a solid European regulatory frameworkfor trustworthy AI. Therefore, we should not concentrate on the more negative aspects, the technology has the power to protect all European citizens (e. g. controlling communicable diseases) and helps to create a frictionless internal market for further development and, at the same time. Nevertheless, we detect some weak points and legal loopholes that we also cannot fail to mention.

La expresión “inteligencia artificial” (IA), usada por vez primera por John McCarthy en 1955, describe un amplio, creciente y confuso terreno de investigaciones y de aplicaciones, con usos amplios y restringidos, enfoques diversos y a veces contrapuestos. La expresión, además, debe situarse en un contexto más amplio para aprehenderla cabal y totalmente: la evolución constante, con progresión geométrica, de las tecnologías de la información y la comunicación (TIC), queha dado lugar a lo que se suele denominar cuarta revolución industrial. Esta cuarta revolución, a diferencia de las anteriores, afecta a la naturaleza, fundamento y funcionamiento de la totalidad de la vida social de la especie humana; es decir, afecta a las dimensiones tecnológicas, económicas, políticas y culturales de todas nuestras sociedades. Por ello a menudo se dice que esta cuarta revolución tiene un impacto sistémico, y por ende disruptivo (altera) y también reestructurador (modifica sinergias y elementos fundantes y articuladores) del sistema social, al afectar a estratos superficiales, intermedios y profundos de nuestra organización social. 

There is a deep discussion about the so-called artificial intelligence (AI) –which is currently fuelled by bigdata- and about its possible effects on human life. I question in this article if we could get some advantage thinking about AI by clarifying the concept of information. I will argue, in effect, that a well-developed concept of information can provide some light on what we call AI. To argue in favour of this thesis, I will first explain my approach to the notion of information. Then, I will raise in brief some deliberations about AI. We can better understand what data is by taking into account the concept of information. We may also discuss, with a higher sense of perspective, even the very existence of something that could properly be called AI, as well as the possibility of machines superseding human beings, to damage or improve their life.

The power phenomenon has always called the attention of the human being, but with the same force with which power seduces, attracts and clouds the judgment those who come to hold it, it also generates in others eagerly the need to find the basis and the reason for that power and, especially, to put a limit on it, to control it, to justify its opposite: the right of resistance and civil disobedience. As we know, since ancient times, in Classical Greece with Sophocles and his work Antigone, or Aeschylus and his myth of Prometheus chained,the humankind has debated the limit of obedience to the law, to the ruler, to power, and when, under certain circumstances, disobedience or resistance is justified or “protected by the gods”. From the hand of different analysis matrices, it is possible to find answers for several of these approaches, which allows us to reach a fundamental meeting point: regardless of the origin of the power or who hold it, it will always be absolutely necessary to establish some boundaries in their exercise, as well as control tools that avoid excesses in such exercise and that also offer remedies or solutions in case they arise. An in-depth analysis of power, of the structures that shape it and of the relationships it establishes in a society, is essential not only to understandthat society, but more importantly, to direct it towards an ideal stage in accordance with the basic and universal principles of well-being, prosperity and realization of both citizens and the entire society, within a framework of respect for fundamental guarantees and democracy .