Opening Access, Closing the Knowledge Gap? Analysing GC No. 25 on the Right to Science and Its Implications for the Global Science System in the Digital Age

Raffaela Kunz

doi:10.17104/0044-2348-2021-1-23

Contents
- Chapter Expand | CollapseAuthorsPage
- Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis
- 1–6 Editorial Armin von Bogdandy, Anne Peters Armin von Bogdandy, Anne Peters 1–6
- 7–22 Comment 7–22
  - The Importance of Having Rights Anne Peters Anne Peters
- 23–46 In Focus: Relaunch of the ZaöRV/HJIL as an Open Access Journal 23–46
  - Opening Access, Closing the Knowledge Gap? Analysing GC No. 25 on the Right to Science and Its Implications for the Global Science System in the Digital Age Raffaela Kunz Raffaela Kunz
- 47–264 Abhandlungen 47–264
  - 47–88 Exploring the Autonomy of the European Union Legal Order Koen Lenaerts, José A. Gutiérrez-Fons, Stanislas Adam Koen Lenaerts, José A. Gutiérrez-Fons, Stanislas Adam 47–88
  - 89–116 The Role of International Law in Vaccinating Against COVID-19: Appraising the COVAX Initiative Armin von Bogdandy, Pedro A. Villarreal Armin von Bogdandy, Pedro A. Villarreal 89–116
  - 117–146 COVID-19 and the Scope of the UN Security Council’s Mandate to Address Non-Traditional Threats to International Peace and Security Erin Pobjie Erin Pobjie 117–146
  - 147–234 Constitutions and Contagion – European Constitutional Systems and the COVID-19 Pandemic Angelo Jr Golia, Laura Hering, Carolyn Moser, Tom Sparks Angelo Jr Golia, Laura Hering, Carolyn Moser, Tom Sparks 147–234
  - 235–264 Give a Court an Inch and It Will Take a Yard? The Exercise of Jurisdiction over Incidental Issues Fabian Simon Eichberger Fabian Simon Eichberger 235–264
- 265–292 Buchbesprechungen 265–292
  - 265–270 Craven, Matthew/Pahuja, Sundhya/Simpson, Gerry (eds.): International Law and the Cold War (2019) Ned Richardson-Little Ned Richardson-Little 265–270
  - 271–276 Casey, Christopher A.: Nationals Abroad: Globalization, Individual Rights, and the Making of Modern International Law (2020) Ntina Tzouvala Ntina Tzouvala 271–276
  - 277–280 Swatek-Evenstein, Mark: A History of Humanitarian Intervention (2020) Jacob Katz Cogan Jacob Katz Cogan 277–280
  - 281–286 Ferrari, Guiseppe Franco (ed.): Judicial Cosmopolitanism. The Use of Foreign Law in Contemporary Constitutional Systems (2019) Sebastian Graf von Kielmansegg Sebastian Graf von Kielmansegg 281–286
  - 287–292 Frankenberg, Günter: Autoritarismus. Verfassungstheoretische Perspektiven (2020) Claudio Franzius Claudio Franzius 287–292
Durchsuchen Sie das Werk
Geben Sie ein Keyword in die Suchleiste ein
CC-BY-SA Access

Zeitschrift für ausländisches öffentliches Recht und Völkerrecht / Heidelberg Journal of International Law , page 23 - 46

Opening Access, Closing the Knowledge Gap? Analysing GC No. 25 on the Right to Science and Its Implications for the Global Science System in the Digital Age

Autoren

Raffaela Kunz

DOI
- doi.org/10.17104/0044-2348-2021-1-23
- ISSN: 0044-2348
- ISSN online: 2942-3562
Abstract

The Corona pandemic as never before shows the advantages of Open Science and Open Access (OA), understood as the unrestricted access to research data, software and publications over the internet. It might accelerate the long-predicted “access revolution” in the academic publishing system towards a system in which scientific publications are freely available for readers over the internet. This paradigm shift, for which the “flipping” of this journal is but one of many examples, is underway, with major research funding organisations at the national and international levels massively supporting it. The call for OA has now also been taken up by the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which in its recent General Comment (GC) No. 25 explicitly asks states to promote OA. Following the line of argument of the OA movement, the Committee finds that OA is beneficial to democracy, scientific progress and furthermore a tool to bridge the “knowledge gap”. The aim of this paper is to critically examine the GC and its implications for the global science system in the digital age. It argues that the great merit of the GC lies in highlighting that “benefitting” from science includes access to science as such and not only to its material outcomes. This underscores the independent meaning of the right to science which so far was primarily seen as an enabler for other social rights. However, when it comes to OA, the GC has problematic flaws. It simply assumes that OA is beneficial to the right to science, overlooking that the OA model which is likely to become the global standard risks to benefit the already privileged, namely researchers and publishers of wealthy institutions in the Global North, further sidelining those at the margins. Rather than narrowing existing gaps, it risks to further deepen them. In order to remain meaningful in the face of the fundamental criticism it faces, human rights law needs to address systemic issues and inequalities – in the science system and beyond.
Share