Maria-Artemis Kolliniati

This paper examines the political-philosophical values shaping Greek citizenship law and policy and how they institutionalized norms of inclusion, exclusion, civic worth, and equality within the democratic community. Using discourse analysis, it treats citizenship policies not merely as legal instruments but as expressions of underlying philosophical commitments that structure society’s understanding of membership and regulate access to rights. The study has two main objectives: to identify the dominant philosophical frameworks influencing political and legal commitments and institutional practices, and to explore the relationship between citizenship policies and the principles of property-based liberalism and conservatism, on one hand, and liberal egalitarianism, on the other. Findings show that Greece has historically followed an ethnic-based (_ius sanguinis_) approach. Reforms proposed in 2010 and enacted in 2015 partially adopted an _ius soli_ model aligned with liberal egalitarian ideals, aiming to reduce social and economic inequalities and foster inclusion for second-generation residents. In contrast, 2020 reforms reflect a return to property-liberal and conservative values, emphasizing financial criteria, national identity, and tradition, thereby reinforcing _ius sanguinis_ and linking economic status to civic worth. The study highlights the tension between egalitarian inclusion and conservative-exclusionary principles, showing how philosophical values shape legal frameworks and the symbolic construction of membership.

This book is aimed at academics whose research relates to the European Convention on Human Rights and those who are interested in the philosophy of law. It is also aimed at judges and lawyers who deal with the ECHR, and with European Court of Human Rights health-related case law in particular. Furthermore, it can be used by students who wish to deepen their knowledge of the philosophical issues relating to human rights and the ECHR. The main objectives of this book are threefold. First, it proposes that Joseph Raz’s notion of the ‘double dimension of human rights’ offers a middle-ground approach to human rights that judges can use to scrutinise the social aspects of those rights. Secondly, it proposes that Joseph Raz’s philosophy of law must be read as a theory on the ‘double dimension of human rights’, rather than as an interest theory on such rights. Thirdly, this book does not just focus on the theory of human rights; it also analyses how human rights are applied and read in practice, focusing on the ECHR and ECtHR case law.

Kolliniati’s groundbreaking book, Interpreting Human Rights: Narratives from Asylum Centers in Greece and Philosophical Values, challenges the notion that the interpretation and application of human rights primarily occur within the corridors of power in Strasbourg or official European institutions. It argues that such interpretation takes place in the grassroots settings of rural areas and neighborhoods, by actors who do not belong to the class of decision‑making elites. Focusing on the Aegean islands as exemplary sites of the European refugee crisis, this book draws on research conducted among local actors, including mayors, municipal councilors, representatives of NGOs and staff at refugee reception and identification centers. This book is divided into five distinctive sections: Methodology; Legal Framework and the Emergence of Hotspots; Empirical Research: Narratives of Local Actors; Local Narratives and Political Attitudes; and Glocalization of Human Rights. The study explores the role of human rights in narratives surrounding refugee flows, categorizing responses according to various political theory approaches such as global liberalism, egalitarianism, communitarianism and conservatism. By integrating applied political theory with localized human rights interpretations, this book offers actionable steps for addressing the challenges of migration in today’s interconnected world. By amplifying the voices of those directly engaged with one of contemporary Europe’s most significant challenges, Interpreting Human Rights will appeal to scholars of sociology, political theory, politics and international law, particularly those interested in migration, human rights and refugee studies.

This paper explores the application of Aristotelian virtue (arête), as quality of excellence and as a key notion of ethics, to AI systems as classified in the EU Artificial Intelligence Act. It argues that while the Act’s approach based on ‘ethical data’ and ‘prima facie values’ aligns with the Rossian paradigm, such principles may not be suitable for all AI systems, particularly those in ‘limited’ or ‘minimal risk’ zones. The paper suggests that the Aristotelian concept of virtue can be effectively applied to designing, training, operating and using no-risk or low-risk AI systems. However, its application to the design and training of high-risk areas such as migration, asylum, border control, and justice, where clearly defined objectives are essential, requires ongoing consideration. The paper concludes that by distinguishing between (a) design, development, training, deployment, operation and use, (b) by stage evaluation of systems, and c) virtuous use of the systems, Aristotelian ethics can serve as a post ex evaluating method for all-risk AI systems, while further research and the potential use of regulatory sandboxes are needed to explore the integration of Aristotelian virtues into the design, development and training of such applications. Finally, we propose a virtuous-based ‘AI Seal of Excellence’ certification process, which empowers the virtuous use of AI systems.