How should Australia regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide?

This paper invites consideration of how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We have attempted to pose this question as neutrally as possible, acknowledging that both prohibition and legalisation of such conduct involve decisions about regulation. We begin by charting the wider field of law at the end of life, before considering the repeated, but ultimately unsuccessful, attempts at law reform in Australia. The situation in Australia is contrasted with permissive jurisdictions overseas where voluntary euthanasia and/or assisted suicide are lawful. We consider the arguments for and against legalisation of such conduct along with the available empirical evidence as to what happens in practice both in Australia and overseas. The paper concludes by outlining a framework for deliberating on how Australia should regulate voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. We ask a threshold question of whether such conduct should be criminal acts (as they presently are), the answer to which then leads to a range of possible regulatory options.

Prosecutorial guidelines for voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide : autonomy, public confidence and high quality decision-making

This article proposes offence-specific guidelines for how prosecutorial discretion should be exercised in cases of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide. Similar guidelines have been produced in England and Wales but we consider them to be deficient in a number of respects, including that they lack a set of coherent guiding principles. In light of these concerns, we outline an approach to constructing alternative guidelines that begins with identifying three guiding principles that we argue are appropriate for this purpose: respect for autonomy, the need for high quality prosecutorial decision-making and the importance of public confidence in that decision-making.

The compatibility of leasehold and freehold tenure arrangements with environmental offset and trading initiatives

Environmental offsets and environmental trading initiatives are being rapidly introduced into environmental regulatory regimes. These relatively new legal mechanisms are attempting to fill in the gaps left by command and control regulation. The introduction of environmental offset and trading policy in Queensland will need to be compatible with existing land tenure regulation. Who owns and who uses natural resources are controlled by a range of legislative reservations and restrictions. Reservations give the State ownership of certain natural resources such as minerals, quarry material and, in some circumstances, forest products. Where there is a reservation in operation, the land holders rights are weakened. Restrictions in relation to uses prevent land holders from carrying out certain activities on the land. An example of a restriction of use is the operation of the Vegetation Management Act 1999(Qld), which prescribes the manner in which vegetation is to be dealt with. This article explores the nature of freehold and leasehold land tenure in Queensland and examines the effect of reservations and restrictions upon the operation of environmental offset and trading initiatives. Presently Queensland legislation does not directly address the relationship between land tenure and environmental offset and trading initiatives. The stability of tenure required for the creation of environmental offsets can be at odds with the flexibility allowed for under leasehold arrangements. This flexibility may act to undermine the permanency requirement of environmental offset creation (i.e. the guarantee that the offset is created for the long term).

Legal issues in the design and implementation of environmental offset and environmental trading frameworks

The Queensland Government released its new Environmental Offset Policy in July 2008. This policy creates a set of overarching principles which are to be incorporated into existing environmental offset policy. This article is the final article in a set of three interrelated articles discussing the operation and implementation of environmental offsets in Queensland. The first article discusses the Environmental Offsets Discussion Paper and the existing environmental offset requirements. No significant changes have been made to these existing offset requirements under the new Environmental Offset Policy. This article also touches briefly on the legal issues associated with design and implementation of environmental offset and trading frameworks. The second article considered the compatibility of different land tenure arrangements in Queensland against the requirements for the creation and trade of environmental offsets. The third article being the present article, discusses the application of the new Environmental Offset Policy while also analysing the legal issues associated with environmental offsets in further detail.

Implementing the Clean Development Mechanism in Fiji : opportunities and barriers in the energy sector

The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) has been praised for its ingenuity in mobilising finance to implement sustainable development practices in non-industrialised countries (known as Non-Annex 1 parties under the Kyoto Protocol). During the first commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol (2008-2012), a large number of clean development mechanism projects have been registered with the CDM board. In addition to the large number of registered CDM projects, there are significant numbers of proposed projects stalled in implementation due to the cumbersome and lengthy CDM approval process. Despite this regulatory criticism it is recognised that the role performed by the CDM is essential for achieving a significant reduction in global green house gas emissions. This is because the CDM funds sustainable development in countries that lack capacity to do so on their own. It is anticipated that some form of CDM instrument will continue post the 2012 timeframe and that reform of the mechanism will be focused around making the mechanism’s approval and implementation processes faster and more efficient.

Climate Change and Human Displacement

This paper will focus on the legal issues associated with people displaced as a result of water scarcity. Human displacement can lead to internal displacement (displacement of people within their country) and external displacement (displacement of people into another country). If the displacement takes place as a result of climate change these people may be referred to as climate refugees. The majority of work on climate refugees has focused on those people that will lose their homes as a result of sea –level rise. The number of people that could be displaced as a result of prolonged drought and lack of adequate water supplies is likely to be far more significant in number. There are estimates that around 2.8 billion people will suffer water shortages by 2025 and many of these people are at increased risk of internal or external displacement. Certain groups are more likely to be displaced as a result of prolonged drought or water scarcity. These groups include indigenous and minorities groups living in areas that are more susceptible to climate change and groups living in areas with a history of water shortage and supply issues. People displaced as a result of water scarcity are at increased risks of malnutrition and of dehydration. Furthermore the lack of adequate water supplies in such areas increases the risk and spread of disease among the population. In certain instances internal and external displacement may lead to escalation of conflict and competition for water resources in newly settled territories. This paper will use case studies from Australia (indigenous groups and rural landholders) and East Africa (Ethiopia, Sudan and Kenya) to demonstrate the significance of human displacement arising as a result of water scarcity. Climate adaptation policy frameworks will need to address a number of legal issues, arising as a result of climate displacement from water scarcity. There are a number of unresolved legal issues for both categories of environmental displaced people. The major legal issue for externally environmentally displaced people is lack of international recognition and support for these people. The Climate Change Convention, the Refugee Convention, the Desertification Convention and Human Rights instruments all fail to provide recognition for people externally displaced as a result of environmental conditions. Similarly there is a lack of legal recognition and legal support mechanisms to assist those people internally displaced by environmental conditions. The lack of developed environmental rights in most countries contributes to this problem. Polices and governance frameworks must be put in place which aims to prevent such displacement through programs identifying populations at risk and instigating damage mitigation and relocation programs. In addition there are a number of legal issues which may arise such as; rights of compensation, property and tenure disputes, increases on the water demand and environmental degradation in places of relocation and jurisdictional issues arising in federal countries. This paper will provide an overview of the legal issues at the international and national levels arising as a result of climate displacement from water scarcity.  

Australia and Forest Carbon Partnerships : Indigenous Land Rights

One of the ways in which indigenous communities seek justice is through the formal recognition of their sovereign rights to land. Such recognition allows indigenous groups to maintain a physical and spiritual connection with their land and continue customary management of their land. Indigenous groups world over face significant hurdles in getting their customary rights to land recognized by legal systems. One of the main difficulties for indigenous groups in claiming customary land rights is the existence of a range of conflicting legal entitlements attaching to the land in question. In Australia, similar to New Zealand and Canada legal recognition to customary land is recognized through a grant of native title rights or through the establishment of land use agreement. In other jurisdictions such as Indonesia and Papua New Guinea a form of customary land title has been preserved and is recognized by the legal system. The implementation of REDD+ and other forms of forest carbon investment activities compounds the already complex arrangements surrounding legal recognition of customary land rights. Free, prior and informed consent of indigenous groups is essential for forest carbon investment on customary land. The attainment of such consent in practice remains challenging due to the number of conflicting interests often associated with forested land. This paper examines Australia’s experience in recongising indigenous land rights under its International Forest Carbon Initiative and under its domestic Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act (Australia) 2011. Australia’s International Forest Carbon initiative has a budget of $273 million dollars. In 2008 the governments of Australia and Indonesia signed the Indonesia-Australia Forest Carbon Partnership Agreement. This paper will examine the indigenous land tenure and justice lessons learned from the implementation of the Kalimantan Forest and Climate Partnership (KFCP). The KFCP is $30 million dollar project taking place over 120,000 hectares of degraded and forested peatland in Central Kalimantan, Indonesia. The KFCP project site contains seven villages of the Dayak Ngdu indigenous people. In 2011 Australia established a domestic Forest Carbon Initiative, which seeks to provide new economic opportunities for farmers, forest growers and indigenous landholders while helping the environmental by reducing carbon pollution. This paper will explore the manner in which indigenous people are able to participate within these scheme noting the limits and opportunities in deriving co-benefits for indigenous people in Australia under this scheme.

The Role of the Judiciary in Earth Jurisprudence : An Analysis of Judicial Approaches to Standing in Climate Change and Environmental Justice Litigation

The role of the judiciary in common law systems is to create law, interpret law and uphold the law. As such decisions by courts on matters related to ecologically sustainable development, natural resource use and management and climate change make an important contribution to earth jurisprudence. There are examples where judicial decisions further the goals of earth jurisprudence and examples where decisions go against the principles of earth jurisprudence. This presentation will explore judicial approaches to standing in Australia and America. The paper will explore two trends in each jurisdiction. Approaches by American courts to standing will be examined in reference to climate change and environmental justice litigation. While Australian approaches to standing will be examined in the context of public interest litigation and environmental criminal negligence cases. The presentation will draw some conclusions about the role of standing in each of these cases and implications of this for earth jurisprudence.

Waste and resource management practices, legislation and policy encouraging and influencing ‘regeneration reuse’ of property assets

Carbon taxation governance is becoming increasingly popular, further evolving the polluter pays concept already well established in the built environment as a mechanism to controlling and licensing waste generation. This paper presents an explanation of property asset ‘regeneration reuse’ principles following deconstruction, which reduce waste generation associated with the process of demolition, construction and operation. An analysis is made of strategies in Australia and the United Kingdom, comparing jurisdiction targets pertaining to construction and demolition waste that encourage ‘regeneration reuse’. From examination of applicable Australian and United Kingdom legislation, strategic, fiscal and policy that influence on the 'regeneration reuse' of property assets, an evaluation to the variety of issues relevant to waste and resource management practices is reached. The paper concludes that a systematic evaluation framework to selecting building components and structures suitable for reuse after deconstruction must be considered in legislation.

World's pre-eminent powers recent treatment to international law : a paradigm of interest served or harmed

The US's recent rejection of some international laws may have been done to ensure American interests but it may have the opposite effects. While its recent rejection of some international legal arrangements has meant an unpopular opinion of America, its interest has been served.

TNCs and countries interface

This paper argues that relationships between countries and transnational corporations are not zero-sum games, but entail ‘complex governance’, where all actors must be considered in order to understand changes in the international system.

A comparison of finite difference and finite volume methods for solving the space fractional advection-dispersion equation with variable coefficients

Transport processes within heterogeneous media may exhibit non-classical diffusion or dispersion; that is, not adequately described by the classical theory of Brownian motion and Fick's law. We consider a space fractional advection-dispersion equation based on a fractional Fick's law. The equation involves the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivative which arises from assuming that particles may make large jumps. Finite difference methods for solving this equation have been proposed by Meerschaert and Tadjeran. In the variable coefficient case, the product rule is first applied, and then the Riemann-Liouville fractional derivatives are discretised using standard and shifted Grunwald formulas, depending on the fractional order. In this work, we consider a finite volume method that deals directly with the equation in conservative form. Fractionally-shifted Grunwald formulas are used to discretise the fractional derivatives at control volume faces. We compare the two methods for several case studies from the literature, highlighting the convenience of the finite volume approach.

Property : a regulatory instrument for protecting private and public interests in the environment

Property in an elusive concept. In many respects it has been regarded as a source of authority to use, develop and make decisions about whatever is the subject matter of this right of ownership. This is true whether the holder of this right of ownership is a private entity or a public entity. Increasingly a right of ownership of this kind has been recognised not only as a source of authority but also as a mechanism for restricting or limiting and perhaps even prohibiting existing or proposed activities that impact upon the environment. It is increasingly therefore an instrument of regulation as much as an instrument of authorisation. The protection and conservation of the environment are ultimately a matter of the public interest. This is not to suggest that the individual holders of rights of ownership are not interested in protecting the environment. It is open to them to do so in the exercise of a right of ownership as a source of authorisation. However a right of ownership – whether private or public – has become increasingly the mechanism according to which the environment is protected and conserved through the use of rights of ownership as a means of regulation. This paper addressed these issues from a doctrinal as well as a practical perspective in how the environment is managed.

The diversity of interests in environmental governance : a challenge for the rule of law

The function of environmental governance and the principle of the rule of law are both controversial and challenging. To apply the principle of the rule of law to the function of environmental governance is perhaps even more controversial and challenging. A system of environmental governance seeks to bring together the range of competitive and potentially conflicting interests in how the environment and its resources are managed. Increasingly it is the need for economic, social and ecological sustainability that brings these interests – both public and private – together. Then there is the relevance of the principle of the rule of law. Economic, social and ecological sustainability will be achieved – if at all – by a complex series of rules of law that are capable of enforcement so as to ensure compliance with them. To what extent do these rules of law reflect the principle of the rule of law? Is the principle of the rule of law the formally unstated value that is expected to underpin the legal system or is it the normative predicate that directs the legal system both vertically and horizontally? Is sustainability an aspirational value or a normative predicate according to which the environment and its resources are managed? Let us deal sequentially with these issues by reviewing a number of examples that demonstrate the relationship between environmental governance and the rule of law.