Is there an international obligation to prosecute pirates

Combating piracy at sea and apprehending pirates have been a long-standing problem for the global community. Increasing acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia have prompted the UN Security Council to intervene in the matter. The Council, through several resolutions, has authorised states to take action against Somali pirates in the territorial waters and land territory of Somalia and recently adopted a resolution urging all states to fully implement relevant international conventions in their domestic legal systems. However, despite the Security Council's intervention in the matter most states are still reluctant to prosecute Somali pirates in their domestic courts. Considering the most recent Security Council resolution and existing international law, this article examines whether there is an international obligation to criminalise piracy under domestic legal frameworks and to prosecute pirates in domestic courts. It submits that existing international law arguably imposes an obligation to prosecute pirates, at least in certain circumstances, and the recently adopted Security Council resolution reinforces this obligation.

The Rise of the BASIC Group Within the International Climate Regime : The Challenge of Ensuring Equitable Mitigation Obligations

The chapter examines the current emission reduction obligations within the climate regime. It looks at the formation and rise of the BASIC negotiation group within the international climate COP negotiations and examines the role that BASIC nations are now playing shaping international mitigation policy.

The international regulation of persons displaced by climate change

It is certain that there will be changes in environmental conditions across the globe as a result of climate change. Such changes will require the building of biological, human and infrastructure resilience. In some instances, the building of such resilience will be insufficient to deal with extreme changes in environmental conditions and legal frameworks will be required to provide recognition and support for people relocating as a result of environmental change. International legal frameworks do not currently recognise or assist people displaced as a result of environmental factors. The objective of this chapter is to examine the areas of international law relevant to displacement arising from environmental factors, consider some of the proposed climate displacement instruments and suggest the most suitable international institution to host a program addressing climate displacement. In order to determine the most appropriate institution to address and regulate climate displacement, it is imperative to consider issues of governance. This paper seeks to examine this issue and determine whether it is preferable to place climate displacement programs into existing international legal frameworks, or whether it is necessary to regulate this area in an entirely new institution specifically designed to deal with the complex and cross-cutting issues surrounding the topic...

Litigating law of the sea disputes using the UNCLOS Dispute Settlement System

The interpretation and application of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) may be the source of many disputes. UNCLOS introduced an à la carte menu for dispute settlement with a number of options for international dispute resolution, including a compulsory procedure entailing binding decisions. While drafting this ambitious and complex system of dispute settlement, the drafters had to negotiate many delicate compromises to secure a system for the uniform interpretation of the Convention. The aim of this paper r is to explore why litigation using the UNCLOS dispute settlement system is, or is not, a preferred mode of settlement for law of the sea disputes.

What further benefit, if any, might Australia get from the ALI-III Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases?

In 2006, the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) established a Transnational Insolvency Project and appointed Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (Netherlands) as Joint Reporters. The objective was to investigate whether the essential provisions of the ALI Principles of Cooperation among the NAFTA Countries (ALI-NAFTA Principles) and the annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases (ALI-NAFTA Guidelines) may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. In 2012, Professor Fletcher and Professor Wessels presented the report Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“ALI-III Report”) to the Annual Meetings of the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute. In 2013, the Australian Academy of Law (AAL) provided support to the authors to undertake research on the possible benefits for Australia of courts and insolvency administrators of referring to the ALI-III Report when addressing international insolvency cases. This AAL project was at the request of the Council of Chief Justices of Australia and New Zealand. This research Report compares the Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases with the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 and the UNCITRAL Model Law as it has been adopted and has force of law in Australia. Further, it examines the Global Guidelines for Court-to-Court Communications in International Insolvency Cases in light of Australian cross-border insolvency and procedural law. Finally, it makes brief reference to and commentary on the Global Rules on Conflict–of-Laws Matters in International Insolvency Cases annexed to the ALI-III Report from the perspective of Australian choice of law rules.

Is there an international duty to protect persons in the event of an epidemic?

In 2006, the International Law Commission began a study into the role of states and international organizations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster. Special Rapporteur Mr. Eduardo Valencia-Ospina was appointed to head the study, and in 2011 the findings of the study will be presented to the United Nations General Assembly. Of interest to this paper has been the inclusion of “epidemics” under the natural disaster category in all of the reports detailing the Commission’s program of work on the protection of persons. This paper seeks to examine the legal and political ramifications involved in including “epidemic” into the concept of protection by exploring where sovereign responsibility for epidemic control begins and ends, particularly in light of the revisions to the International Health Regulations by the World Health Assembly in 2005. The paper will first analyze the findings already presented by the Special Rapporteur, examining the existing “responsibilities” of both states and international organizations. Then, the paper will consider to what extent the concept of protection entails the duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist their own population in the event of a disease outbreak. In an attempt to answer this question, the third part of the paper will examine the recent cholera outbreak in Zimbabwe.

Vulnerability : an issue for law and policy in pandemic planning?

The 2009 H!Nl 'swine flu' pandemic was the first influenza pandemic of the twenty-first centmy. Unlike the first influenza pandemic of the twentieth century, the so-called 'Spanish flu' which killed millions of people worldwide, the 2009 pandemic was relatively mild. While the mildness of the 2009 pandemic meant that the 'Yorld was spared from the impact of a high-mortality event that would cause widespread social and economic disruption, the 2009 pandemic did provide an opportunity to road-test pandemic readiness. In other work we have assessed Australia's pandemic plans and emergency management legislation, finding that both provide flexible and adaptive forms of regulation that are capable of adapting to the scale and severity of a pandemic or other public health emergency. 1 In this chapter we consider whether pandemic planning adequately addresses the needs of vulnerable individuals and groups, both within countries and between them. Central to this is the question of whether vulnerability is itself a useful concept for both law and policy, and if so, the implications of expressly incorporating the concept of vulnerability into pandemic planning.

Proposed MBMs for reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping and the WTO rules

The international shipping sector is a major contributor to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The International Maritime Organisation (IMO) has adopted some technical and operational measures to reduce GHG emissions from international shipping. However, these measures may not be enough to reduce the amount of GHG emissions from international shipping to an acceptable level. Therefore, the IMO Member States are currently considering a number of proposals for the introduction of market-based measures (MBMs). During the negotiation process, some leading developing countries raised questions about the probable confl ict of the proposed MBMs with the rules of the World Trade Organisation (WTO). This article comprehensively examines this issue and argues that none of the MBM proposals currently under consideration by the IMO has any confl ict with the WTO rules.

Prevention of Pollution of the Marine Environment from Vessels : The Potential and Limits of the International Maritime Organisation

--Critically discusses the role of International Maritime Organization (IMO) in the protection of the marine environment --Presents a clear, updated, concise and critical overview of the IMO marine environmental legal instruments --A fresh outlook on the north-south tensions in the IMO marine environmental discourses --Critically examines the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities in the context of IMO This book examines the role of The International Maritime Organization (IMO) in the prevention and control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels with a particular reference to the current north-south tensions regarding the strategy for combating climate change in the maritime sector as well as the prevention of marine pollution from the ship-breaking industry. The IMO, a United Nations specialized agency, has been entrusted with the duty to provide machinery for cooperation among governments for the prevention and control of pollution of the marine environment from vessels. The organization is responsible for drafting legal instruments as well as for facilitating technical cooperation for the protection of the marine environment. Although IMO legal instruments are mainly targeted at the prevention of pollution of the marine environment from vessels, there is a trend towards a liberal interpretation of this, and the organization has expanded its work to areas like shipbreaking, which is essentially a land-based industry.

An Australian perspective on the ALI-III global principles for cooperation in International insolvency cases

In 2012, Professor Ian Fletcher (United Kingdom) and Professor Bob Wessels (The Netherlands) presented a Report to the American Law Institute and the International Insolvency Institute entitled Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases (“Global Principles”). This followed their appointment as Joint Reporters to investigate whether the essential provisions of the American Law Institute Principles of Cooperation among the North American Free Trade Agreement Countries with their annexed Guidelines Applicable to Court-to-Court Communication in Cross-border Cases may, with certain necessary modifications, be acceptable for use by jurisdictions across the world. This article comments on the Global Principles from the perspective of a jurisdiction which has adopted the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-border Insolvency (“Model Law”). In 2008, Australia enacted a standalone statute, the Cross-border Insolvency Act 2008 (Cth) to which is annexed the Model Law. In that process, it made minimal changes to the Model Law text. Against the background of the 2008 Act, related procedural laws as well as Australia’s general insolvency statutes and recent cross-border insolvency jurisprudence, this article comments on the potential relevance of the Transnational Insolvency Report as a point of reference for Australian courts and insolvency administrators when addressing international insolvency cases. By comparing the Global Principles with the Model Law as closely adopted in Australia, this analysis is a resource for other Model Law jurisdictions when considering the potential relevance of the Global Principles for their own international insolvency practice.

International regulatory framework for food production and diversity

Stakeholders commonly agree that food systems need to be urgently reformed. Yet, how food systems should be reformed is extremely contested. Public international law and regulations are uniquely placed to influence and guide law, policy, programmes and action at regional, national and local levels. Although plenty of international legal instruments intersect with food-related issues, the international regulation of food systems is fragmented, understudied and contested. In order to address these issues, this paper maps and analyses the public international regulatory aspects of food production with a view to providing recommendations for reform. Accordingly, this paper brings together a variety of binding and non-binding international regulatory instruments that to varying degrees and from a range of angles deals with the first activity in the food system: food production. The following paper traces the regulatory tools from natural resources, to the farmers and farm workers that apply skill and experience, and finally to the different dimension of world trade in food. The various regulatory instruments identified, and their collective whole, will be analysed against a rights-based approach to food security.

The empire of cancer: Gene patents and cancer voices

In his book, The Emperor of All Maladies, Siddhartha Mukherjee writes a history of cancer — "It is a chronicle of an ancient disease — once a clandestine, 'whispered-about' illness — that has metamorphosed into a lethal shape-shifting entity imbued with such penetrating metaphorical, medical, scientific, and political potency that cancer is often described as the defining plague of our generation." Increasingly, an important theme in the history of cancer is the role of law, particularly in the field of intellectual property law. It is striking that a number of contemporary policy debates over intellectual property and public health have concerned cancer research, diagnosis, and treatment. In the area of access to essential medicines, there has been much debate over Novartis’ patent application in respect of Glivec, a treatment for leukaemia. India’s Supreme Court held that the Swiss company’s patent application violated a safeguard provision in India’s patent law designed to stop evergreening. In the field of tobacco control, the Australian Government introduced plain packaging for tobacco products in order to address the health burdens associated with the tobacco epidemic. This regime was successfully defended in the High Court of Australia. In the area of intellectual property and biotechnology, there have been significant disputes over the Utah biotechnology company Myriad Genetics and its patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 and BRCA2, which are related to breast cancer and ovarian cancer. The Federal Court of Australia handed down a decision on the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patent in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1 in February 2013. The Supreme Court of the United States heard a challenge to the validity of Myriad Genetics’ patents in this area in April 2013, and handed down a judgment in July 2013. Such disputes have involved tensions between intellectual property rights, and public health. This article focuses upon one of these important test cases involving intellectual property, public health, and cancer research. In June 2010, Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy brought an action in the Federal Court of Australia against the validity of a BRCA1 patent — held by Myriad Genetics Inc, the Centre de Recherche du Chul, the Cancer Institute of Japan and Genetic Technologies Limited. Yvonne D’Arcy — a Brisbane woman who has had treatment for breast cancer — maintained: "I believe that what they are doing is morally and ethically corrupt and that big companies should not control any parts of the human body." She observed: "For my daughter, I've had her have [sic] mammograms, etc, because of me but I would still like her to be able to have the test to see if the mutation gene is in there from me." The applicants made the following arguments: "Genes and the information represented by human gene sequences are products of nature universally present in each individual, and the information content of a human gene sequence is fixed. Genetic variations or mutations are products of nature. The isolation of the BRCA1 gene mutation from the human body constitutes no more than a medical or scientific discovery of a naturally occurring phenomenon and does not give rise to a patentable invention." The applicants also argued that "the alleged invention is not a patentable invention in that, so far as claimed in claims 1–3, it is not a manner of manufacture within the meaning of s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies". The applicants suggested that "the alleged invention is a mere discovery". Moreover, the applicants contended that "the alleged invention of each of claims 1-3 is not a patentable invention because they are claims for biological processes for the generation of human beings". The applicants, though, later dropped the argument that the patent claims related to biological processes for the generation of human beings. In February 2013, Nicholas J of the Federal Court of Australia considered the case brought by Cancer Voices Australia and Yvonne D’Arcy against Myriad Genetics. The judge presented the issues in the case, as follows: "The issue that arises in this case is of considerable importance. It relates to the patentability of genes, or gene sequences, and the practice of 'gene patenting'. Briefly stated, the issue to be decided is whether under the Patents Act 1990 (Cth) a valid patent may be granted for a claim that covers naturally occurring nucleic acid — either deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or ribonucleic acid (RNA) — that has been 'isolated'". In this context, the word "isolated" implies that naturally occurring nucleic acid found in the cells of the human body, whether it be DNA or RNA, has been removed from the cellular environment in which it naturally exists and separated from other cellular components also found there. The genes found in the human body are made of nucleic acid. The particular gene with which the patent in suit is concerned (BRCA1) is a human breast and ovarian cancer disposing gene. Various mutations that may be present in this gene have been linked to various forms of cancer including breast cancer and ovarian cancer.' The judge held in this particular case that Myriad Genetics’ patent claims were a "manner of manufacture" under s 6 of the Statute of Monopolies and s 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990 (Cth). The matter is currently under appeal in the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. This article interprets the dispute over Myriad Genetics in light of the scholarly work of Nobel Laureate Professor Joseph Stiglitz on inequality. Such work has significant explanatory power in the context of intellectual property and biotechnology. First, Stiglitz has contended that "societal inequality was a result not just of the laws of economics, but also of how we shape the economy — through politics, including through almost every aspect of our legal system". Stiglitz is concerned that "our intellectual property regime … contributes needlessly to the gravest form of inequality." He maintains: "The right to life should not be contingent on the ability to pay." Second, Stiglitz worries that "some of the most iniquitous aspects of inequality creation within our economic system are a result of 'rent-seeking': profits, and inequality, generated by manipulating social or political conditions to get a larger share of the economic pie, rather than increasing the size of that pie". He observes that "the most iniquitous aspect of this wealth appropriation arises when the wealth that goes to the top comes at the expense of the bottom." Third, Stiglitz comments: "When the legal regime governing intellectual property rights is designed poorly, it facilitates rent-seeking" and "the result is that there is actually less innovation and more inequality." He is concerned that intellectual property regimes "create monopoly rents that impede access to health both create inequality and hamper growth more generally." Finally, Stiglitz has recommended: "Government-financed research, foundations, and the prize system … are alternatives, with major advantages, and without the inequality-increasing disadvantages of the current intellectual property rights system.’" This article provides a critical analysis of the Australian litigation and debate surrounding Myriad Genetics’ patents in respect of genetic testing for BRCA1. First, it considers the ruling of Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia that Myriad Genetics’ patent was a manner of manufacture as it related to an artificially created state of affairs, and not mere products of nature. Second, it examines the policy debate over gene patents in Australia, and its relevance to the litigation involving Myriad Genetics. Third, it examines comparative law, and contrasts the ruling by Nicholas J in the Federal Court of Australia with developments in the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Fourth, this piece considers the reaction to the decision of Nicholas at first instance in Australia. Fifth, the article assesses the prospects of an appeal to the Full Federal Court of Australia over the Myriad Genetics’ patents. Finally, this article observes that, whatever happens in respect of litigation against Myriad Genetics, there remains controversy over Genetic Technologies Limited. The Melbourne firm has been aggressively licensing and enforcing its related patents on non-coding DNA and genomic mapping.

Just label it: Consumer rights, GM food labelling, and international trade

In the United States, there has been fierce debate over state, federal and international efforts to engage in genetically modified food labelling (GM food labelling). A grassroots coalition of consumers, environmentalists, organic farmers, and the food movement has pushed for law reform in respect of GM food labelling. The Just Label It campaign has encouraged United States consumers to send comments to the United States Food and Drug Administration to label genetically modified foods. This Chapter explores the various justifications made in respect of genetically modified food labelling. There has been a considerable effort to portray the issue of GM food labelling as one of consumer rights as part of ‘the right to know’. There has been a significant battle amongst farmers over GM food labelling – with organic farmers and biotechnology companies, fighting for precedence. There has also been a significant discussion about the use of GM food labelling as a form of environmental legislation. The prescriptions in GM food labelling regulations may serve to promote eco-labelling, and deter greenwashing. There has been a significant debate over whether GM food labelling may serve to regulate corporations – particularly from the food, agriculture, and biotechnology industries. There are significant issues about the interaction between intellectual property laws – particularly in respect of trade mark law and consumer protection – and regulatory proposals focused upon biotechnology. There has been a lack of international harmonization in respect of GM food labelling. As such, there has been a major use of comparative arguments about regulator models in respect of food labelling. There has also been a discussion about international law, particularly with the emergence of sweeping regional trade proposals, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. This Chapter considers the United States debates over genetically modified food labelling – at state, federal, and international levels. The battles often involved the use of citizen-initiated referenda. The policy conflicts have been policy-centric disputes – pitting organic farmers, consumers, and environmentalists against the food industry and biotechnology industry. Such battles have raised questions about consumer rights, public health, freedom of speech, and corporate rights. The disputes highlighted larger issues about lobbying, fund-raising, and political influence. The role of money in United States has been a prominent concern of Lawrence Lessig in his recent academic and policy work with the group, Rootstrikers. Part 1 considers the debate in California over Proposition 37. Part 2 explores other key state initiatives in respect of GM food labelling. Part 3 examines the Federal debate in the United States over GM food labelling. Part 4 explores whether regional trade agreements – such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – will impact upon