Authentically ambiguous, credibly anonymous: Perceptually reframing the personal narrative towards effective persuasion in aggressive human rights contexts

Testing the strategies of discourse and materiality, this practice-based and practice-led research experiments with how anonymous storytelling by vulnerable communities, like that of the sexual minorities and their allies in Malaysia, can better speak to their human rights issues without further subjecting them to personal attacks and targetted persecution. The research identifies the critical role of the voice in lending authenticity and credibility to first person narratives; and contextual credibility as a form of credibility which personal stories naturally aspire to achieve with audiences. Adopting a discursive view of persuasion and recognising too that the power of persuasion may in effect lie with those who receive these stories rather than with those who tell them, the insights and knowledge gained from the research informed the development of the field output, Persuasive Storytelling by Vulnerable Communities in Aggressive Contexts: A Human Rights Communication Framework.

Sexual harassment and the corporation in Australia and Japan: The potential for corporate governance of human rights

The authors explore the legal and social undercurrents in Australia and Japan which are encouraging corporations to embrace broader social responsibilities. They consider a case study of sexual harassment and its regulation within Australian corporations, uncovering the legal and social conditions that have led to the adoption of sexual harassment policies. The authors propose a model for determining when corporate governance of sexual harassment is likely to be effective and test the model by reference to the experience of sexual harassment in Japan. They draw some conclusions about what the experience of corporate implementation of management of sexual harassment might mean for other areas of human rights.

Climate change and human rights: Intellectual property challenges and opportunities

Mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change will require innovation and the development of new technologies. Intellectual property laws have a key part to play in the global transfer of climate technologies. However, failures to properly utilize flexibilities in intellectual property regimes or comply with technology transfer obligations under international climate change agreements calls for a human rights based analysis of climate technology transfer. Climate change is an unprecedented challenge and requires unprecedented strategies. Given the substantial impact of climate change on all of humanity and the ethical imperative to act, a complete rethink of traditional intellectual property approaches is warranted. This report proposes a series of intellectual property law policy options, through a human rights framework, aimed at promoting access to technologies to reduce the human suffering caused by climate change.

Mary Robinson's declaration of climate justice: Climate change, human rights and fossil fuel divestment

In her biography, Everybody Matters: My Life Giving Voice, Mary Robinson explained how she became interested in the topic of human rights and climate change, after hearing testimony from African farmers, with Archbishop Desmond Tutu.

Corporate accountability in relation to human rights: Have RIOs done enough?

This chapter focuses on the development of corporate human rights standards since the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, better known as the Earth Summit was held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. One of the important agendas for this Summit was human rights (apart from the climate change issue). This chapter provides a critical evaluation of institutional change in human rights guidelines and associated corporate (non) accountability in relation to human rights in line with the RIO summit. Based on a review of the media reports, archival documents and a case study, we argue that while there are a number of international organisations working towards the creation of corporate accountability in relation to human rights, there is limited real change in corporate action when faced with no government regulation. A radical (reform-based) approach, such as mandatory monitoring (compliance audit) and disclosure requirements is necessary to ensure corporate accountability in relation to human rights.

Reparations for Indigenous People: International and Comparative Perspectives

Published in concomitance with the adoption of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this volume brings together a group of renowned legal experts and activists from different parts of the world who, from international and comparative perspectives, investigate the right of indigenous peoples to reparation for breaches of their individual and collective rights. The first part of the book is devoted to general aspects of this important matter, providing a comprehensive assessment of the relevant international legal framework and including overviews of the topic of reparations for human rights violations, the status of indigenous peoples in international law, and the vision of reparations as conceived by the communities concerned. The second part embraces a comprehensive investigation of the relevant practice at the international, regional, and national level, examining the best practices of reparations according to the ideologies and expectations of indigenous peoples and offering a comparative perspective on the ways in which the right of these peoples to redress for the injuries suffered is realized worldwide. The global picture painted by these contributions provides a view of the status of relevant international law that is synthesized in the two final chapters of the book, which include a concrete example of how a judicial claim for reparation is to be structured and prescribes the best practices and strategies to be adopted in order to maximize the opportunities for indigenous peoples to obtain effective redress. As a whole, this volume offers a comprehensive vision of its subject matter in international and comparative law, with a practical approach aimed at supporting legal academics, administrators, and practitioners in improving the avenues and modalities of reparations for indigenous peoples

Unpacking the micro-macro nexus: narratives of suffering and hope among refugees from Burma recently settled in Australia

Narratives of forced migration are open to a variety of interpretations. In mental health, refugee narratives of arduous journeys in the face of systemic macro socio-political forces are often transformed from this context into a medicalized micro context of inner individual worlds. Both the dominant pathogenic lens of trauma studies and the growing salutogenic lens embodied in resilience research, often reflect a western cultural idiom of focusing on the individualized nature of these phenomena. Using qualitative data collected from refugees from Burma now settling in Australia, the article emphasizes the need for a more reflexive and expansive account of both suffering and hope within refugee narratives. It recounts these narratives within a conceptual framework which acknowledges the importance of the connections between the micro individual experience and the macro, socio-political context. This is not only a question of political principle, but also a matter of listening to the voice of those who know most about the relationship between macro forces of human rights violations and their impact on individual, family and community trajectories.

Re-framing planning decision-making : increasing flood resilience in Jakarta

Purpose – Rapid urbanisation, fragmented governance and recurrent flooding complicates resolution of DKI Jakarta’s chronic housing shortage. Failure to effectively implement planning decisionmaking processes poses potential human rights violations. Contemporary planning policy requires the relocation of households living in floodplains within fifteen metres of DKI Jakarta’s main watercourses; further constraining land availability and potentially requiring increased densification. The purpose of this paper is to re-frame planning decision-making to address risks of flooding and to increase community resilience. Design/methodology/approach – This paper presents a preliminary scoping study for a technologically enhanced participatory planning method, incorporating synthesis of existing information on urbanisation, governance, and flood risk management in Jakarta. Findings – Responsibility for flood risk management in DKI Jakarta is fragmented both within and across administrative boundaries. Decision-making is further complicated by: limited availability of land use data; uncertainty as to the delineated extent of watercourses, floodplains, and flood modelling; unclear risk and liability for infrastructure investments; and technical literacy of both public and government participants. Practical implications – This research provides information to facilitate consultation with government entities tasked with re-framing planning processes to increase public participation. Social implications – Reduction in risk exposure amongst DKI Jakarta’s most vulnerable populations addresses issues of social justice.

A Submission to the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties on the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 (# ACTA)

“If Hollywood could order intellectual property laws for Christmas, what would they look like? This is pretty close.” David Fewer “While European and American IP maximalists have pushed for TRIPS-Plus provisions in FTAs and bilateral agreements, they are now pushing for TRIPS-Plus-Plus protections in these various forums.” Susan Sell “ACTA is a threat to the future of a free and open Internet.” Alexander Furnas “Implementing the agreement could open a Pandora's box of potential human rights violations.” Amnesty International. “I will not take part in this masquerade.” Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament Executive Summary As an independent scholar and expert in intellectual property, I am of the view that the Australian Parliament should reject the adoption of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. I would take issue with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade’s rather partisan account of the negotiations, the consultations, and the outcomes associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. In my view, the negotiations were secretive and biased; the local consultations were sometimes farcical because of the lack of information about the draft texts of the agreement; and the final text of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 is not in the best interests of Australia, particularly given that it is a net importer of copyright works and trade mark goods and services. I would also express grave reservations about the quality of the rather pitiful National Interest Analysis – and the lack of any regulatory impact statement – associated with the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The assertion that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 does not require legislative measures is questionable – especially given the United States Trade Representative has called the agreement ‘the highest-standard plurilateral agreement ever achieved concerning the enforcement of intellectual property rights.’ It is worthwhile reiterating that there has been much criticism of the secretive and partisan nature of the negotiations surrounding the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Sean Flynn summarizes these concerns: "The negotiation process for ACTA has been a case study in establishing the conditions for effective industry capture of a lawmaking process. Instead of using the relatively transparent and inclusive multilateral processes, ACTA was launched through a closed and secretive “‘club approach’ in which like-minded jurisdictions define enforcement ‘membership’ rules and then invite other countries to join, presumably via other trade agreements.” The most influential developing countries, including Brazil, India, China and Russia, were excluded. Likewise, a series of manoeuvres ensured that public knowledge about the specifics of the agreement and opportunities for input into the process were severely limited. Negotiations were held with mere hours notice to the public as to when and where they would be convened, often in countries half away around the world from where public interest groups are housed. Once there, all negotiation processes were closed to the public. Draft texts were not released before or after most negotiating rounds, and meetings with stakeholders took place only behind closed doors and off the record. A public release of draft text, in April 2010, was followed by no public or on-the-record meetings with negotiators." Moreover, it is disturbing that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 has been driven by ideology and faith, rather than by any evidence-based policy making Professor Duncan Matthews has raised significant questions about the quality of empirical evidence used to support the proposal of Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011: ‘There are concerns that statements about levels of counterfeiting and piracy are based either on customs seizures, with the actual quantities of infringing goods in free circulation in any particular market largely unknown, or on estimated losses derived from industry surveys.’ It is particularly disturbing that, in spite of past criticism, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has supported the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011, without engaging the Productivity Commission or the Treasury to do a proper economic analysis of the proposed treaty. Kader Arif, Rapporteur for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the European Parliament, quit his position, and said of the process: "I want to denounce in the strongest possible manner the entire process that led to the signature of this agreement: no inclusion of civil society organisations, a lack of transparency from the start of the negotiations, repeated postponing of the signature of the text without an explanation being ever given, exclusion of the EU Parliament's demands that were expressed on several occasions in our assembly. As rapporteur of this text, I have faced never-before-seen manoeuvres from the right wing of this Parliament to impose a rushed calendar before public opinion could be alerted, thus depriving the Parliament of its right to expression and of the tools at its disposal to convey citizens' legitimate demands.” Everyone knows the ACTA agreement is problematic, whether it is its impact on civil liberties, the way it makes Internet access providers liable, its consequences on generic drugs manufacturing, or how little protection it gives to our geographical indications. This agreement might have major consequences on citizens' lives, and still, everything is being done to prevent the European Parliament from having its say in this matter. That is why today, as I release this report for which I was in charge, I want to send a strong signal and alert the public opinion about this unacceptable situation. I will not take part in this masquerade." There have been parallel concerns about the process and substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 in the context of Australia. I have a number of concerns about the substance of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. First, I am concerned that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 fails to provide appropriate safeguards in respect of human rights, consumer protection, competition, and privacy laws. It is recommended that the new Joint Parliamentary Committee on Human Rights investigate this treaty. Second, I argue that there is a lack of balance to the copyright measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – the definition of piracy is overbroad; the suite of civil remedies, criminal offences, and border measures is excessive; and there is a lack of suitable protection for copyright exceptions, limitations, and remedies. Third, I discuss trade mark law, intermediary liability, and counterfeiting. I express my concerns, in this context, that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 could have an adverse impact upon consumer interests, competition policy, and innovation in the digital economy. I also note, with concern, the lobbying by tobacco industries for the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 – and the lack of any recognition in the treaty for the capacity of countries to take measures of tobacco control under the World Health Organization Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. Fourth, I note that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 provides no positive obligations to promote access to essential medicines. It is particularly lamentable that Australia and the United States of America have failed to implement the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health 2001 and the WTO General Council Decision 2003. Fifth, I express concerns about the border measures in the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. Such measures lack balance – and unduly favour the interests of intellectual property owners over consumers, importers, and exporters. Moreover, such measures will be costly, as they involve shifting the burden of intellectual property enforcement to customs and border authorities. Interdicting, seizing, and destroying goods may also raise significant trade issues. Finally, I express concern that the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 undermines the role of existing international organisations, such as the United Nations, the World Intellectual Property Organization and the World Trade Organization, and subverts international initiatives such as the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. I also question the raison d'être, independence, transparency, and accountability of the proposed new ‘ACTA Committee’. In this context, I am concerned by the shift in the position of the Labor Party in its approach to international treaty-making in relation to intellectual property. The Australian Parliament adopted the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, which included a large Chapter on intellectual property. The treaty was a ‘TRIPs-Plus’ agreement, because the obligations were much more extensive and prescriptive than those required under the multilateral framework established by the TRIPS Agreement 1994. During the debate over the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Party expressed the view that it would seek to mitigate the effects of the TRIPS-Plus Agreement, when at such time it gained power. Far from seeking to ameliorate the effects of the Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement 2004, the Labor Government would seek to lock Australia into a TRIPS-Double Plus Agreement – the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. There has not been a clear political explanation for this change in approach to international intellectual property. For both reasons of process and substance, I conclude that the Australian Parliament and the Australian Government should reject the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011. The Australian Government would do better to endorse the Washington Declaration on Intellectual Property and the Public Interest 2011, and implement its outstanding obligations in respect of access to knowledge, access to essential medicines, and the WIPO Development Agenda 2007. The case study of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement 2011 highlights the need for further reforms to the process by which Australia engages in international treaty-making.

Environmental rights, justice and climate change

The human rights implications of climate change are increasingly gaining attention, with wider international acknowledgement that climate change poses a real threat to human rights. This paper considers the impact of climate change on human rights, looking particularly at the experiences of Torres Strait Islanders in northern Australia. It argues that human rights law offers a guiding set of principles which can help in developing appropriate strategies to combat climate change. In particular, the normative principles embodied in environmental rights can be useful in setting priorities and evaluating policies in response to climate change. The paper also argues that a human rights perspective can help address the underlying injustice of climate change: that it is the people who have contributed least to the problem who will bear the heaviest burden of its effects.

The experience of xenophobia in South Africa

In May 2008, xenophobic violence erupted in South Africa. The targets were individuals who had migrated from the north in search of asylum. Emerging first in township communities around Johannesburg, the aggression spread to other provinces. Sixty-two people died, and 100,000 (20,000 in the Western Cape alone) were displaced. As the attacks escalated across the country, thousands of migrants searched for refuge in police stations and churches. Chilling stories spread about mobs armed with axes, metal bars, and clubs. The mobs stormed from shack to shack, assaulted migrants, locked them in their homes, and set the homes on fire. The public reaction was one of shock and horror. The Los Angeles Times declared, “Migrants Burned Alive in S. Africa.” The South African president at the time, Thabo Mbeki, called for an end to “shameful and criminal attacks.” Commentators were stunned by the signs of hatred of foreigners (xenophobia) that emerged in the young South African democracy. The tragedy of the violence in South Africa was magnified by the fact that many of the victims had fled from violence and persecution in their countries of origin. Amid genocidal violations of human rights that had recently occurred in some countries in sub- Saharan Africa, the new South Africa stood as a beacon of democracy and respect for human dignity. With this openness in mind, many immigrants to South Africa sought safety and refuge from the conflicts in their homelands. More than 43,500 refugees and 227,000 asylum seekers now live in South Africa. The majority of people accorded refugee status came from Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, and Somalia. South Africa also hosts thousands of other migrants who remain undocumented.