Conflicts over protection of marine living resources : the ‘Volga Case’ revisited

Non-traditional maritime security concerns have become more importantthan ever in the post-Cold War era. Naval forces of most developedcountries are more concerned about these threats than conventional war.One of the main maritime security issues for many countries in the world isillegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing in the marine area. Withthese burgeoning issues comes the potential for a large number of disputesinvolving international law. In early 2002, a long-line fishing vessel under aRussian flag –the Volga, was detained by Australian authorities a few hundred meters outside the Exclusive Economic Zone of Australia’s Heard and McDonald Islands in the Southern Ocean. The vessel was reportedly engaged in illegal fishing. This incident gave birth to litigation in international and Australian courts. Apart from these cases, Russia also announced separate litigation against Australia for violation of Articles 111and 87 of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (NCLOS).Considering the outcome of these cases, this article critically examines thecharacteristics of litigation as a strategy for pacific settlement of disputesover marine living resources. Using the Volga Case as an example, thisarticle explores some issues related to the judicial settlement of disputes over marine living resources. This article demonstrates that the legal certainty of winning a case may not be the only factor influencing the strategy for settlement of an international dispute.

Promising interventions for reducing Indigenous juvenile offending

Indigenous juveniles (those aged 10 to 16 years in Queensland and 10 to 17 years in all other jurisdictions) are over-represented at all stages of the criminal justice system, and their over-representation becomes more pronounced at the most severe end of the system (ie in detention). Recent figures show that Indigenous juveniles are 24 times as likely to be detained in a juvenile correctional facility as non-Indigenous juveniles (Richards & Lyneham 2010). A variety of explanations for this over-representation have been proposed, including: • lack of access or disparate access to diversionary programs (Allard et al. 2010; Cunneen 2008; Snowball 2008); • systemic discrimination against Indigenous juveniles (eg police bias against Indigenous juveniles) (Cunneen 2008; Kenny & Lennings 2007); • inadequate resourcing of Aboriginal legal services (Cunneen & Schwartz 2008); and • genuinely higher levels of offending by Indigenous juveniles (Kenny & Lennings 2007; Weatherburn et al. 2003). A range of measures (including diversion and juvenile conferencing programs) has recently been implemented to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles in detention, and minimise the contact of juveniles with the formal criminal justice system. Diversionary measures can only have a limited impact, however, and reducing offending and reoffending have been identified as critical factors to address if the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles is to be reduced (Allard et al. 2010; Weatherburn et al. 2003). While acknowledging that other measures designed to reduce the over-representation of Indigenous juveniles are important, this paper reviews the evidence on policies and programs that reduce offending by Indigenous juveniles in Australia. Where relevant, research from comparable jurisdictions, such as New Zealand and Canada, is also discussed.

Submission : Proposed reforms to youth justice in Queensland

The proposed reforms to the youth justice system in Queensland are premised on the assumption that offending by young people is increasing. We noted (Carrington, Dwyer, Hutchinson and Richards 2012, 8) in a recent submission about the boot camps legislation that: "Statistics suggest that this concern is not warranted. Certainly studies show that ‘rates per 100,000 juveniles in detention in Queensland have been relatively stable compared with the national trend’ (Richards 2011) and that rates of detention of child offenders have declined generally in Australia over the last three decades. Youth offending statistics are affected by the diversion options used by the police, as well as by the numbers and levels of policing, and any special strategies such as Operation Colossus in the northern part of the state. ‘Community concern’ about crime does not always reflect the true rates of crime across Queensland. Policy should be based on valid evidence, not on ‘community concern’. With stable numbers of young people being detained in Australia, the research clearly suggests that youth offending is not escalating."...

‘Only a pawn in their game’ : crime, risk and politics in the case of Robert Fardon

In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first prisoner to be detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld), the first of the new generation preventive detention laws enacted in Australia and directed at keeping sex offenders in prison or under supervision beyond the expiry of their sentences where a court decides, on the basis of psychiatric assessments, that unconditional release would create an unacceptable risk to the community. A careful examination of Fardon’s case shows the extent to which the administration of the regime was from the outset governed by politics and political calculation rather than the logic of risk management and community protection. In 2003 Robert Fardon was the first person detained under the Dangerous Prisoners (Sexual Offenders) Act 2003 (Qld) (hereafter DPSOA), a newly enacted Queensland law aimed at the preventive detention of sex offenders. It was the first of a new generation of such laws introduced in Australia, now also in force in NSW, Western Australia and Victoria. The laws have been widely criticized by lawyers, academics and others (Keyzer and McSherry 2009; Edgely 2007). In this article I want to focus on the details of how the Queensland law was administered in Fardon’s case, he being perhaps the most well-known prisoner detained under such laws and certainly the longest held. It will show, I hope, that seemingly abstract rule of law principles invoked by other critics are not simply abstract: they afford a crucial practical safeguard against the corruption of criminal justice in which the ends both of community protection and of justice give way to opportunistic exploitation of ‘the mythic resonance of crime and punishment for electoral purposes’ (Scheingold 1998: 888).