International labour standards and Queensland

Queensland’s legal labour disputes history does not exhibit the current trend seen in Canada and Switzerland (Gravel & Delpech, 2008) where cases citing International Labour Standards (ILS) are often successful (which is not presently the case in Queensland either). The two Queensland cases (Kuhler v. Inghams Enterprises P/L & Anor, 1997 and Bale v. Seltsam Pty Ltd, 1996) that have used ILSs were lost. Australia is a member state of the International Labour Organization (ILO) and a signatory of many ILSs. Yet, ILSs are not used in their legal capacity when compared to other international standards in other areas of law. It is important to recognize that ILSs are uniquely underutilized in labour law. Australian environmental, criminal, and industrial disputes consistently draw on international standards. Why not for the plight of workers? ILSs draw their power from supranational influence in that when a case cites an ILS the barrister or solicitor is going beyond legal precedence and into international peer pressure. An ILS can be appropriately used to highlight that Australian or Queensland legislation does not conform to a Convention or Recommendation. However, should the case deal with a breach of existing law based or modified by an ILS, citing the ILS is a good way to remind the court of its origin. It’s a new legal paradigm critically lacking in Queensland’s labour law practice. The following discusses the research methodology used in this paper. It is followed by a comparative discussion of results between the prevalence of ILSs and other international standards in Queensland case history. Finally, evidence showing the international trend of labour disputes using ILSs for victory is discussed.

Necessary but not sufficient : accelerating progress and looking beyond the MDGs

The MDG deadline is fast approaching and the climate within the United Nations remains positive but skeptical. A common feeling is that a great deal of work and headway has been made, but the MDG goals will not be achieved in full by 2015. The largest problem facing the success of the MDGs is, and unless mitigated may remain, mismanaged governance. This argument is confirmed by a strong line of publications stemming from the United Nations and targeting methods (depending on a region or country context) such as improving governance via combating corruption, instituting accountability, peace and stability, as well as transparency. Furthermore, a logical assessment of the framework which MDGs operate in (i.e. international pressure and local civil socio-economic and/or political initiatives pushing governments to progress with MDGs) identifies the State's governing apparatus as the key to the success of MDGs. It is argued that a new analytic framework and grounded theory of democracy (the Element of Democracy) is needed in order to improve governance and enhance democracy. By looking beyond the confines of the MDGs and focusing on properly rectifying poor governance, the progress of MDGs can be accelerated as societies and their governments will be - at minimum - held more accountable to the success of programs in their respective countries. The paper demonstrates the logic of this argument - especially highlighting a new way of viewing democracy - and certain early practices which can accelerate MDGs in the short to medium term.

Accountability, transparency, impartiality, and other ethical issues : improving democracy reduces violence

Violence is detrimental to the stability of any democracy. If people are too scared to vote, or if they lack confidence in their government to bring peace, how will their voices be heard? By discussing how accountability, transparency, and ethics dissuade social confusion, improve democracy, and lessen occurrences of violence, perhaps one can increase the success in the instance of stabilizing a new democracy or reinvigorating an old one. Theoretically resulting in more peaceful governmental transitions; accountability, transparency, and ethics in democracy are a must to build social trust, improve democracy, and reduce violence.

Mitigating Democracy and 'A Question on Reason'

This book details the early political philosophy of Jean-Paul Gagnon. It deals with the ideas of democracy as something endemic to human nature; with practical methods for the improvement of democracy; and a mix of other political concepts. The book also has a response to the Russian Federation's development of the 'mother of all bombs' which leads Gagnon to question reason itself in humanity's progress.

Four Ideas to Improve the Human Condition

A collection of four progressive ideas targeted for the improvement of the human condition has been compiled in this book. They were derived from the first attempted MEDP Australian Summit. Although the Summit itself did not meet expectations for a variety of reasons, the four ideas contained herein are gems derived from the Summit processes.

Introduction

Introduction to "Four Ideas to Improve the Human Condition" edited by Jean-Paul Gagnon.

African Indigeneity

The current argument is that there exist no indigenous people in Africa because all Africans are indigenous. The obverse considers those Africans who have not been touched by colonialism and lost their traditional cultures commensurate with attachments to the lands or a distinguishable traditional lifestyle to be indigenous. This paper argues in favor of the latter. For example, modernism, materialism, ex-colonial socio-cultural impacts (as in the remnants of European legal structures, and cultural scarring), globalization, and technology are international social homogenizers. People who live in this telos and do not participate in a distinct traditional culture that has been attached to the land for centuries are not indigenous. It is argued that this cultural divergence between modern and traditional is the major identifying point to settle the indigenous-non indigenous African debate. Finally, the paper looks at inclusive development, how this helps to distinguish African indigeneity, and provides a new political analysis model for quantifying inclusivity.

The Equality of Sub-Surface Minerals

Sub-surface minerals are in most cases considered to be the proprietary right of a country should those minerals be found within its borders. PRO169 (Indigenous Peoples’ Rights, International Labour Organization) has recorded instances where the private land of indigenous peoples has been pilfered by a government – often through the sale of a contract to a private company, and without the consent of the people living on that land. Other times, indigenous peoples, the government they find themselves living in, and the company that bought mining rights engage in consultation. But these practices are far from transparent, equitable, or fair as indigenous peoples are often unskilled in contractual law and do not have the same legal resources as the company or government does. This paper argues that the sub-surface minerals found within the territory of indigenous tribes should be legally allocated as theirs.

Post-colonial law : legal establishments from past empires are illegitimate

The extant literature covering the plights of indigenous people resident to the African continent consistently targets colonial law as an obstacle to the recognition of indigenous rights. Whereas colonial law is argued to be archaic and in need of review, which it is, this article argues the new perspective that colonial law is illegitimate for ordering the population it presides over – specifically in Africa. It is seen, in five case studies, that post-colonial legal structures have not considered the legitimacy of colonial law and have rather modified a variety of statutes as country contexts dictated. However, the modified statutes are based on an alien theoretical legality, something laden with connotations that hark to older and backward times. It is ultimately argued that the legal structures which underpin ex-colonies in Africa need considerable revision so as to base statutes on African theoretical legality, rather than imperialistic European ones, so as to maximise the law’s legitimacy.

Political theory and theoretical physics

This paper explains, somewhat along a Simmelian line, that political theory may produce practical and universal theories like those developed in theoretical physics. The reasoning behind this paper is to show that the Element of Democracy Theory may be true by way of comparing it to Einstein’s Special Relativity – specifically concerning the parameters of symmetry, unification, simplicity, and utility. These parameters are what make a theory in physics as meeting them not only fits with current knowledge, but also produces paths towards testing (application). As the Element of Democracy Theory meets these same parameters, it could settle the debate concerning the definition of democracy. This will be shown firstly by discussing why no one has yet achieved a universal definition of democracy; secondly by explaining the parameters chosen (as in why these and not others confirm or scuttle theories); and thirdly by comparing how Special Relativity and the Element of Democracy match the parameters.

Political theory and theoretical physics [Revised]

This paper explains, somewhat along a Simmelian line, that political theory may produce practical and universal theories like those developed in theoretical physics. The reasoning behind this paper is to show that the Element of Democracy Theory may be true by way of comparing it to Einstein’s Special Relativity – specifically concerning the parameters of symmetry, unification, simplicity, and utility. These parameters are what make a theory in physics as meeting them not only fits with current knowledge, but also produces paths towards testing (application). As the Element of Democracy Theory meets these same parameters, it could settle the debate concerning the definition of democracy. This will be shown firstly by discussing why no one has yet achieved a universal definition of democracy; secondly by explaining the parameters chosen (as in why these and not others confirm or scuttle theories); and thirdly by comparing how Special Relativity and the Element of Democracy match the parameters.

Establishing indigeneity in African pluralities using PRO169 parameters and a case study for measuring their inclusivity

The concept of the indigenous person or group in Africa is a contentious one. The current argument is that there exist no indigenous people in Africa because all Africans are indigenous. The obverse considers those Africans who have not been touched by colonialism and lost their traditional cultures commensurate with attachments to the lands or a distinguishable traditional lifestyle to be indigenous. This paper argues in favor of the latter. People who live in the global telos and do not participate in a distinct traditional culture that has been attached to the land for centuries are not indigenous. It is argued that this cultural divergence between modern and traditional is the major identifying point to settle the indigenous-non indigenous African debate. Finally, the paper looks at inclusive development and provides a new political analysis model for quantifying inclusivity so as to measure the inclusivity of indigenous peoples.

On democracy

If one clear argument emerged from my doctoral thesis in political science, it is that there is no agreement as to what democracy is. There are over 40 different varieties of democracy ranging from those in the mainstream with subtle or minute differences to those playing by themselves in the corner. And many of these various types of democracy are very well argued, empirically supported, and highly relevant to certain polities. The irony is that the thing which all of these democratic varieties or the ‘basic democracy’ that all other forms of democracy stem from, is elusive. There is no international agreement in the literature or in political practice as to what ‘basic democracy’ is and that is problematic as many of us use the word ‘democracy’ every day and it is a concept of tremendous importance internationally. I am still uncertain as to why this problem has not been resolved before by far greater minds than my own, and it may have something to do with the recent growth in democratic theory this past decade and the innovative areas of thought my thesis required, but I think I’ve got the answer. By listing each type of democracy and filling the column next to this list with the literature associated with these various styles of democracy, I amassed a large and comprehensive body of textual data. My research intended to find out what these various styles of democracy had in common and to create a taxonomy (like the ‘tree of life’ in biology) of democracy to attempt at showing how various styles of democracy have ‘evolved’ over the past 5000 years.ii I then ran a word frequency analysis program or a piece of software that counts the 100 most commonly used words in the texts. This is where my logic came in as I had to make sense of these words. How did they answer what the most fundamental commonalities are between 40 different styles of democracy? I used a grounded theory analysis which required that I argue my way through these words to form a ‘theory’ or plausible explanation as to why these particular words and not others are the important ones for answering the question. It came down to the argument that all 40 styles of democracy analysed have the following in common 1) A concept of a citizenry. 2) A concept of sovereignty. 3) A concept of equality. 4) A concept of law. 5) A concept of communication. 6) And a concept of selecting officials. Thus, democracy is a defined citizenry with its own concept of sovereignty which it exercises through the institutions which support the citizenry’s understandings of equality, law, communication, and the selection of officials. Once any of these 6 concepts are defined in a particular way it creates a style of democracy. From this, we can also see that there can be more than one style of democracy active in a particular government as a citizenry is composed of many different aggregates with their own understandings of the six concepts.

On improving the fourth estate

A short discussion concerning the improvement of the media.