Enforcing precariousness: a comparative analysis of the limitations placed on the legal status of refugees

This thesis focuses on the manner in which the EU, the UK, and Canada respond to and engage with the refugee’s movement from a temporary to a more permanent legal status in the state. It is noted that this transition is increasingly problematized. A trend is noted in response to this among the jurisdictions examined, to exceptionalise refugee status through acts of legal categorisation and separation. These categorisations represent an attempt to re-assert control over refugees who arrived to the state in a spontaneous manner. I argue that this categorisation and fragmentation of refugee status is another means of managing life in the state and ultimately excluding refugees within the state. Refugees therefore experience a contradictory response to their presence. While they are continually reminded of the temporary nature of their legal status in the state, they are still required to demonstrate a willingness to integrate in to the host society. Their behaviour in the state is something that is once again recalled by the decision makers who determine whether they should ultimately be able to access citizenship status. In this thesis, I argue that in order to navigate a route to citizenship, the refugee must respond to the constant re-framing and re-contextualisation of her status in the state of asylum. As the thesis observes, this raises broader questions about the nature of citizenship and belonging

Not thinking straight? A critical discourse analysis of the 2006 Irish High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan v. Revenue Commissioners and Attorney General

The recognition and protection of constitutional rights is a fundamental precept. In Ireland, the right to marry is provided for in the equality provisions of Article 40 of the Irish Constitution (1937). However, lesbians and gay men are denied the right to marry in Ireland. The ‘last word’ on this issue came into being in the High Court in 2006, when Katherine Zappone and Ann Louise Gilligan sought, but failed, to have their Canadian marriage recognised in Ireland. My thesis centres on this constitutional court ruling. So as to contextualise the pursuit of marriage equality in Ireland, I provide details of the Irish trajectory vis-à-vis relationship and family recognition for same-sex couples. In Chapter One, I discuss the methodological orientation of my research, which derives from a critical perspective. Chapter Two denotes my theorisation of the principle of equality and the concept of difference. In Chapter Three, I discuss the history of the institution of marriage in the West with its legislative underpinning. Marriage also has a constitutional underpinning in Ireland, which derives from Article 41 of our Constitution. In Chapter Four, I discuss ways in which marriage and family were conceptualised in Ireland, by looking at historical controversies surrounding the legalisation of contraception and divorce. Chapter Five denotes a Critical Discourse Analysis of the High Court ruling in Zappone and Gilligan. In Chapter Six, I critique text from three genres of discourse, i.e. ‘Letters to the Editor’ regarding same-sex marriage in Ireland, communication from legislators vis-à-vis the 2004 legislative impediment to same-sex marriage in Ireland, and parliamentary debates surrounding the 2010 enactment of civil partnership legislation in Ireland. I conclude my research by reflecting on my methodological and theoretical considerations with a view to answering my research questions. Author’s Update: Following the outcome of the 2015 constitutional referendum vis-à-vis Article 41, marriage equality has been realised in Ireland.

Legal regulation of the software "patentable subject matter" requirement in the US and in Europe: The need for certainty, predictability and uniformity

This thesis critically investigates the divergent international approaches to the legal regulation of the patentability of computer software inventions, with a view to identifying the reforms necessary for a certain, predictable and uniform inter-jurisdictional system of protection. Through a critical analysis of the traditional and contemporary US and European regulatory frameworks of protection for computer software inventions, this thesis demonstrates the confusion and legal uncertainty resulting from ill-defined patent laws and inconsistent patent practices as to the scope of the “patentable subject matter” requirement, further compounded by substantial flaws in the structural configuration of the decision-making procedures within which the patent systems operate. This damaging combination prevents the operation of an accessible and effective Intellectual Property (IP) legal framework of protection for computer software inventions, capable of securing adequate economic returns for inventors whilst preserving the necessary scope for innovation and competition in the field, to the ultimate benefit of society. In exploring the substantive and structural deficiencies in the European and US regulatory frameworks, this thesis develops to ultimately highlight that the best approach to the reform of the legal regulation of software patentability is two-tiered. It demonstrates that any reform to achieve international legal harmony first requires the legislature to individually clarify (Europe) or restate (US) the long-standing inadequate rules governing the scope of software “patentable subject matter”, together with the reorganisation of the unworkable structural configuration of the decision-making procedures. Informed by the critical analysis of the evolution of the “patentable subject matter” requirement for computer software in the US, this thesis particularly considers the potential of the reforms of the European patent system currently underway, to bring about certainty, predictability and uniformity in the legal treatment of computer software inventions.