The right to humanitarian assistance in natural and human-made disasters: progress and challenges for an emerging international legal framework

Natural and human-made disasters cause on average 120,000 deaths and over US$140 billion in damage to property and infrastructure every year, with national, regional and international actors consistently responding to the humanitarian imperative to alleviate suffering wherever it may be found. Despite various attempts to codify international disaster laws since the 1920s, a right to humanitarian assistance remains contested, reflecting concerns regarding the relative importance of state sovereignty vis-à-vis individual rights under international law. However, the evolving acquis humanitaire of binding and non-binding normative standards for responses to humanitarian crises highlights the increasing focus on rights and responsibilities applicable in disasters; although the International Law Commission has also noted the difficulty of identifying lex lata and lex ferenda regarding the protection of persons in the event of disasters due to the “amorphous state of the law relating to international disaster response.” Therefore, using the conceptual framework of transnational legal process, this thesis analyses the evolving normative frameworks and standards for rights-holders and duty-bearers in disasters. Determining the process whereby rights are created and evolve, and their potential internalisation into domestic law and policy, provides a powerful analytical framework for examining the progress and challenges of developing accountable responses to major disasters.

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.