An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.

Study on risk assessment and management and prevention of conflicts of interest in the prevention and fight against betting-related match fixing in the EU 28: Final Report

This report concerns the provisions and practices on betting-related match fixing in sports
within the 28 Member States. Carried out in late 2013/early 2014, respondents in each Member
State reported on that state’s gambling-related provisions in respect of football and tennis and
(in each country) a third sport determined on the basis of either its popularity (in terms of
participation or television viewing) or the existence of betting-related “scandals” in that sport
within that particular jurisdiction. Those reports helped the authors to compare the Member
States’ regulatory and self-regulatory frameworks relating to risk assessment and conflict of
interest management, with a view to indicating areas of best practice, identifying particularly
good legislative frameworks and highlighting areas where change was either desirable or
necessary. While some individual Member States have legislation which might provide
templates that others could adapt for their own use, the authors were not convinced that “more
law”, whether at the national or European level, was desirable. Rather, more effective
cooperation among the stakeholders was identified as being more likely to provide tangible
benefits than would new legal frameworks.

Clarifying the acquis humanitaire: a transnational legal perspective on the internalization of humanitarian norms

Although the international obligations and institutional frameworks for disaster response are not yet settled, as evidenced by the International Law Commission’s work on the protection of persons in the event of disasters and the on-going promotion of disaster laws by the Red Cross Movement; the diverse source and nature of such initiatives suggests that the international community is engaged in a process of norm creation, elaboration and interpretation reflecting a desire for legal clarity in humanitarian operations. Situated within the framework of transnational law, this paper argues that an acquis humanitaire, based on the principle of humanity, encapsulates the evolving body of law and practice specifically relating to the protection of persons in times of humanitarian crisis in both armed conflicts and natural or human-made disasters. Reflecting the non-traditional, non-statist, dynamic and normative basis of transnational legal process, as elaborated by Harold Koh, the constant flow of ideas and principles between the national, regional and international spheres provides an analytical framework for the on-going transnational dialogues on the social, political and legal internalization of humanitarian norms. Drawing on the internalization of humanitarian norms within the United Kingdom, this paper concludes that as the international community examines the codification of a universal legal framework for the protection of persons in the event of disasters it is necessary to understand the transnational process of interpretation and internalization of humanitarian norms, and how this may vary across different regions and countries.

Promoting Dignity for All: Human Rights Approaches in the Post-2015 Climate Change, Disaster Risk Reduction and Sustainable Development Frameworks

This article takes as its starting point the potentially negative human rights implications that the effects of climate change, disasters and development practices can have on individuals and communities. It argues that key international instruments, including the post-2015 successors to the Kyoto Protocol, Hyogo Framework for Action on disaster risk reduction and the Millennium Development Goals, appear to be moving towards an express acknowledgment of the relevance of international human rights law as an important mechanism to minimise potential harms that may arise. This raises the question as to the appropriate role of the UN human rights monitoring and accountability mechanisms in identifying the relevant rights-holders and duty-bearers. The article therefore provides an examination of the linkages between climate change and international human rights law, as well as discussion of the human rights considerations and accountability mechanisms for disasters and sustainable development. The article concludes by arguing that despite differential understandings between disciplines as to the meaning of key terms such as ‘vulnerability’ and ‘resilience’, international human rights law provides a comprehensive basis for promoting international and national accountability. It follows that a greater level of coordination and coherence between the human rights approaches of the various post-2015 legal and policy frameworks is warranted as a means of promoting the dignity of those most affected by climate change, disasters and developmental activities.