The democratic credentials of statutory bills of rights (and those of a self-styled majoritarian democrat)

This article has two aims. First, it seeks to demonstrate that the democratic credentials of statutory rights instruments are stronger than bills of rights sceptics such as Professors James Allan and Jeremy Waldron realise. It does so by examining the process by which statutory bills of rights are enacted and then provides an account as to why they are adopted that differs from the one offered by Allan and Waldron. This is done to suggest that the reason why a statutory rights instrument is adopted and the process itself has considerable democratic significance. And second, it seeks to assess the democratic credentials of Professor Allan's own critique of statutory bills of rights. The analysis undertaken in this regard reveals that in important respects Allan is anything but the majoritarian democrat that he routinely claims to be.

Addressing the curious black spot that is the separation between the principle of legality and sentencing

The principle of legality has evolved into a clear and entrenchedjurisprudential mechanism for protecting common law rights and freedoms. It operates as a shield to preserve the scope of application of fundamental rights and fre edoms. In recent years it has been increasingly applied by the courts to limit the scope of legislative provisions which potentially impinge on human rights and fundamental freedoms. Yet there is one domain where the principle of legality is conspicuously absent: sentencing. Ostensibly, this is paradoxical. Sentencing is the realm where the legalsystem operates in its most coercive manner against individuals. In thisarticle, we argue that logically the principle of legality has an importantrole in the sentencing system given the incursions by criminal sanctionsinto a number of basic rights, including the right to liberty, the freedom ofassociation and the deprivation of property. By way of illustration, we setout how the principle of legality should apply to the interpretation of keystatutory provisions. To this end, we argue that the objectives of generaldeterrence and specifi c deterrence should have less impact in sentencing. It is also suggested that judges should be more reluctant to send offenders with dependants to terms of imprisonment. Injecting the principle of legality into sentencing law and practice would result in the reduction in severity of a large number of sanctions, thereby reducing the frequency and extent to which the fundamental rights of offenders are violated. The methodology set out in this article can be applied to alter the operation of a number of legislative sentencing objectives and rules.

Taking parliamentary sovereignty seriously within a Bill of Rights framework

The Victorian Government has made a commitment to consult with the community on how best to protect and promote human rights in Victoria. To this end, it has established a Human Rights Consultation Committee to undertake this consultation and to report on the desirability or otherwise of enacting a Bill of Rights. The government has, however, indicated its preference for a statutory Bill of Rights and one that preserves the 'sovereignty of Parliament'. This article takes those two government preferences as its baseline and then explores what might follow if the preservation of parliamentary sovereignty is taken seriously within a Victorian rights framework.

Does Australia's treatment of non-citizens accord with its international human rights obligations? with specific reference to the treatment of on-shore refugees

The son of immigrants, I was motivated to write a paper addressing the issues of alienation and discrimination which confronts non-citizens upon arriving in Australia. Apart from descendants of Australia's indigenous population, the common bond shared by all citizens and permanent residents of Australia is that they are either themselves immigrants or are descended from immigrants. In this paper I will look at whether Australia's law and practice meets its international human rights treaty and convention obligations vis-a-vis non-citizens. To investigate this issue I trace the history of immigration to Australia and look at the political policies which influenced the treatment of non-citizens from 1788 to present times. In 1958 when my parents stepped upon Australian soil as displaced persons, Australia was a very different place from Australia in the 1990s. At that time Australia was still firmly under the influence of the 'White Australia Policy' which openly encouraged discrimination against non-anglo saxons. Since those times Australia has advanced to become one of the most culturally diverse nations in the world where multiculturalism is encouraged and a non-discriminatory immigration program is supported by both Australia's major political parties. However, notwithstanding the great social advances made in Australia in recent decades the traditional legal sources of law, namely, judicial pronouncements, statutes and the Commonwealth Constitution have not kept pace and it is my submission that Australia's body of law inadequately protects the rights of non-citizens when compared to Australia's international human rights convention and treaty obligations. This paper will consider these major sources of law and will investigate how they have been used in the context of the protection of the rights of non-citizens. It will be asserted that the weaknesses exposed in the Australian legal system can be improved by the adoption of a Bill of Rights1 which encompasses Australia's international human rights treaty and convention obligations. It is envisaged that a Bill of Rights would provide a framework applicable at the State, Territory and Federal levels within which issues pertaining to non-citizens could be resolved. The direction of this thesis owes much to the writings, advice and supervision of Dr. Imtiaz Omar who was always available to discuss the progress of this work. Dr. Omar is a passionate advocate of human rights and has been a tremendous inspiration to me throughout my writing. I owe a debt of thanks to the partners of Coulter Burke who with good nature ignored the sprawl of books and papers on the boardroom table, often for days at a time, thus enabling me to return to my writing from time to time as my inspirational juices ebbed and waned. Thanks also go to my typists Julie Pante, Vesna Dudas and Irene Padula who worked after hours and on weekends always without complaint, on the various versions of this thesis. My final acknowledgement goes to my wife Paula who during the years that I was working on this thesis encouraged me during my darker moments and listened to all my frustrations yet never doubted that I would one day complete the task successfully. I wish to thank her wholeheartedly for her motivation and belief in my abilities. The law relied upon in the thesis is as at the 30th June, 1998. Bill or Charter of Rights 'are taken to be enactments which systematically declare certain fundamental rights and freedoms and require that they be respected'. See Evans, G. 'Prospect and Problems for an Australian Bill of Rights' (1970) 3 Australian Year Book of International Law 1 at 16. Some such notable exception is the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, contained in an ordinary statute.

The moral rights of authors and performers: an international and comparative analysis

This book is a comprehensive guide to the development and utilization of authorial moral rights across the key jurisdictions of the English-speaking world and in France and Germany. In recent years, the copyright statutes of the common law countries have been expanded by the introduction of provisions dealing with purely authorial rights - moral rights.
The Moral Rights of Authors and Performers discusses the historical development of the rights in Europe, with particular reference to France and Germany, and shows the growth of moral rights theory and legislative coverage up to the late 1930s. During the 1920s the moral rights of authors became the subject of international protection, particularly through the operation of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. The book explores the adoption of moral rights into this and other international instruments, explaining the functions that moral rights were intended to perform.
The author gives detailed accounts of the operation of moral rights in France and Germany today, addressing both statutory interpretation and doctrinal issues. The provision of case studies gives an impression of the rich jurisprudence associated with the rights in these countries.
The book also contains a detailed discussion of the versions of moral rights that have become entrenched in Canada, the UK, the US and Australia, with each country considered independently. It deals separately with the introduction of the rights into each country and their operation and interpretation by courts and commentators. Material on common law analogues to the rights is provided, which indicates alternative actions that practitioners might take. Problems of cross-jurisdictional legal proceedings (especially arising from technological transfer of information) are also addressed, with moral rights protection elsewhere in the world summarized in tabular form.

Moral rights and substantiality: some questions of integration

Now that Australia has its long awaited legislation protecting the moral rights of authors, a new phase in the development of the rights begins. It must be asked how the incorporation of the rights into the existing copyright legislation, and their subjection to existing doctrines, will affect their operation. And how will existing doctrines be challenged and extended by the existence of the rights? Ultimately these questions will be worked out in the courts. The present article offers a consideration of one area where the legislature has purported to integrate moral rights into the existing scheme but where the practicalities oftheir integration are still unclear. It examines the interplay of moral rights with the doctrine of substantiality, suggesting that any clarification of what substantiality means in the moral rights context will be contingent upon the emergence of more precise definitions of what moral rights are and what interests they are intended to protect.

Basic Needs, Property Rights and Degradation Of Commons

A major problem in many developing countries is the degradation of commons. This degradation has occurred on account of the lack of fulfilment of the basic needs of the poor, free riding and ill–defined property rights. As these goods are essential for the survival of these people, they have to access these items from commons. This results in regular raids to common land for resources and also to private houses (for example, in New Delhi) which are not guarded for water. A variant of the agricultural household model is used to analyse the above problem. Several propositions are established and it is demonstrated that degradation can occur at both a low and high price of basic needs. This result has important policy implications as it demonstrates that land or common degradation cannot be solved by just using the price system. Properly defined property rights and provision of basic goods in kind may resolve the problem of degradation of commons.

RE Patrick & the rights and responsibilities of sperm donor fathers in Australian family law

In the matter of Re Patrick, Guest J of the Family Court of Australia held that a sperm donor, known to the lesbian mother of the child, had a right under Australian law to regular contact with the child to the extent that this was in the child's best interests. However, his Honour also held that due to the way in which particular provisions of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth) are drafted, a sperm donor cannot be regarded as the "parent" of the child, and accordingly called for legislative reform to recognise the rights of known sperm donors wanting involvement with the child. In this article, the authors will first explore the facts and decision in Re Patrick, and then outline a proposal to amend the Family Law Act 1975 so that sperm donors can apply for an order to be a 'parent' under the Act.

China's Burra Charter: the formation and implementation of the China principles

In 2000, the China Principles were promulgated by the China ICOMOS as professional guidelines for the conservation of historic sites. In writing the China Principles, China ICOMOS worked in collaboration with heritage experts from the USA and Australia and adopted ideas from Western conservation codes, particularly Australia's Burra Charter. While acknowledging the influence of international trends on the heritage profession in China, the paper identifies the Chinese characteristics of the China Principles by comparing them with the Burra Charter, and raises issues about the application of the China Principles to conservation practice.

Human rights and the treatment of sex offenders

Human rights create a protective zone around persons and allow them the opportunity to further their own valued personal projects without interference from others. All human beings hold human rights and that includes sex offenders, although some of their freedom rights may be legitimately curtailed by the State. In this paper we apply the concept of human rights to sex offenders. First we briefly analyze the concept of human rights, their structure, and justification. Second, we apply our own model of human rights to the assessment and treatment of sex offenders. We conclude that a significant advantage of a human rights approach is that it is able to integrate the value and capability aspects of offender treatment.