New openings and old problems of China's economic cooperation : global uneven development and stagnation in the Philippines

There has been a resurgence in activity by non-traditional donors (NTDs) since 2000. These flows of foreign development assistance (FDA) are a reflection of the global shift in production and income towards semi-peripheral economies, above all the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The PRC has also adopted its “peaceful rise” and “non-interference” policies with a strong emphasis on South-South cooperation. Some even foresee these changes as opening the space for more public-investment focused development policies, with NTDs providing ready access to capital with few conditionalities. Little attention, however, has been focused how these changes are already impacting in Southeast Asia. The PRC has now become the second largest source of FDA in the Philippines, funding major rail and other infrastructure projects and this trend is set to continue. The experience so far, however, suggests that the Philippine “soggy state” – where the state lacks autonomy from elite classes and processes that hinder development processes - has meant little benefit has accrued from the availability of concessional finance. Despite the rhetoric of “non-interference” in PRC policy, there is evidence that these FDA flows may indeed be aggravating processes of social and political exclusion.

‘Cemented in their cells’: a human rights analysis of Blessington, Elliott and the life imprisonment of children in New South Wales

In 2010, two Australians, convicted in childhood of rape and murder, lodged a joint submission with the United Nations Human Rights Committee, claiming that successive changes to sentencing legislation in New South Wales breached their human rights by denying them any meaningful prospect of release. In this article, we examine the political, legislative and procedural moves that have resulted in Australian children being sentenced to life without parole or release. We argue that successive legislative changes in various Australian jurisdictions have resulted in a framework for sentencing decisions that is considerably out of step with international legal standards for criminal justice. These increasingly punitive legislative changes exacerbate Australia’s already declining record of cooperation with UN processes, and reveal Australia’s reluctance to respect the legitimacy and authority of international law. Against this troubling context, the views of the Human Rights Committee serve as a much-needed reminder about the importance of a principled approach to child sentencing that forecloses neither the goal of rehabilitation nor the prospect of release and reintegration.