On legal positivism's word and our 'form-of-(non-)living'

This paper is about two stories. The more reassuring one states that byestablishing that a norm is valid because of its source, not its merit, legal positivism is, in its various forms, perhaps one of the greatest achievements in Western legal theory and practice. From constitutionalism to human rights policies, from criminal to international law and free trade agreements, from contracts to torts and e-commerce, legal validity, predictability, and coherence have found their most powerful ally in positivist thought. This contribution argues that it is time for a different, neorealist story: the metaphysical, ontological and biopolitical essence of its language demonstrates that legal positivism has in fact played a fundamental role in the substitution of action with behaviour, and consequently, in the normalisation of humankind’s self-annihilating animality as post-historical and post-political ‘form-of-(non-)living.’

First-year law students’ construction of professional identity through writing

While there is a considerable body of research on law student identity construction based on interviews and transcripts of classroom talk, there is very little work based on student written texts. In this article two letters of advice written by beginning law students are analysed, using Ivanic and Camps’s (2001) framework, as an example of identity formation. Legal identity is argued to be formed by students’ attempts to accommodate a dynamic, partial, practitioner role of provider of advice to the traditional analytic focus of the law student. The process of accommodation is evident in the language of the letters, which show disfluencies resulting from attempts to combine different roles into a coherent legal identity. Comparison with a professionally written letter suggests that, rather than seeking to shape a coherent position, lawyers are able simultaneously to hold incompatible perspectives, concealing the tensions by foregrounding some perspectives and backgrounding others.

Are we speaking the same language? Corporate perceptions of human rights responsibilities

Over the last several years, notions of corporate social responsibility and corporate responsibility for human rights have developed on several fronts, including under international human rights law, through voluntary initiatives and in the discourse and the reporting of the corporations themselves. But are all protagonists on all these fronts speaking the same language? Are these developments truly improving the realisation of human rights?
As one aspect of its three year Australian Research Council project examining the legal human rights responsibilities of multinational corporations, the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law set out to discover the perceptions that multinational corporations have of their own human rights responsibilities, the types of activities undertaken by corporations to fulfill those responsibilities and the appropriate extent, if any, of the imposition of legally binding human rights obligations on corporations.
While not setting out the formal findings of that empirical study, this paper reports on some interesting discoveries as to how corporations see their place in the human rights debate. It notes a divergence among corporations' views of the nature of human rights responsibility - whether an obligation or a benevolence - as well as its content. In considering whether corporations ought to have legally binding human rights obligations, a surprising number of corporations replied in the affirmative, citing reasons such as certainty in dealing with suppliers and instituting a level playing field against rogue operators.
However,  perhaps the most important finding is the different understandings of human rights as they relate to a corporation's operations. Agreement on potential reforms would be meaningless if they were not employed towards a commonly understood end. After examining the various responses of the corporations and the evidence they cited to support their contentions, the paper concludes that the various protagonists of human rights responsibility for corporations may be using the same words, but they are not yet speaking the same language.

Discussing sex at work can be a costly business: Translating the science, language and law behind M v A & U (2007) QADT 8...

On 16 March 2007, in the matter of M v A & U [2007] QADT 8, the Anti-Discrimination Tribunal of Queensland found that a complaint of discrimination in the supply of goods and services had been made out by the complainant on two grounds: her female sex and lawful sexual activity. The decision would have been quite unremarkable except that ‘M’, as the complainant was known for the purposes of the hearing, is a woman of difference, one who had unusually arrived at her legal female state by completing the sex reassignment process now more commonly described as ‘sex affirmation’.

This article seeks to elaborate on the language and law of transsexualism used by the Tribunal. Its aim is to enhance practitioners’ understanding of the legal and social issues peculiar to those who affirm a sex opposite that first assigned to them so that those practitioners may better interpret the law to their clients. As the instant decision shows, the failure by an employer to take reasonable steps to avoid infringing the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld), either on its own part or by the actions of its employees, can prove a costly business indeed.

The author offers a brief synopsis of the current medical viewpoint regarding transsexualism and reviews recent Australian legal developments in the jurisprudence. She reminds practitioners that the Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) has since been further strengthened by the inclusion of ‘gender identity’ as a protected attribute, and concludes by proposing the existence of a heightened duty on the part of practitioners to ensure business clients are aware of the full extent of their legal obligations to not discriminate against employees or clients.

David v. Goliath: the gay games, the Olympics, and the ownership of language

The Gay Games is firmly established on the contemporary global sports calendar, but is seldom canvassed in mainstream sports media, or considered a model for sports administrators. This is regrettable, as the Games’ ethos offers many clues into the relationships between individual and communal empowerment for homosexual and heterosexual participants alike, while providing a site of resistance against entrenched norms of elitism, nationalism, victory and record-breaking indicative of the modern Olympic movement. Credit for this inclusive ethos rests with the vision of inaugural Gay Games organiser Dr. Tom Waddell. Drawing on Games archives, this paper outlines Waddell’s vision, then discusses the impact of a protracted legal dispute instigated by the United States Olympic Committee in 1982 over the use of the term ‘Olympics’ in association with Gay Games I and II. Four United States Federal court rulings are examined, with particular reference to the contrasting hierarchy of private intellectual property and public civil rights considered under United States law of the time. Domestic and international legacies of the dispute are also briefly examined, focusing on the inherent tensions between the state-sanctioned protection of Olympic terminology, the ideals of free speech, the ownership of common sporting terms, and the potential discriminatory effects of selective trademark enforcement. The paper concludes with a brief discussion of how Waddell’s vision superseded each of these legal technicalities to ensure the Games continues to provide a viable model for inclusive and engaged participation for all people.

Unresolved legal issues pertaining to the native residential school

“The research paper considers the legal issues arising from the Canadian Native Residential Schools and the Australian ‘stolen generation’. The paper compares and contrasts the approaches taken by the respective courts and governments in these Nations to the various causes of actions stemming from such. Building on this, the paper will focus on the legal issues that are yet to be considered by the courts including breaches of domestic and international treaties, liability for loss of culture and language intergenerational claims.”