The role of common but differentiated responsibility in the 2020 climate regime

The principle of common but differentiated responsibility (CBDR) will play a role in the 2020 Climate Regime. This Article starts by examining differential treatment within the international legal order, finding that it is ethically and practically difficult to implement an international climate instrument based on formal equality. There is evidence of state parties accepting differential responsibilities in a number of areas within the international legal order and the embedding of CBDR in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), means that that differential commitments will lie at the heart of the 2020 climate regime. The UNFCCC applies the implementation method of differentiation, while the Kyoto Protocol applies both the obligation and implementation method of differentiation. It is suggested that the implementation model will be the differentiation model retained in the 2020 climate agreement. The Parties’ submissions under the Durban Platform are considered in order to gain an understanding of their positions on CBDR. While there are areas of contention including the role of principles in shaping obligations and the ongoing legal status of Annex I and Non-Annex I distinction, there is broad consensus among the parties in favour of differentiation by implementation with developed and major economies undertaking Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Objectives (economy wide targets) and developing countries that are not major economies undertaking sectoral targets.

Responsibility to protect and women, peace and security : aligning the protection agendas

In Responsibility to Protect and Women, Peace and Security: Aligning the Protection Agendas, editors Davies, Nwokora, Stamnes and Teitt address the intersections of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) principle and the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) agenda. Widespread or systematic sexual or gender-based violence is a war crime, a crime against humanity and an act of genocide, all of which are clearly addressed in the R2P principle. The protection of those at risk of widespread sexual violence is therefore not only relative to the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda, but a fundamental sovereign obligation for all states as part of their commitment to R2P. Contributions from policy-makers and academics consider both the merits and the utility of aligning the protection agendas of R2P and WPS. Ultimately, a number of actionable recommendations are made concerning a unification of the agendas to best support the global empowerment of women and prevention of mass atrocities.

Protecting the Displaced : Deepening the Responsibility to Protect

This edited collection has sought contributions from some of the foremost scholars of refugee and Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) studies to engage with the conceptual and practical difficulties entailed in realising how the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) can be fulfilled by states and the international community to protect vulnerable persons. Contributors to this book were given one theme: to consider, based on their experience and knowledge, how R2P may be aligned with the protection of the displaced. Contributions explore the history and progress so far in aligning R2P with refugee and IDP protection, as well as examining the conceptual and practical issues that arise when attempting to expand R2P from words into deeds.

Commentary on papers by Professor Fletcher and Mr Martin

In light of the time available today, I will limit my comments to addressing that aspect of Professor Fletcher’s paper in which he refers to the 2012 report he co-authored with Professor Wessels of the Netherlands for the American Law Institute (ALI) and the International Insolvency Institute (III) on Transnational Insolvency: Global Principles for Cooperation in International Insolvency Cases. I will comment on the potential benefits for Australian courts as well as insolvency administrators and their advisers in referring to the ALI-III Report - in light of Australia’s adoption of the UNCITRAL Model Law. In so doing, I would like to acknowledge the support of the Australian Academy of Law, under the leadership of The Hon Dr Kevin Lindgren for the research project underpinning these comments, as well as to acknowledge the contributions of my colleagues Associate Professor Sheryl Jackson and Mark Wellard.

The Workcover Queensland Act: exploring injured workers payout options : Part 1

The article provides an overview of the provisions of Chapter 5 of the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 (Access to damages), and of the matters which, consequent on these provisions, practitioners must evaluate when advising an injured worker contemplating the commencement of a common law action for damages.

Personal injuries sustained in the course of employment - claim against employer under Workcover Queensland Act 1996

In Devlin v South Mole Island Resort [2003] QSC 020 the Court concluded the applicant was entitled to pursue a concurrent claim he alleged he had against the respondent under the Personal Injuries Proceedings Act 2002 in respect of injuries sustained in the course of employment, and also that the Workcover Queensland Act 1996 did not abolish the applicant's right to proceed against the respondent.

Redundant or essential? How politics shaped the outcome of the 1967 Protocol

The 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees has been described as an unnecessary addendum to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. However, if the 1967 Protocol was superfluous, why did the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in the early 1960s insist on its development? This article seeks to establish that the 1967 Protocol was originally intended to encompass the broader concerns of African and Asian states concerning refugee populations in their region. However, the political influence upon the development of international refugee law radically altered the UNHCR's endeavour to make the 1951 Convention universally accessible.

In conversation with the Honourable Ian Callinan AC

When, in 1977, the Australian electorate provided a double majority to effect a change of section 72 of the Commonwealth Constitution requiring judges of the High Court of Australia to retire at the age of 70 years old, I doubt we understood the continuing capacity of these esteemed members of the judiciary. For the opportunity to sit and talk with Ian Callinan AC who, in compliance with that amendment, retired from the High Court in September 2007, I needed to wait until he returned from The Hague where he was sitting as a Judge ad hoc on the International Court of Justice. Although a native of Casino, New South Wales, Mr Callinan is regarded as a Queenslander. Indeed, he grew up in Brisbane, finished high school at Brisbane Grammar and graduated in law at The University of Queensland. Appointed in 1978 as a Queen’s Counsel, Mr Callinan enjoyed this period of his legal career and we discussed an aspect of the Christopher Skase case, which reinforced my belief that Mr Callinan is an incredibly skilful advocate. On 14 September 1998, ABC Four Corners broadcasted the views of some prominent Australians on the appointment of Mr Callinan to the High Court. In assessing the type of person Mr Callinan is, Tony Morris QC said: “Ian Callinan isn't a coward”, while former Commonwealth Attorney-General, Michael Lavarch, said: “He was regarded as an absolutely outstanding criminal lawyer within the Queensland legal profession, I mean really a top-notch advocate”. I was not interested in raising any of the controversial issues that Mr Callinan has encountered as an advocate in high profile matters. I wanted to know how he felt about his time on the High Court, what his thoughts are on the operation of the High Court, the IP cases he decided, the real life issues that he feels impact on counsel who are appearing before the High Court and the people he regarded as role models. During our conversation, Mr Callinan laughed often and when he did his eyes lit up, revealing his passion for life. He is an incredibly genuine Australian who loved his time as a barrister, enjoyed his role on the High Court, enjoys his current job as mediator, loves writing novels, has a great desire for continual improvement in the quality of legal education and legal advocacy and sees a need for change in IP law. When I asked: “So, what might the future hold for you?”, he laughed and said: “Well, at my age I don’t have a long horizon time”. I said: “Just enjoy the journey?”, to which Mr Callinan responded: “Exactly”.

Religion, Charity and Human Rights

For the first time in 400 years a number of leading common law nations have, fairly simultaneously, embarked on charity law reform leading to an encoding of key definitional matters in charity legislation. This book provides an analysis of international case law developments on the ever growing range of issues now being generated by clashes between human rights, religion and charity law. Kerry O'Halloran identifies and assesses the agenda of 'moral imperatives', such as abortion and gay marriage that delineate the legal interface and considers their significance for those with and those without religious belief. By assessing jurisdictional differences in the law relating to religion/human rights/charity the author provides a picture of the evolving 'culture wars' that now typify and differentiates societies in western nations including the USA, England and Wales, Ireland, Australia, Canada and New Zealand.

Creating an enabling legal framework fro REDD+ investments in Kenya

Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries (REDD+) has emerged out of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)/Kyoto Protocol negotiations. It is intended to be a mechanism to channel funding (from both public and private sources) for reducing emissions from the forest sector. It is an international climate change policy that relies on national implementation. In order to attract and manage REDD+ investments (both public and private), countries need to decide on their approach to REDD+ implementation through a series of policy choices, and then implement those policy choices through strong legal frameworks. An important question for REDD+ host countries to consider, therefore, is how to develop robust legal structures to facilitate REDD+ implementation. These legal frameworks could be based on existing laws, and/or require new law making.

Is Australia ready for biosimilars?

The biosimilars market is potentially the single fastest growing pharmaceutical sector with an estimated worth of US$67bn in global sales by 2020. This market generally refers to larger molecule, biological, protein-based pharmaceuticals which have lost its patent. This has stimulated the emergence of non-conventional pharmaceutical investors such as Fujifilm and Samsung as well as host countries such as Brazil, Mexico, China, India, South Korea, Turkey and Russia, which view biosimilars as a key macroeconomic driver of growth. Internationally, the European Medicines Agency has led the regulation of the quality, safety and efficacy of biosimilars; however, many countries have developed their own biosimilar regulatory frameworks. Despite the similarity of these with European guidelines, differences do exist across jurisdictions and have implications for cross-jurisdictional registration and regulation. The consideration of biosimilar regulation, however, demands attention beyond quality, safety and efficacy. The potential implications of extended patent protection, international trade and globalisation require a congruent policy approach to their regulation. Notwithstanding the fact that Australia is a relatively small pharmaceutical market and that there are only 14 biosimilar products currently approved for use, Australia’s geographical proximity to pharm-emerging countries and its trade relation with the major pharmaceutical markets have positioned Australia in a unique position to influence international development and regulation of biosimilars. Australia’s National Medicines Policy (2000) potentially provides the foundation for a partnership approach to biosimilar regulation, minimise duplication of regulatory efforts while at the same time fostering a viable pharmaceutical industry.