Withholding and withdrawal of ‘futile’ life-sustaining treatment : unilateral medical decision-making in Australia and New Zealand

This article examines the law in Australia and New Zealand that governs the withholding and withdrawal of ‘futile’ life-sustaining treatment. Although doctors have both civil and criminal law duties to treat patients, those general duties do not require the provision of treatment that is deemed to be futile. This is either because futile treatment is not in a patient’s best interests or because stopping such treatment does not breach the criminal law. This means, in the absence of a duty to treat, doctors may unilaterally withdraw or withhold treatment that is futile; consent is not required. The article then examines whether this general position has been altered by statute. It considers a range of suggested possible legislation but concludes it is likely that only Queensland’s adult guardianship legislation imposes a requirement to obtain consent to withhold or withdraw such treatment.

From rights to responsibilities : reconceptualising carbon sequestration rights in Australia

Biosequestration of carbon in trees, forests and vegetation is a key method for mitigating climate change in Australia. To facilitate this, all States have enacted legislation for carbon sequestration rights, separating commercial rights in carbon from ownership of the land, trees and vegetation in which the carbon is sequestered. Ownership of carbon sequestration rights under state law is a prerequisite for the issue of carbon credits to proponents of ‘eligible sequestration offsets projects’ under the Carbon Credits (Carbon Farming Initiative) Act 2011 (Cth) (‘Carbon Farming Act’). This article examines the extent to which current State carbon sequestration rights support the offsets regime established by the Carbon Farming Act. The Commonwealth Act is concerned with allocating responsibilities to ensure the maintenance of the carbon sequestration, while the State Acts confer commercial rights in the carbon and leave the responsibilities to be allocated by private agreements. The carbon sequestration rights as defined by state laws do not confer the rights of access and management over land that a project proponent needs in order to discharge its responsibilities to maintain the carbon sequestration.

Legal rights during pandemics : federalism, rights and public health laws - a view from Australia

Pandemic influenza will cause significant social and economic disruption. Legal frameworks can play an important role in clarifying the rights and duties of individuals, communities and governments for times of crisis. In addressing legal frameworks, there is a need for jurisdictional clarity between different levels of government in responding to public health emergencies. Public health laws are also informed by our understandings of rights and responsibilities for individuals and communities, and the balancing of public health and public freedoms. Consideration of these issues is an essential part of planning for pandemic influenza.

Moral rights and their application in Australia: a book review

In Moral Rights and Their Application in Australia, Maree Sainsbury offers a summary of the new moral rights regime established in Australia in 2000. It is a decent guide and handbook to moral rights for legal practitioners, the authors of copyright work, and the users of copyright material. As the author notes: "The Australian moral rights legislation impacts on the rights and obligations of many people in diverse circumstances, from the creator of a highly unique work of art to the designer of a web site incorporating factual information or graphics which someone else has created. Any person creating or dealing with copyright material should be aware of the moral rights implications. This book provides a detailed analysis of the moral rights legislation, while stressing the fundamental provisions. It also provides some useful practical guidance for those who are affected, both in general terms and with respect to the more specific situations outlined above." Maree Sainsbury provides an enjoyable account of the history and nature of moral rights. She charts the romantic, Continental origins of moral rights, and explains their translation to countries, such as Australia and the United States.

Litigiousness in Australia: Lessons from comparative law

How litigious are Australians? Although quantitative studies have comprehensively debunked the fear of an Australian civil justice system in crisis, the literature has yet to address the qualitative public policy question of whether Australians are under- or over-using the legal system to resolve their disputes. On one view, expressed by the insurance industry, the mass media and prominent members of the judiciary, Australia is moving towards an American-style hyper-litigiousness. By contrast, Australian popular culture paints the typical Australian as culturally averse to formal rights assertion. This article explores the comparative law literature on litigiousness in two jurisdictions that have attracted significant scholarly attention — the United States and Japan. More specifically, it seeks to draw lessons from this literature for both understanding litigiousness in modern Australia and framing future research projects on the issue.

Rights and wrongs of Australian government asylum seeker policy

Worldwide, no fewer than 50 million people a year are now fleeing dangerous and often life threatening situations in their countries of origin (UNHCR, 2014c). As one part of this movement, thousands risk journeys through dangerous waters hoping to obtain asylum in Australia. However, Australian Government policies adopted since 2013 aim to ensure that no asylum seeker nor any of the 3,500 detainees held in offshore detention centres will ever be settled on the mainland. To this has now been added a declaration that none of the recent refugees or 6200 asylum seekers waiting in Indonesia in centres run by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) will gain entry (Whyte, 2014a). These immigration policies differ dramatically from those adopted in earlier decades that produced the country’s decidedly multicultural identity. This article reviews these changing perspectives of Australian governments and communities within the context of international obligations and expectations; the experiences of those directly involved in border policing practices and in detention centres; and the attitudes of national media. Relations and conflicts among the interests of the different parties are discussed and the scope for less punitive responses to the plight of asylum seekers is examined. The authors then focus on alternative processes to better address the interests and objectives of legitimately interested parties by processes which successively examine, optimise and reconcile the concerns of each. In so doing, they aim to demonstrate that such methods of sequential problem solving can respond effectively to the multiple concerns of the many significant stakeholders involved in increasingly significant global issues, whereas recourse to such single-goal, top-down programs as are expressed in the government’s current determination to “Stop the boats” at all costs are unlikely to prove sustainable.

Street-level perceptions of procedural rights for young unemployed people - a comparative study between Sweden and Australia

Two types of welfare states are compared in this article. Differences in procedural rights for young unemployed at the level of service delivery are analyzed. In Australia, rights are regulated through a rigid procedural justice system. The young unemployed within the social assistance system in Sweden encounter staff with high discretionary powers, which makes the legal status weak for the unemployed but, on the other hand, the system is more flexible. Despite the differences, there is striking convergence in how the young unemployed describe how discretionary power among street-level staff affects their procedural rights. This result can be understood as a result of similar professional norms, work customs and occupational cultures of street-level staff, and that there is a basic logic of conditionality in all developed welfare states where procedural rights are tightly coupled with responsibilities.

Sexual harassment and the corporation in Australia and Japan: The potential for corporate governance of human rights

The authors explore the legal and social undercurrents in Australia and Japan which are encouraging corporations to embrace broader social responsibilities. They consider a case study of sexual harassment and its regulation within Australian corporations, uncovering the legal and social conditions that have led to the adoption of sexual harassment policies. The authors propose a model for determining when corporate governance of sexual harassment is likely to be effective and test the model by reference to the experience of sexual harassment in Japan. They draw some conclusions about what the experience of corporate implementation of management of sexual harassment might mean for other areas of human rights.

Civil framework of the Internet : Law n°. 12.965, of April 23, 2014, which establishes the principles, guarantees, rights and duties for use of the Internet in Brazil

Traz atualizado o texto do Marco Civil Brasileiro da Internet, a Lei nº 12.965, de 23 de abril de 2014.

Civil society versus nationalizing state?:Advocacy of minority rights in the post-socialist Baltic states

Strong civil society provides individuals with arenas to bring their interests to the attention of policymakers. In so doing, civil society organizations (CSOs) can support state policies, but can also criticize policies. This paper argues that most minority rights advocacy CSOs in the Baltic states have little say in the crafting of policy and are compartmentalized into the existing agendas, with only a few groups able to evaluate policies independently. It concludes that the Baltic civil society is weak because the CSOs working on minority issues ask policymakers either too much, or too little. The findings suggest that policymakers quell criticism of their work from the side of the CSOs by ignoring their activities. Alternatively, by funding the CSO that shores up the state agenda, policymakers delegate their responsibilities to civic actors, keep critical voices from public debates and claim that their policies have the full support of a vibrant civil society. This paper investigates the options available for civil society actors to relate to policymakers in a nationalizing state by drawing on the data collected in 77 semi-structured interviews with the CSOs working with Russian and Polish minorities in the Baltic states between 2006 and 2009. © 2011 Association for the Study of Nationalities.

The Fundamental Rights Agency and Civil Society: Reminding the Gardeners of their Plants' Roots. EDAP 02/2012, 2012

The European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA), the EU body responsible for advising EU institutions on fundamental rights, is equipped with a Fundamental Rights Platform (FRP) to ensure an on-going and structured exchange of information and feedback between the FRA and Civil Society. When the FRA was founded in 2007, there was little pre-existing knowledge on how to design such a Platform; hence, the development of the relationship between the FRA and Civil Society over the first five years proved an interesting experiment. Although the Platform was never intended as a mechanism of democratic co-decision making, it is far more than a loose marketplace where Civil Society actors across the spectrum of fundamental rights themes gather. The Platform offers channels of consultation and exchange not only among the participants but also with the FRA. It allows for cross-pollination, ensuring informed grassroots input into FRA work and FRA expertise flow to Civil Society actors. This synergetic relationship builds upon both the self-organising forces of Civil Society and the terms of references of the FRP as defined by the FRA. The Platform allows to find a certain unity in the remarkable diversity of fundamental rights voices. To what degree, however, the Platform’s dynamics allow the transformation of sometimes ‘compartmentalised’ single human rights discussions into wider trans-sectoral and transnational debates within the Human Rights Community depends on the motivation and the interest(s) of the different Civil Society players.