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.

Genetic technologies and the regulation of reproductive decision-making in Australia

This article provides a critical analysis of the current Australian regulatory landscape at the interface between genetics and reproductive decision- making. The authors argue that a comparative analysis with other countries and international law and a contextual examination of the way law regulates concepts such as disease and health, abnormality and normality is necessary before we can develop appropriate policy and legislative responses in this area. Specific genetic testing technologies are considered including prenatal genetic testing, preimplantation genetic diagnosis and inheritable genetic modification. An increasing number of members of the Australian community are using genetic testing technologies when they decide to have a baby. The authors argue that as concepts of disease and health vary among members of the community and the potential to test for traits other than illness increases, a new tension arises between an ethic of individual choice and a role for government in regulating reproductive decision-making.

Duty in the time of epidemics : what China and Zimbabwe teach us

In November 2002, a man with ‘atypical pneumonia’ treated in Foshan hospital, Guangdong Province, in the People's Republic of China, was the first known case of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS). However, it was not until April 2003 that the Chinese government admitted to the full scale of ‘atypical pneumonia’ cases infected with SARS, two months after the disease had rapidly spread across the world with initial infections in Hong Kong and Vietnam sourced to Guangdong. In 2008, Zimbabwe experienced one of the biggest outbreaks of cholera ever recorded. By February 2009, the disease had spread across all of Zimbabwe's 10 provinces and to neighbouring countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zambia and Mozambique—causing thousands of infections amongst their populations. This article seeks to examine what duties the Chinese and Zimbabwe states had to protect their citizens and the international community from these outbreaks. The article refers to the findings of the International Law Commission's study into the role of states and international organisations in protecting persons in the event of a disaster to consider whether there is an international duty to protect persons from epidemics. The article concludes that both cases reveal a growing concept of protection that entails an international duty to assist individuals when an affected state proves unwilling or unable to assist its own population in the event of a disease outbreak.

Natural disasters and the responsibility to protect

The International Law Commission (ILC) study on the protection of persons in the event of disasters has been ongoing since 2006. During this period, there has been continuous debate in the literature and in consultations with States as to whether the study should explore the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) persons in the event of natural disasters. In this article, the rationale for this continuing argument is explored considering that the ILC has repeatedly stated since 2008 that the study’s topic – assistance in the event of natural disasters – has no legal relationship with the R2P principle. In the final section it is proposed that the real knowledge gap in the ILC discussion and study is the positive affirmation of the rights of those most affected by natural disasters – women.

Introduction

"The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law focuses on questions relating to R2P’s legal quality, its relationship with sovereignty, and the question of whether the norm establishes legal obligations. It also aims to introduce readers to different legal perspectives, including feminism, and pressing practical questions such as how the law might be used to prevent genocide and mass atrocities, and punish the perpetrators."--publisher website

Conclusion

"The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is a major new international principle, adopted unanimously in 2005 by Heads of State and Government. Whilst it is broadly acknowledged that the principle has an important and intimate relationship with international law, especially the law relating to sovereignty, peace and security, human rights and armed conflict, there has yet to be a volume dedicated to this question. The Responsibility to Protect and International Law fills that gap by bringing together leading scholars from North America, Europe and Australia to examine R2P’s legal content."--publisher website

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”.

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.

The Marrakesh Treaty could bring the world’s books to the blind

An estimated 285 million people worldwide are visually impaired. Some 90% of those live in developing nations, where less than 1% of the world’s books are available in a form they can read. In developed countries, the situation is only marginally better: only around 7% of the world’s books are accessible to print-disabled people. The right to read is part of our basic human rights. Access to the written word is crucial to allow people to fully participate in society. It’s important for education, political involvement, success in the workplace, scientific progress and, not least, creative play and leisure. Equal access to books and other cultural goods is also required by international law. The technology now exists to deliver books in accessible electronic forms to people much more cheaply than printing and shipping bulky braille copies or books on tape. Electronic books can be read with screen readers and refreshable braille devices, or printed into large print or braille if needed. Now that we have this technology, what’s been referred to as the global “book famine” is a preventable tragedy.

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.