Female genital mutilation : legal, attitudinal and practical reform

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural practice common in many Islamic societies. It involves the deliberate, non-therapeutic physical modification of young girls’ genitalia. FGM can take several forms, ranging from less damaging incisions to actual removal of genitalia and narrowing or even closing of the vagina. While often thought to be required by religion, FGM both predates and has no basis in the Koran. Rather, it is a cultural tradition, motivated by a patriarchal social desire to control female bodies to ensure virginity at marriage (preserving family honour), and to prevent infidelity by limiting sexual desire. In the USA and Australia in 2010, peak medical bodies considered endorsing the medical administration of a ‘lesser’ form of FGM. The basis for this was pragmatic: it would be preferable to satisfy patients’ desire for FGM in medically-controlled conditions, rather than have these patients seek it, possibly in more severe forms, under less safe conditions. While arguments favouring medically-administered FGM were soon overcome, the prospect of endorsing FGM illuminated the issue in these two Western countries and beyond. This paper will review the nature of FGM, its physical and psychological health consequences, and Australian laws prohibiting FGM. Then, it will scan recent developments in Africa, where FGM has been made illegal by a growing number of nations and by the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights 2003 (the Maputo Protocol), but is still proving difficult to eradicate. Finally, based on arguments derived from theories of rights, health evidence, and the historical and religious contexts, this paper will ask whether an absolute human right against FGM can be developed.

Points of convergence and divergence : normative, institutional and operational relationships between R2P and POC

As an international norm, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has gained substantial influence and institutional presence—and created no small controversy—in the ten years since its first conceptualisation. Conversely, the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (PoC) has a longer pedigree and enjoys a less contested reputation. Yet UN Security Council action in Libya in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief the relationship between the two. UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 follow exactly the process envisaged by R2P in response to imminent atrocity crimes, yet the operative paragraphs of the resolutions themselves invoke only PoC. This article argues that, while the agendas of PoC and R2P converge with respect to Security Council action in cases like Libya, outside this narrow context it is important to keep the two norms distinct. Peacekeepers, humanitarian actors, international lawyers, individual states and regional organisations are required to act differently with respect to the separate agendas and contexts covered by R2P and PoC. While overlap between the two does occur in highly visible cases like Libya, neither R2P nor PoC collapses normatively, institutionally or operationally into the other.

Capacity-building workshops on the responsibility to protect (R2P) and the protection of civilians (POC) in armed conflict - Summary Report

In June 2011, a research project team from the Institute for Ethics, Governance and Law (IEGL), Queensland University of Technology, the United Nations University, and the Australian Government’s Asia Pacific Civil-Military Centre of Excellence (APCMCOE) held three Capacity-Building Workshops (the Workshops) on the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Protection of Civilians (POC) in Armed Conflict in Manila, Kuala Lumpur, and Jakarta. The research project is funded by the Australian Responsibility to Protect Fund, with support from APCMCOE. Developments in Libya and Cote d’Ivoire and the actions of the United Nations Security Council have given new significance to the relationship between R2P and POC, providing impetus to the relevance and application of the POC principle recognised in numerous Security Council resolutions, and the R2P principle, which was recognised by the United Nations General Assembly in 2005 and, now, by the Security Council. The Workshops considered the relationship between R2P and POC. The project team presented the preliminary findings of their study and sought contributions and feedback from Workshop participants. Prior to the Workshops, members of the project team undertook interviews with UN offices and agencies, international organisations (IOs) and non-government organisations (NGOs) in Geneva and New York as part of the process of mapping the relationship between R2P and POC. Initial findings were considered at an Academic-Practitioner Workshop held at the University of Sydney in November 2010. In addition to an extensive literature review and a series of academic publications, the project team is preparing a practical guidance text (the Guide) on the relationship between R2P and POC to assist the United Nations, governments, regional bodies, IOs and NGOs in considering and applying appropriate protection strategies. It is intended that the Guide be presented to the United Nations Secretariat in New York in early 2012. The primary aim of the Workshops was to test the project’s initial findings among an audience of diplomats, military, police, civilian policy-makers, practitioners, researchers and experts from within the region. Through dialogue and discussion, the project team gathered feedback – comments, questions, critique and suggestions – to help shape the development of practical guidance about when, how and by whom R2P and POC might be implemented.

Introduction to special issue on what criminology can say about the war on terror

On 20 September 2001, the former US President, George W. Bush, declared what is now widely, and arguably infamously, known as a ‘war on terror’. In response to the fatal 9/11 attacks in New York and Washington, DC, President Bush identified the US military response as having far-reaching and long-lasting consequences. It was, he argued, ‘our war on terror’ that began ‘with al Qaeda, but … it will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated’ (CNN 2001). This was to be a war that would, in the words of former British Prime Minister, Tony Blair, seek to eliminate a threat that was ‘aimed at the whole democratic world’ (Blair 2001). Blair claimed that this threat is of such magnitude that unprecedented measures would need to be taken to uphold freedom and security. Blair would later admit that it was a war that ‘divided the country’ and was based on evidence ‘about Saddam having actual biological and chemical weapons, as opposed to the capability to develop them, has turned out to be wrong’ (Blair 2004). The failures of intelligence ushered in new political rhetoric in the form of ‘trust me’ because ‘instinct is no science’ (Blair 2004). The war on terror has been one of the most significant international events in the past three decades, alongside the collapse of the former Soviet Union, the end of apartheid in South Africa, the unification of Europe and the marketization of the People's Republic of China. Yet, unlike the other events, it will not be remembered for advancing democracy or sovereignty, but for the conviction politics of particular politicians who chose to dispense with international law and custom in pursuit of personal instincts that proved fatal. Since the invasions of Afghanistan in October 2001 and …

An attack on Iran: the legal basis, or lack thereof

Talk of a possible Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities has re-ignited debate over the right of self-defence under international law. Some academics, including Anthony D'Amato and Alan Dershowitz, have claimed that an attack on Iran would be a permissible act of self-defence. Others, such as Kevin Jon Heller, argue that such action would be a clear breach of international law. So, who is correct? Would military action against Iran be legal or illegal?

Environmental rights or a right to the environment? Exploring the nexus between human rights and environmental protection.

The importance of the environment to the fulfilment of human rights is widely accepted at international law. What is less well-accepted is the proposition that we, as humans, possess rights to the environment beyond what is necessary to support our basic human needs. The suggestion that a human right to a healthy environment may be emerging at international law raises a number of theoretical and practical challenges for human rights law, with such challenges coming from both within and outside the human rights discourse. It is argued that human rights law can make a positive contribution to environmental protection, but the precise nature of the connection between the environment and human rights warrants more critical analysis. This short paper considers the different ways that the environment is conceptualised in international human rights law and analyses the proposition that a right to a healthy environment is emerging. It identifies some of the challenges which would need to be overcome before such a right could be recognised, including those which draw on the disciplines of deep ecology and earth jurisprudence.

Legal, cultural and practical developments in responding to female genital mutilation : can an absolute human right emerge?

Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a cultural practice involving the deliberate, non-therapeutic physical modification of young girls’ genitalia. FGM can take several forms, ranging from smaller incisions, to removal of the clitoris and labia, and narrowing or even closing of the vagina. FGM predates and has no basis in the Koran, or any other religious text. Rather, it is a cultural tradition, particularly common in Islamic societies in regions of Africa, motivated by a patriarchal society’s desire to control female bodies and lives. The primary reason for this desire for control is to ensure virginity at marriage, thereby preserving family honour, within a patriarchal social structure where females’ value as persons is intrinsically connected to, and limited to, their worth as virgin brides. Recent efforts at legal prohibition and practical eradication in a growing number of African nations mark a significant turning point in how societies treat females. This shift in cultural power has been catalysed by a concern for female health, but it has also been motivated by an impulse to promote the human rights of girls and women. Although FGM remains widely practiced and there is much progress yet to be made before its eradication, the rights-based approach which has grown in strength embodies a marked shift in cultural power which reflects progress in women’s and children’s rights in the Western world, but which is now being applied in a different cultural context. This chapter reviews the nature of FGM, its prevalence, and health consequences. It discusses recent legal, cultural and practical developments, especially in African nations. Finally, this chapter raises the possibility that an absolute human right against FGM may emerge.

Cross-border insolvency

Panellist commentary on delivered conference papers on the topic of Cross-border Insolvency.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – part one

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.

The emerging framework of cross-border insolvency in and around Australia : Saad Investments, Japan Airlines and Lehman Brothers – Part Two

Recent decades have witnessed a global acceleration of legislative and private sector initiatives to deal with Cross-Border insolvency. Legislative institutions include the various national implementations of the Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (Model Law) published by the United Nations Commission on International Trade (UNCITRAL).3 Private mechanisms include Cross-Border protocols developed and utilised by insolvency professionals and their advisers (often with the imprimatur of the judiciary), on both general and ad hoc bases. The Asia Pacific region has not escaped the effect of those developments, and the economic turmoil of the past few years has provided an early test for some of the emerging initiatives in that region. This two-part article explores the operation of those institutions through the medium of three recent cases.

The legal nature of justice in REDD+

Formation of Reduced Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation (REDD+) policy within the international climate regime has raised a number of discussions about ‘justice’. REDD+ aims to provide an incentive for developing countries to preserve or increase the amount of carbon stored in their forested areas. Governance of REDD+ is multi-layered: at the international level, a guiding framework must be determined; at the national level, strong legal frameworks are a pre-requisite to ensure both public and private investor confidence and at the sub-national level, forest-dependent peoples need to agree to participate as stewards of forest carbon project areas. At the international level the overall objective of REDD+ is yet to be determined, with competing mitigation, biological and justice agendas. Existing international law pertaining to the environment (international environmental principles and law, IEL) and human rights (international human rights law, IHRL) should inform the development of international and national REDD+ policy especially in relation to ensuring the environmental integrity of projects and participation and benefit-sharing rights for forest dependent communities. National laws applicable to REDD+ must accommodate the needs of all stakeholders and articulate boundaries which define their interactions, paying particular attention to ensuring that vulnerable groups are protected. This paper i) examines justice theories and IEL and IHRL to inform our understanding of what ‘justice’ means in the context of REDD+, and ii) applies international law to create a reference tool for policy-makers dealing with the complex sub-debates within this emerging climate policy. We achieve this by: 1) Briefly outlining theories of justice (for example – perspectives offered by anthropogenic and ecocentric approaches, and views from ‘green economics’). 2) Commenting on what ‘climate justice’ means in the context of REDD+. 3) Outlining a selection of IEL and IHRL principles and laws to inform our understanding of ‘justice’ in this policy realm (for example – common but differentiated responsibilities, the precautionary principle, sovereignty and prevention drawn from the principles of IEL, the UNFCCC and CBD as relevant conventions of international environmental law; and UNDRIP and the Declaration on the Right to Development as applicable international human rights instruments) 4) Noting how this informs what ‘justice’ is for different REDD+ stakeholders 5) Considering how current law-making (at both the international and national levels) reflects these principles and rules drawn from international law 6) Presenting how international law can inform policy-making by providing a reference tool of applicable international law and how it could be applied to different issues linked to REDD+. As such, this paper will help scholars and policy-makers to understand how international law can assist us to both conceptualise and embody ‘justice’ within frameworks for REDD+ at both the international and national levels.