Future of the Haze Agreement : is the glass half empty or half full?

"In 1997–98, the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) region suffered an unprecedented health and environmental catastrophe due to choking haze created by a massive forest !re in Indonesia. It is estimated that the total losses from the fire could be US$5–6 billion after taking into account the loss of trees and other natural resources as well as the long-term impact on human health. This unprecedented anthropogenic disaster not only created a severe health and environmental hazard but also raised a question mark about the credibility and effectiveness of the ASEAN regional grouping. Against this background, ASEAN took a number of regional initiatives to try and solve the problem and finally adopted a new treaty for regional cooperation to combat forest fire and haze in 2002. This paper assesses the future success of this agreement from the perspectives of the legal, institutional and geopolitical reality of the region. Since numerous studies have examined state responsibility for transboundary environmental harm under international law and its implications on the ASEAN haze problem, this article will not touch upon that general debate nor the remedies that are possibly available to victim states. Rather, it will focus on the ASEAN regional legal and institutional initiatives to combat the haze pollution and compare them with a similar European regional agreement. Regarding the following analysis, it is important to recognise the uncertainty arising from Indonesia’s status (presently a non-party to the Agreement). A primary indication of the future effectiveness of this agreement can be drawn from an analysis of the principles involved in this agreement, bearing in mind the inherent difficulty of enforcing norms in the international environmental legal system as a whole, and the geopolitical reality of the region."

Climate change and reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases from ships : an appraisal

Article 2(2) of the Kyoto Protocol imposes an obligation only on certain developed countries, working through the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), to pursue the reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from marine bunker fuels. The IMO recently took the initiative to adopt a new legal instrument for the reduction of shipgenerated greenhouse gas emissions. Some developing countries have suggested that the proposed IMO initiative should strictly adhere to Article 2(2) of the Kyoto Protocol and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibility (CBDR). Against this backdrop, this article intends to review the extent to which it is possible to propose an international legal instrument for the reduction of GHG emissions from marine bunker fuels which is applicable only to ships from developed countries considering the complex characteristics of the international shipping industry. This article also examines how far this approach is justifiable even within the framework of the CBDR principle.

The judiciary in contemporary society : Australia

In Australia the appointment of judges is, by constitution or statute, universally the responsibility of the executive branch. The federal government handles all such matters relating to the High Court, the Federal Court, the Family Court and other federal judicial bodies. State governments exercise similar authority over the state supreme courts, district and magistrates' courts. All appointments are formally made by the Governor-General, or the Governor, in Council...

Private lawyers in contemporary society : Australia

Admission to practice law in Australia falls under the general supervisory power of supreme court judges in the various jurisdictions. The degree of supervision varies among jurisdictions, but the judiciary generally is responsible for setting the educational requirements for admission. A variety of admission boards perform a number of administrative and supervisory functions; for example, determining whether a particular law school's degree satisfies educational requirements for admission...

Addressing vulnerability and human rights in disaster response mechanisms in Oceania

The Oceania region is an area particularly prone to natural disasters such as cyclones, tsunamis, floods, droughts, earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. Many of the nations in the region are Small Island Developing States (SIDS), yet even within wealthy states such as Australia and New Zealand there are groups which are vulnerable to disaster. Vulnerability to natural disaster can be understood in human rights terms, as natural disasters threaten the enjoyment of a number of rights which are guaranteed under international law, including rights to health, housing, food, water and even the right to life itself. The impacts of climate change threaten to exacerbate these vulnerabilities, yet, despite the foreseeability of further natural disasters as a result of climate change, there currently exists no comprehensive international framework for disaster response offering practical and/or legally reliable mechanisms to assist at‐risk states and communities. This paper sets out to explore the human rights issues presented by natural disasters and examine the extent to which these issues can be addressed by disaster response frameworks at the international, regional and national levels.

Legal activism for ensuring environmental justice

This article reviews some of the roles environmental lawyers have played in ensuring environmental justice in Bangladesh. It leans on law and social movement theories to explicate the choice (and ensuing success) of litigation as a movement strategy in Bangladesh. The activists successfully moved the courts to read the right to a decent environment into the fundamental right to life, and this has had the far-reaching effect of constituting a basis for standing for the activists and other civil society organisations. The activists have also sought to introduce emerging international law principles into the jurisprudence of the courts. These achievements notwithstanding, the paper notes that litigation is not a sustainable way to institute enduring environmental protection in any jurisdiction and recommends the utilisation of the reputation and recognition gained through litigation to deploy or encourage more sustainable strategies.

Democracy and participation in Singapore : a case study

A typical characteristic of the ongoing practice of democracy in Singapore has been described by some scholars as 'illiberal democracy'. Noting that Singapore 's brand of democracy operates within a 'dominant, one-party system', other scholars cushioned such a democratic practice by their reference to 'semi-democracy', 'controlled democracy, 'guided democracy, and 'communitarian democracy'. However, despite the demonstration that there are many restrictions in the type of democracy that exists in Singapore, the benefits are numerous. Singapore is the only country in the world to have transformed itself from a developing country to a developed country in less than only forty years. But its slower move towards a culture ofparticipation must move as quickly as globalization does if it is to remain in relevant and legitimate democracy. If the younger generation understands that they should have the right to a voice before the government acknowledges it, the transition could be more tumultuous than necessary.

Prosecution of maritime terrorists : the role of national courts in ensuring accountability

Maritime security has emerged as a critical legal and political issue in the contemporary world. Terrorism in the maritime domain is a major maritime security issue. Ten out of the 44 major terrorist groups of the world, as identified in the US Department of State’s Country Reports on Terrorism, have maritime terrorism capabilities. Prosecution of maritime terrorists is a politically and legally difficult issue, which may create conflicts of jurisdiction. Prosecution of alleged maritime terrorists is carried out by national courts. There is no international judicial institution for the prosecution of maritime terrorists. International law has therefore anticipated a vital role for national courts in this respect. The international legal framework for combating maritime terrorism has been elaborately examined in existing literature therefore this paper will only highlight the issues regarding the prosecution of maritime terrorists. This paper argues that despite having comprehensive intentional legal framework for the prosecution of maritime terrorists there is still some scopes for conflicts of jurisdiction particularly where two or more States are interested to prosecute the same offender. This existing legal problem has been further aggravated in the post September 11 era. Due to the political and security implications, States may show reluctance in ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. Nevertheless, international law has established a comprehensive system for the prosecution of maritime terrorists where national courts is the main forum of ensuring the international law safeguards of alleged perpetrators as well as ensuring the effective prosecution of maritime terrorists thereby playing an instrumental role in establishing a rule based system for combating maritime terrorism. Using two case studies, this paper shows that the role of national courts has become more important in the present era because there may be some situations where no State is interested to initiate proceedings in international forums for vindicating rights of an alleged offender even if there is a clear evidence of violation of international human rights law in the arrest, detention and prosecution process. This paper presents that despite some bottlenecks national courts are actively playing this critical role. Overall, this paper highlights the instrumental role of national courts in the international legal order.

The responsibility to protect and the Arab Spring : Libya as the exception, Syria as the norm?

On March 17 2011 the UN Security Council passed resolution 1973 authorising the use of force for civilian protection purposes in Libya.1 This resolution was hailed by many supporters of the responsibility to protect (R2P) as a crucial step towards the consolidation of the concept’s normative standing.2 Gareth Evans described the intervention as ‘a textbook case of the R2P norm working exactly as it was supposed to’.3 For Lloyd Axworthy the Libya episode signalled a move towards a ‘more humane world’.4 UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon declared that it ‘affirms, clearly and unequivocally, the international community’s determination to fulfil its responsibility to protect civilians from violence perpetrated by their own government.’5 At first glance, the Security Council’s rapid, decisive response to escalating violence in Libya might well have suggested a new willingness on the part of the international community to take collective action to avert intra-state humanitarian crises. However, a closer examination of the text of resolution 1973 and statements by Security Council member states reveals a less than complete endorsement of R2P. Disagreements between states over the scope of the mandate for the use of force in Libya quickly emerged. Long-standing fears among Russia, China and other non-Western states that R2P could be used as a pretext for regime change returned to the fore as the legality and legitimacy of NATO’s military action were called into question. This post-Libya backlash against R2P has been a central factor in the international community’s subsequent inability to agree on effective civilian protection measures in Syria. Much of the optimism that surrounded R2P in the immediate aftermath of resolution 1973 has given way to a sober realization that achieving international consensus on civilian protection measures will rarely be straightforward.

Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments : are the rules appropriate?

The recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is an aspect of private international law, and concerns situations where a successful party to litigation seeks to rely on a judgment obtained in one court, in a court in another jurisdiction. The most common example where the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments may arise is where a party who has obtained a favourable judgment in one state or country may seek to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country. This occurs because there is no sufficient asset in the state or country where the judgment was rendered to satisfy that judgment. As technological advancements in communications over vast geographical distances have improved exponentially in recent years, there has been an increase in cross-border transactions, as well as litigation arising from these transactions. As a result, the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments is of increasing importance, since a party who has obtained a judgment in cross-border litigation may wish to recognise and enforce the judgment in another state or country, where the defendant’s assets may be located without having to re-litigate substantive issues that have already been resolved in another court. The purpose of the study is to examine whether the current state of laws for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Australia, the United States and the European Community are in line with modern-commercial needs. The study is conducted by weighing two competing objectives between the notion of finality of litigation, which encourages courts to recognise and enforce judgments foreign to them, on the one hand, and the adequacy of protection to safeguard the recognition and enforcement proceedings, so that there would be no injustice or unfairness if a foreign judgment is recognised and enforced, on the other. The findings of the study are as follows. In both Australia and the United States, there is a different approach concerning the recognition and enforcement of judgments rendered by courts interstate or in a foreign country. In order to maintain a single and integrated nation, there are constitutional and legislative requirements authorising courts to give conclusive effects to interstate judgments. In contrast, if the recognition and enforcement actions involve judgments rendered by a foreign country’s court, an Australian or a United States court will not recognise and enforce the foreign judgment unless the judgment has satisfied a number of requirements and does not fall under any of the exceptions to justify its non-recognition and non-enforcement. In the European Community, the Brussels I Regulation which governs the recognition and enforcement of judgments among European Union Member States has created a scheme, whereby there is only a minimal requirement that needs to be satisfied for the purposes of recognition and enforcement. Moreover, a judgment that is rendered by a Member State and based on any of the jurisdictional bases set forth in the Brussels I Regulation is entitled to be recognised and enforced in another Member State without further review of its underlying jurisdictional basis. However, there are concerns as to the adequacy of protection available under the Brussels I Regulation to safeguard the judgment-enforcing Member States, as well as those against whom recognition or enforcement is sought. This dissertation concludes by making two recommendations aimed at improving the means by which foreign judgments are recognised and enforced in the selected jurisdictions. The first is for the law in both Australia and the United States to undergo reform, including: adopting the real and substantial connection test as the new jurisdictional basis for the purposes of recognition and enforcement; liberalising the existing defences to safeguard the application of the real and substantial connection test; extending the application of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) in Australia to include at least its important trading partners; and implementing a federal statutory scheme in the United States to govern the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The second recommendation is to introduce a convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The convention will be a convention double, which provides uniform standards for the rules of jurisdiction a court in a contracting state must exercise when rendering a judgment and a set of provisions for the recognition and enforcement of resulting judgments.

Introduction

This book explores the impacts of global economic, political and cultural shifts on various international legal frameworks and legal norms. The economic growth of states throughout Asia, South and Central America and Africa is having a profound effect on the dynamics of international relations, with a resulting impact on the operation and development of international law. This book examines the influence of emerging economies on international legal rules, institutions and processes. It describes recent and predicted changes in economic, political and cultural powers, flowing from the growth of emerging economies such as China, India, Brazil, South Africa and Russia, and analyses the influence of these changes on various legal frameworks and norms. Expert contributors drawn from a variety of fields, including international law, politics, environmental law, human rights, economics and finance, provide a broad analysis of the nature of the shifting global dynamic in its historical and contemporary contexts, and a range of perspectives on the impact of these changes as they relate to specific regimes and issues, including climate change regulation, collective security, indigenous rights, the rights of women and girls, environmental protection and foreign aid and development. The book provides a fresh and comprehensive analysis of an issue with extensive implications for international law and politics.

Dreams and nightmares of alternative powers' futures

This chapter argues the importance of the role and nature of other powers to world order. The author suggests that, if the US are not prepared to take a lead in creating a rules-based legal order, they should and can do so – and it is in their interests to do so. America should be a natural leader in this process, taking part in a global dialogue just as they did in the transatlantic dialogue during the late eighteenth century.

Shifting global power and shifting state power

The adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (DRIP) by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2007 has been heralded by many as a major breakthrough in the promotion of Indigenous rights under international law. Many however are sceptical as to whether DRIP actually promotes Indigenous rights or rather limits them in ways that serve the interests of nation states thereby diminishing the universality of human rights with respect to Indigenous peoples. This paper will examine how shifts in global power from the United States to the BRIC nations (Brazil, Russia, India and China) are likely to impact on the realisation of the right of self determination for Indigenous peoples. It will start by outlining the right of self determination as articulated in the Declaration, and in particular how the United States and its allies - the CANZUS group (Canada, Australia, New Zealand and United States) - were influential in shaping its form and content. The paper will then assess the extent to which the right to self determination is realised in Australia, the United States and the BRJC nations to provide an indication of the likely future direction of recognition and realisation of Indigenous rights at a global level.

Flag state responsibility for maritime terrorism

Modern international shipping is largely a flag state-based system. Only the flag state has complete authority over the vessels that fly its flag, and as a result, other states’ jurisdiction over these vessels is very limited. Against this backdrop, this article examines the flag state’s responsibility for maritime terrorism, a major security issue and vulnerability in the global supply chain. It is not an exaggeration that the global community’s repeated statements regarding the illegality of terrorism have created a customary international law obligation for states to take all possible steps for the prevention of terrorism. This article argues that providing flags to suspicious entities in an obscure registration system is not compatible with this obligation.