Resource entitlements of indigenous minorities, their poverty and conservation of nature: Status of Australian Aborigines, comparisons with India's tribals, theory and changing policies globally

Considers the relevance of A.K. Sen’s theory of entitlements to the situation facing indigenous tribal people, its relationship to institutionalism, and to theories of property rights. Changing world views about the resource entitlements that should be given to local communities are outlined concentrating on the views expressed by the World Conservation Union (IUCN). These changing views have relevance for the resource entitlements of indigenous tribal communities and are reflected in differences in the policy approaches inherent in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) and the more recent Convention on Biological Diversity. The latter embodies the view that provision of greater resource entitlements to local communities can provide economic incentives for nature conservation. There is a case for Indigenous Australians to be given greater rights to market the natural produce from their lands. Despite progress with land rights, they are not entitled to market much of the natural produce from their land. The socioeconomic status of Australian Aborigines is outlined. Their standard of living and their life expectancy are low by world standards and in comparison to other Australians. This is partly a result of historical events that have restricted their rights. These events are outlined briefly. Views differ about the appropriate development paths for Indigenous Australians and these are assessed. Concern on environmental and economic grounds is expressed about the view that the economic development of Australian Aboriginal communities would be accelerated by replacing their communal land titles by private land titles and encouraging Western-style agriculture and commercial development of their lands. Some comparisons are also made with the situation of India’s Tribals.

A genomewide search for type 2 diabetes-susceptibility genes in indigenous Australians

The prevalence of type 2 diabetes among Australian residents is 7.5%; however, prevalence rates up to six times higher have been reported for indigenous Australian communities. Epidemiological evidence implicates genetic factors in the susceptibility of indigenous Australians to type 2 diabetes and supports the hypothesis of the thrifty genotype, but, to date, the nature of the genetic predisposition is unknown. We have ascertained clinical details from a community of indigenous Australian descent in North Stradbroke Island, Queensland. In this population, the phenotype is characterized by severe insulin resistance. We have conducted a genomewide scan, at an average resolution of 10 cM, for type 2 diabetes-susceptibility genes in a large multigeneration pedigree from this community. Parametric linkage analysis undertaken using FASTLINK version 4.1p yielded a maximum two-point LOD score of +2.97 at marker D2S2345. Multipoint analysis yielded a peak LOD score of +3.9

Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some “criminal (and civil) law aspects” - Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?

Abstract: § 1 «Do we need a “new” international convention that helps to avoid trafficking in organs? Some criminal (and civil) law aspects”» - «Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated?». § 2 Some important connections: on the one hand, between the 1997 Council of Europe Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine; the 2002 Additional Protocol to the Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine concerning Transplantation of Organs and Tissues of Human Origin; and, on the other hand, the problem of trafficking in organs, tissues and cells and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Some connections. § 3 The «international undisputed principle». § 4 Trafficking in organs, tissues and cells; and trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. Criminal Law and Civil Law. § 5 Promote organ donation. § 6 The necessity to collect reliable data on both trafficking cases. § 7 The necessity for an internationally agreed definition of trafficking in OTC: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine – updated or outdated? § 8 The (inter)national and (il)legal organ («tissue and cell») trade: some cases and some conclusions. § 9 Do we need a new international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC)? § 10 Of course we need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in organs, tissues and cells (OTC). § 11 At the present moment, we do not need a «new» international convention to prevent trafficking in human beings for the purpose of the removal organs. § 12 The Portuguese case. § 13 «Final conclusions.» § Resumo: § 1 «Precisamos de uma "nova" convenção internacional que ajude a evitar o tráfico de órgãos? Alguns aspectos de lei criminal (e civil)» - «Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - Actualizada ou desactualizada?». § 2 Algumas conexões importantes: por um lado, entre a Convenção do Conselho da Europa de 1997 sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina; o Protocolo Adicional de 2002 à Convenção sobre os Direitos do Homem e da Biomedicina relativo ao transplante de órgãos e tecidos de origem humana, e, por outro lado, o problema do tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células e tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 3 O «indiscutível princípio internacional». § 4 O Tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células; e o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. Direito Penal e Direito Civil. § 5 Promover a doação de órgãos. § 6 A necessidade de colectar dados fidedignos sobre os dois casos de tráfico. § 7 A necessidade de uma definição internacionalmente acordada de tráfico de OTC: Convenção sobre Direitos Humanos e Biomedicina - actualizada ou desactualizada? § 8 A (inter)nacional e (il)legal comercialização de órgãos («de tecidos e de células»): alguns casos e algumas conclusões. § 9 Será que precisamos de uma nova convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC)? § 10 É claro que precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para prevenir o tráfico de órgãos, tecidos e células (OTC). § 11 No presente momento, não precisamos de uma «nova» convenção internacional para impedir o tráfico de seres humanos para fins de remoção dos órgãos. § 12 O caso Português. § 13 «As conclusões finais.»

Droits du patient: ce que le nouveau Code civil va modifier dans les soins aux enfants [Patients' rights: what the new swiss civil code will change in the health care of children].

Recent progress in medicine allow to provide treatment, to cure or to extend the lifespan of people that would have not survived before. Doctors and healthcare providers have become indispensable actors in Western societies. This is particularly true for children's health issues. With the new information technologies, knowledge is now available to everyone, which enables patients to dialog on an equal footing with the physician. Nowadays, therapeutic choices are discussed and negotiated. The new tensions caused by this relationship between therapist and patient have created the need for new regulations. The Swiss Confederation has modified its Civil Code with the objective of a better protection of vulnerable individuals. This article summarizes the consequences of the new regulations with regard to the care and treatment provided to children.

Of Grizzlies and Landslides : The Use of Archaeological and Anthropological Evidence in Canadian Aboriginal Rights Cases

www.maney.co.uk/journals/pua

The Constitutional basis of aboriginal rights

Aboriginal rights are rights held by aboriginal peoples, not by virtue of Crown grant, legislation or treaty, but “by reason of the fact that aboriginal peoples were once independent, self-governing entities in possession of most of the lands now making up Canada.” It is, of course, the presence of aboriginal peoples in North America before the arrival of the Europeans that distinguishes them from other minority groups in Canada, and explains why their rights have special legal status. However, the extent to which those rights had survived European settlement was in considerable doubt until as late as 1973, which was when the Supreme Court of Canada decided the Calder case.2 In that case, six of the seven judges held that the Nishga people of British Columbia possessed aboriginal rights to their lands that had survived European settlement. The actual outcome of the case was inconclusive, because the six judges split evenly on the question whether the rights had been validly extinguished or not. However, the recognition of the rights was significant, and caught the attention of the Government of Canada, which began to negotiate treaties (now called land claims agreements) with First Nations in those parts of the country that were without treaties. That resumed a policy that had been abandoned in the 1920s, when the last numbered treaty was entered into.

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.