Protection of Refugees and Displaced Persons in the Asia Pacific Region

The chapters in this book explore the impact of recent shifts in global and regional power and the subsequent development and enforcement of international refugee protection standards in the Asia Pacific region. Drawing on their expertise across a number of jurisdictions, the contributors assess the challenges confronting the implementation of international law in the region, as well as new opportunities for extending protection norms into national and regional dialogues. The case studies span key jurisdictions across the region and include a comparative analysis with China, Indonesia, Thailand, Myanmar, Malaysia, Bangladesh and Australia. This topical and important book raises critical questions for the Asia Pacific region and sheds light on the challenges confronting the protection of refugees and displaced persons in this area. Interdisciplinary in its approach, it will be of interest to academics, researchers, students and policy-makers concerned with the rights and protection of refugees.

Intellectual property, TRIPS and development

Intellectual property is crucial to the promotion of innovation. It provides an incentive to innovate as well as security for investment in innovation. The industries of the 21st century-information technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, communications, education and entertainment – are all knowledge-based. The WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the TRIPS Agreement), adopted in 1994 at the conclusion of the Uruguay Round of trade negotiations, requires all WTO member countries to provide for the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights. Having forged a link for the first time between intellectual property rights and the international trading system, the adoption of TRIPS means that any country that aims to participate fully in the global economy needs to understand the role of intellectual property and align its intellectual property laws and practices with the international minimum standards prescribed by TRIPS. However, for developing and least-developed countries, the implementation of intellectual property systems and enforcement mechanisms raises questions and challenges. Does recognition and enforcement of intellectual property serve their development needs and objectives? Does TRIPS encourage or hinder the transfer of technologies to developing and least-developed countries, particularly those that meet urgent needs in areas such as public health, food security, water and energy? What is the effect of TRIPS on developing countries’ access to knowledge and information? Is there scope for flexibility in implementation of TRIPS in pursuit of development strategies?

TNCs and countries interface

This paper argues that relationships between countries and transnational corporations are not zero-sum games, but entail ‘complex governance’, where all actors must be considered in order to understand changes in the international system.

The BRICS and the responsibility to protect : lessons from the Libyan and Syrian crises

The emerging ‘responsibility to protect’ (R2P) principle presents a significant challenge to the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) states’ traditional emphasis on a strict Westphalian understanding of state sovereignty and non-interference in domestic affairs. Despite formally endorsing R2P at the 2005 World Summit, each of the BRICS has, to varying degrees, retained misgivings about coercive measures under the doctrine’s third pillar. This paper examines how these rising powers engaged with R2P during the 2011–2012 Libyan and Syrian civilian protection crises. The central finding is that although all five states expressed similar concerns over NATO’s military campaign in Libya, they have been unable to maintain a common BRICS position on R2P in Syria. Instead, the BRICS have splintered into two sub-groups. The first, consisting of Russia and China, remains steadfastly opposed to any coercive measures against Syria. The second, comprising the democratic IBSA states (India, Brazil and South Africa) has displayed softer, more flexible stances towards proposed civilian protection measures in Syria, although these three states also remain cautious about the implementation of R2P’s coercive dimension. This paper identifies a number of factors which help to explain this split, arguing that the failure to maintain a cohesive BRICS position on R2P is unsurprising given the many internal differences and diverging national interests between the BRICS members. Overall, the BRICS’ ongoing resistance to intervention is unlikely to disappear quickly, indicating that further attempts to operationalize R2P’s third pillar may prove difficult.

IMO mandatory energy efficiency measures for international shipping : the first mandatory global greenhouse gas reduction instrument for an international industry

Bunker fuels used in the aviation and maritime sectors are responsible for nearly 10% of global greenhouse gas emissions.1 According to a scientific survey: ‘[s]hipping is estimated to have emitted 1,046 million tonnes of CO2 in 2007, which corresponds to 3.3% of the global emissions during 2007. International shipping is estimated to have emitted 870 million tonnes, or about 2.7% of the global emissions of CO2 in 2007’. The study also predicted that ‘by 2050, in the absence of policies, ship emissions may grow by 150% to 250% (compared to the emissions in 2007) as a result of the growth in shipping.’

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.

Australia's mining interests within Nigeria and Libya : policies, corruption and conflict

Crude petroleum remains the single most imported commodity into Australia and is sourced from a number of countries around the world (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), 2011a). While interest in crude petroleum is widespread, in recent years Australia's focus has been drawn to the continent of Africa, where increased political stability, economic recovery and an improved investment climate has made one of the largest oil reserves in the world increasingly more attractive. Despite improvement across the continent, there remain a number of risks which have the potential to significantly damage Australia's economic interests in the petroleum sector,including government policies and legislation, corruption and conflict. The longest exporters of crude petroleum products to Australia – Nigeria and Libya – have been subject to these factors in recent years and, accordingly, are the focus of this paper. Once identified, the impact of political instability, conflict, government corruption and other risk factors to Australia's mining interests within these countries is examined, and efforts to manage such risks are discussed.

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.

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.

Proposed REDD+ project for the Sundarbans : legal and institutional issues

Sundarbans, a Ramsar and World Heritage site, is the largest single block of tidal halophytic mangrove forest in the world covering parts of Bangladesh and India. Natural mangroves were very common along the entire coast of Bangladesh. However, all other natural mangrove forests, including the Chakaria Sundarbans with 21,000 hectares of mangrove, have been cleared for shrimp cultivation. Against this backdrop, the Forest Department of Bangladesh has developed project design documents for a project called ‘Collaborative REDD+ Improved Forest Management (IFM) Sundarbans Project’ (CRISP) to save the only remaining natural mangrove forest of the country. This project, involving conservation of 412,000 ha of natural mangrove forests, is expected to generate, over a 30-year period, a total emissions reduction of about 6.4 million tons of CO2. However, the successful implementation of this project involves a number of critical legal and institutional issues. It may involve complex legal issues such as forest ownership, forest use rights, rights of local people and carbon rights. It may also involve institutional reforms. Ensuring good governance of the proposed project is very vital considering the failure of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) funded and Bangladesh Forest Department managed ‘Sundarbans Biodiversity Conservation Project’. Considering this previous experience, this paper suggests that a comprehensive legal and institutional review and reform is needed for the successful implementation of the proposed CRISP project. This paper argues that without ensuring local people’s rights and their participation, no project can be successful in the Sundarbans. Moreover, corruption of local and international officials may be a serious hurdle in the successful implementation of the project.

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.