Can international human rights law accommodate bodily diversity?

This article considers recent efforts by international bodies and advocacy groups to secure the human rights of individuals with intersex variation. Identifying that these efforts are constrained by powerful assumptions about binary sex, it argues that international rights discourse looks set to regulate intersex individuals by the same protective strategies applied to the last four decades of the women's rights movement. A frank reading of legal feminist scholarship indicates several possible risks for the nascent intersex campaign. Efforts to ensure the substantive enjoyment of rights (for all) need to move beyond the constraints of a binary system in which women and sexed/sexual minorities will always be produced as other. Having argued that human rights are not contingent on biological determinants, the right to non-discrimination on the basis of sex traits is considered.

A Bourdieuian analysis of the aspirations associated with international students' investment in VET

An increasing number of students around the globe have pursuedtertiary education outside their national borders over the past few decades. There are over 4.5 million international students currently undertaking overseas study (OECD, 2014). Despite the growing focus of institutions around the world on internationalisation of education and increasing research interests in international education, the ‘mobility’ of international students remains a largely under-theorised phenomenon. This paper provides insights into the mobility of an often-neglected group within the field of international education –international students in vocational education and training (VET). It draws on a four-year study funded by the Australian Research Council that involves 105 semi-structured interviews with international students from the Asia Pacific region, Europe and America in 25 VET institutions and dual sector universities in Australia.

Well-known trade marks, foreign investment and local industry : a comparison of China and Indonesia

Strengthened protection for well-known trade marks in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement is an important issue for developing countries, which has led to trade pressures from industrialised nations in the past. ‘Trade mark squatting’, referring to the registration in bad faith of foreign well-known marks in order to sell them back to their original owners, is a much discussed phenomenon in this context. This article outlines the history and development of well-known trade marks and the applicable law in China and Indonesia. It looks not just at foreign and international brands subjected to ‘trade mark squatting’, but also at how local enterprises are using the system. Rather remarkably in view of the countries’ turbulent histories, local well-known marks have a long history and are well respected for their range of products. They are not normally affected by the ‘trade mark squatting’ phenomenon and are rarely the subject of disputes. Enhanced protection under the TRIPS Agreement is especially relevant for international brands and the article shows the approaches in the two countries. In China, government incentives assist the proliferation of nationally well-known and locally ‘famous’ marks. In Indonesia, lack of implementing legislation has left the matter of recognition to the discretion of the courts.

Cross-border insolvency law and multinational enterprise groups: judicial Innovation as an international solution

The Article argues that courts confronting the effects of multinational enterprise insolvency must undertake a pragmatic incursion into the separate entity doctrine. This argument is premised on gaps in the current Model Law which confers significant discretion on the courts. Our research shows that courts have fashioned innovative solutions to fill the gaps and thatgreater recognition of the legitimacy of these judicial incursions into the separate entity doctrine would facilitate the reduction of transaction costs in the case of multinational group insolvencies. We identify criteriawhereby a court would be able to determine that the inherentseparateness of the corporate structure should be disregarded andthe group regarded as one.