Legal relations of collectives : belated insights from Hohfeld

Collectives and their interrelations are central to international law. Legal relations between collectives can be analysed with reference to the classic account of Hohfeld without reducing those collectives to mere aggregates of individuals and without recourse to the legal fiction of treating the collective, for example the state, as a quasi-individual. The rights of collectives have been widely if not conclusively explored within international law, but Hohfeld’s ‘field’ approach to legal relations enables the scrutiny of the range of relations, including immunities, liberties, powers, and disabilities, as well as claim-rights and the corresponding obligations in others. The main substantive topics for discussion are the legal relations of collective entities such as peoples and minorities, and closely related matters such as self-determination. Applying Hohfeldian analysis to international law highlights the centrality of international collective entities of which the state represents only one variety. The approach described here therefore takes account of the dethroning of the state within contemporary international law and contributes to the theorization of that development. Nearly one hundred years after its
first appearance, Hohfeld’s analytic scheme continues to generate insights for international law.

An empirical study on the relationship between intellectual ability and an understanding of the legal process in male remand prisoners

Research conducted in Australia and around the world in the last decade has shown that people with significant intellectual impairments are over-represented in all areas of the criminal justice system. They are particularly over-represented in remand populations appearing before court. Previous research has suggested that as many as one-quarter of offenders facing sentencing in court have difficulty in understanding court procedures and it is suspected that a majority of these individuals suffer a significant intellectual impairment. The purpose of this study was to establish whether remandees with significant intellectual impairments (IQ < 70) have an accurate understanding of the court system. Seventy-four remand prisoners took part in the study. Remandees with an IQ of less than 70 demonstrated a significantly poorer understanding of the court system than those remandees with an IQ of 70 and above. The implications of these results are discussed in relation to the need for law reform and diversionary practices for this population of remandees.

Clinical, ethical and legal considerations in the treatment of newborns with non-ketotic hyperglycinaemia

Non-ketotic hyperglycinaemia (NKH) is a devastating neurometabolic disorder leading, in its classical form, to early death or severe disability and poor quality of life in survivors. Affected neonates may need ventilatory support during a short period of respiratory depression. The transient dependence on ventilation dictates urgency in decision-making regarding withdrawal of therapy. The occurrence of patients with apparent transient forms of the disease, albeit rare, adds uncertainty to the prediction of clinical outcome and dictates that the current practice of withholding or withdrawing therapy in these neonates be reviewed. Both bioethics and law take the view that treatment decisions should be based on the best interests of the patient. The medical-ethics approach is based on the principles of non-maleficence, beneficence, autonomy and justice. The law relating to withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment is complex and varies between jurisdictions. Physicians treating newborns with NKH need to provide families with accurate and complete information regarding the disease and the relative probability of possible outcomes of the neonatal presentation and to explore the extent to which family members are willing to take part in the decision making process. Cultural and religious attitudes, which may potentially clash with bioethical and juridical principles, need to be considered.

Protecting legal rights when things go wrong : legal recourse if mandatory fortification of a food were to harm human health

Food laws can encompass considerations that extend beyond food safety. The recent food standard mandating the fortification of flour with folic acid in Australia illustrates the legal problems and legal risks when governments introduce food standards that aim to medicinalise the population through the food supply despite a lack of scientific consensus. Legal analysis of the process by which the folic acid fortification was introduced into flour in Australia demonstrates legal inadequacies, administrative and policy failures, as well as flaws in safety assumptions. An analysis of the restrictions on legal rights and remedies for any adversely affected consumers seeking legal redress, and the existence of statutory immunities for governments, demonstrates a need for legal reform and changes in policy development processes.

Legal bans on pro-suicide web sites : an early retrospective from Australia

There are worldwide concerns that pro-suicide web sites may trigger suicidal behaviors among vulnerable individuals. In 2006, Australia became the first country to criminalize such sites, sparking heated debate. Concerns were expressed that the law casts the criminal net too widely; inappropriately interferes with the autonomy of those who wish to die; and has jurisdictional limitations, with off-shore web sites remaining largely immune. Conversely, proponents point out that the law may limit access to domestic pro-suicide web sites, raise awareness of Internet-related suicide, mobilize community efforts to combat it, and serve as a powerful expression of societal norms about the promotion of suicidal behavior.

Family breakdown, the best interests of the child concept, and the legal system

It appears that the legal system's response to the issues relating to family breakdown and "the best interests of the child" concept can sometimes be inadequate. There also appears to a lack of consistency with regards to enforcing the best interests of the child concept in legal proceedings concerning children.