Human Rights, Refugees, and The Right 'To Enjoy' Asylum

Increasingly hard-line and restrictive asylum policies and practicesof many governments call into question the scope of protectionsoffered by the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees.Has the focus on the 1951 Convention been to the detriment andsubordination of other rights and standards of treatment owedto refugees and asylum-seekers under international human rightslaw? Which standard applies in the event that there is a clashor inconsistency between the two bodies of law? In analysingthe interface between international refugee law and internationalhuman rights law, this article looks at the right to familylife and the right to work. Through this examination, contentand meaning is offered to the almost forgotten component ofthe right ‘to enjoy’ asylum in Article 14(1) ofthe Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948.     

Clear, Simple, and Precise Legislative Drafting: How Does a European Community Directive Fare?

In 2001, Martin Cutts redrafted Toy-Safety Directive 88/378/EEC¹in plain language. He criticized the language of that Directiveas being archaic legalese.² He added that Directives, as a whole,were poorly drafted.³ The European Commissions Legal Servicerejected his criticisms. It stated that it had published theEuropean Commission’s plain language guidelines⁴ afterDirective 88/378/EEC had been drafted. In a previous articlein the Statute Law Review,⁵ Butt and Castle’s⁶ plain languageguidelines were explicated using examples from Directive 2002/2/EC.⁷In this article, their guidelines are applied to the whole ofthat Directive to see if its language is ‘clear, simple,and precise’.⁸ The criticisms made in the previous article,⁹combined with those made in this article, suggest that the draftersof Directive 2002/2/EC¹⁰ have not yet mastered the skill ofwriting in ‘clear, simple, and precise’ language.     

Challenging Corporate 'Humanity': Legal Disembodiment, Embodiment and Human Rights

This article interrogates the corporate use of human rightsdiscourse. It does so in light of concern surrounding corporatedistortion of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)paradigm,¹ and in light of the fact that corporations can claimshelter under human rights documents, particularly—asrecently discussed by Emberland²—the European Conventionof Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). The authoroffers a critical exploration of corporate human rights claims(and some arguments advanced in their favour), and identifiesthe phenomenon of legal disembodiment (or ‘quasi-disembodiment’),linking it to both a genealogical account of human rights andthe nature of liberal legal personality. This reading of humanrights genealogy invites the reader to focus on a series ofparadoxes surrounding human rights, including their nature asa form of sacral construct, and locates human rights at an entrenchedand challenging interface between historical and contemporarypatterns of inclusion and exclusion. Quasi-disembodiment emergesfrom the analysis as a key conceptual conduit for the legalreception of corporate human rights claims. Linking the ECHRto the liberal human rights tradition, the author suggests thatnotwithstanding judicial protection of corporations as beneficiariesof ECHR protection, it remains essential to engage in a normativecritique of the very notion of corporate human rights. Beneathhuman rights law (and the related closures of legal discourse)it is possible to trace a human rights-oriented critique thatadopts human embodiment (and its quintessential link with humanvulnerability) as the ethical foundation of human rights.³ Emphasisingembodied vulnerability as the foundation of human rights yieldsa significant and ethically relevant distinction between corporationsand human beings—a distinction with intriguing possibilitiesfor the future theorisation of human rights—and one thatarguably problematises the corporate use of human rights discourse.     

Pepper v Hart: A Footnote to Professor Vogenauer's Reply to Lord Steyn

This Note is intended to stand as a short supplement to thecompelling article by Stefan Vogenauer entitled, ‘A Retreatfrom Pepper v Hart? A Reply to Lord Steyn’ published inthe Journal at the end of 2005.¹ In his article, Professor Vogenauercalls in question the argument advanced by Lord Steyn in hisarticle in the Journal, entitled ‘Pepper v Hart: A Re-examination’.²In that article, Lord Steyn called for a retreat from the decisionof the House of Lords in Pepper v Hart³ concerning the circumstancesin which reference may be made to Hansard as an aid to statutoryconstruction and for a reinterpretation of the decision in linewith a theory that a Minister speaking in Parliament who givesan explanation of the meaning or effect of a clause in a Billshould be taken to create a binding legitimate expectation thatthe executive will apply the provision, once enacted, in thatsense. In this Note, I express my agreement with Professor Vogenauer’sargument, and seek to support it with some additional pointsunder three heads: (1) the proper interpretation of Pepper vHart and its status as authority; (2) the basis in principlefor adhering to that interpretation; and (3) conceptual difficultiesattached to Lord Steyn’s legitimate expectation thesis.     

Market Failure and Non-Standard Contracting: How the Ghost of Perfect Competition Still Haunts Antitrust

Modern antitrust policy has a ‘love hate’ relationshipwith non-standard contracts that can overcome market failure.On the one hand, courts have abandoned various per se rulesthat once condemned such agreements outright, concluding thatmany non-standard contracts may produce benefits that are cognizableunder the antitrust laws.¹ The prospect of such benefits, itis said, compels courts to analyze these agreements under theRule of Reason, under which the tribunal determines whethera given restraint enhances or destroys competition.² At thesame time, courts, scholars, and the enforcement agencies haveembraced methods of rule of reason analysis that are undulyhostile to such agreements.³ In particular, courts and othersare too quick to view such agreements and the market outcomesthey produce as manifestations of market power. This articleseeks to explain why these agreements are still the object ofundue hostility.     

The Unorganised Worker: The Decline in Collectivism and New Hurdles to Individual Employment Rights

The ‘unorganised’ worker (neither unionised norcovered by a collective agreement) is the norm in Britain, especiallyin the private sector, which employs about 70% of employees.In 2003, union membership was down to 29.3%, and 18.2% in theprivate sector. Collective bargaining covers 72.2% of workersin the public sector, but only 22.1% in the private,¹ leavingstatutory regulation of individual employment rights as theonly protection for the majority of workers. In this context,access to these rights, and ease of enforcement, while neverpreviously straightforward, are becoming increasingly crucial.The individualisation of the employment relationship, whichbegan before New Labour returned to power in 1997, has continuedwith little restoration of collective rights and new legislationenhancing individual rights. The government’s commitmentto neo-liberalism and maintaining a ‘flexible’ labourforce has ensured that these further rights are circumscribedby new legislation, which places them further out of reach.This paper discusses this process in the context of the difficultiesworkers already face in obtaining support and guidance, thelack of affordable professional legal advice and representationand the impediments to providing an adequate service by theunder-funded voluntary sector.     

Shadows in Paradise - Exploring Non-Refoulement as an Open Concept

The principle of non-refoulement contains a paradox. While stateshave committed to respecting the principle by joining the 1951Refugee Convention and key human rights conventions, its contentis not established in international law. In other words, stateshave committed to a principle the content of which is indeterminate.Since no common definition exists, in practice, national andinternational bodies have extensive powers of discretion togive content to the terms ‘persecution’, ‘torture’,‘degrading’ or ‘cruel’ treatment. Thepurpose of this article is to explore non-refoulement as anopen and ambiguous concept. Acknowledgement of the indeterminacyis important, as open concepts never remain such in practicebut are always issued with content or interpreted. This approachcalls for a further question: how do interpretations come aboutand what kind of factors influence them? The conclusion of thearticle is that different national and international actorspromote their own ‘correct’ interpretations of thiskeystone of refugee protection.     

The ongoing design duty in Universal Music Australia Pty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd Casting the scope of copyright infringement even wider

The Australian Federal Court case of Universal Music AustraliaPty Ltd v Sharman License Holdings Ltd (‘Sharman’)¹is the latest in a series of peer-to-peer (P2P) filesharingcases from various jurisdictions that has found the softwaredistributor/technology provider liable for copyright infringement.² Sharman followed a few months after the groundbreaking US SupremeCourt case of MGM Studios v Grokster Ltd ³ (‘Grokster’)that had acknowledged the Sony safe harbour for technology providersbut also introduced an inducement of infringement doctrine todeal with reprehensible conduct of infringers. While both cases involved similar technology and shared a numberof similarities on the facts and legal principles⁴, a closerexamination of Sharman shows that the net of copyright infringementin P2P filesharing is cast wider than that in Grokster. The effect of Sharman is an increased burden on the technologyprovider and the potentially tremendous consequences on innovationdue to the lack of a clear safe harbour as well as the wideningof the design obligation.     

From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and The Problem of an International Administration's Open-Ended Mandate

This contribution examines certain inherent shortcomings ofan ‘open-ended’ institution-building operation forwhich the future status of the entity in statu nascendi remainsundecided. It first addresses the policy of conditionality throughwhich Kosovo’s international administration attempts tomeasure the performance of local institutions against imported‘standards’. The external representation functionof an international administration acting on behalf of a non-stateterritorial entity, as an agent of necessity, is then analysed,considering recent and little-known developments and suggestingthat UNMIK’s practice supports the argument that ‘internationalized’territories possess limited legal personality. Turning ‘inward’to a sphere of domestic governance, the contribution highlightssome of the problems encountered with regard to the privatizationof public assets in Kosovo. Here, it argues that UNMIK is awkwardlycaught between the pursuit of both the interests of the territoryunder its administration and the collective interest of theorganized international community – two sets of interestswhich can collide head-on. The article concludes by suggestingthat an international territorial agent should not, as a rule,attempt to mediate a solution, but endeavour to represent theterritory in good faith.

‘You gave us freedom, but not a future’.¹

     

From the Right to Return to the Return of Rights: Completing Post-War Property Restitution in Bosnia Herzegovina

Given the numbers displaced as part of the means and methodsof the armed conflict during the war in Bosnia Herzegovina between1992–95, it is not surprising that the return processhas been long and drawn out. Nevertheless, a remarkable processof post-war reconciliation has quietly drawn to completion inBosnia Herzegovina. In less than a decade after the end of thewar, over 90 per cent of the 211,871 claims for the restitutionof real property made by internally displaced persons (IDPs) and refugees have been resolved. Annex 7 of the Dayton Agreement, The Agreement on Refugees andDisplaced Persons, provided for the return of IDPs and refugees,but it was the object of obstruction in the mid to late 1990s.However, by the middle of the first decade of the 21^st century,restitution was all but complete. The significance of this turn-aroundextends far beyond the hundreds of thousands of Bosnians whobenefited directly. It is a model, both positive and negative,for the resolution of many other conflicts around the worldin which land is a major issue. While a number of factors contributedto the dramatic acceleration of the restitution process in Bosnia,certainly the unexpected staying power — and, indeed,concerted action on property restitution — of the internationalcommunity played its part. A ‘carrot and stick’strategy manifested itself in high-profile funding, admittanceto international bodies, and the removal of obstructive officials.As this paper shall argue, the greatest factor in seeing theprocess through to the end was the shift from a process thatfocused primarily upon ethnically-linked ‘return’,sometimes at the expense of individual property rights, to onethat was driven primarily by the recognition of property rightsand the rule of law. This was possible for a number of reasons.Uniquely, international human rights conventions were incorporateddirectly into post-war Bosnian domestic law. Influenced by this,legislative amendments and changes in implementation strategyprogressively slanted the process in favour of simple, almostintuitive, rights recognition. Shifting away from the emphasison ‘return’ removed a subjective element from implementationand, combined with greater emphasis on the ‘rule of law’,narrowed the scope for the system to be manipulated and thwarted.This, thereby, de-politicised restitution.     

Treaty Interpretation and the WTO Appellate Body Report in US - Gambling: A Critique

‘Before the game begins players should agree on a dictionaryto use in case of a challenge.’ (from the Official Rulesof SCRABBLE®)

Treaty interpretation in WTO law continues to represent a topicof highly theoretical and practical importance. The Panel’sand the Appellate Body’s reports in the recent US –Gambling dispute have critically turned on ascertaining themeaning of the United States’ GATS Schedule and ArticleXVI GATS on the basis of the public international law rulesof treaty interpretation as codified in the Vienna Conventionon the Law of Treaties. The paper’s principal aim is toreview the interpretative approach followed in particular bythe Appellate Body in reaching its decision in US – Gambling.Its main argument is that, although the Appellate Body appearsto be trying to emancipate itself from a rigorous textual approach,it has not yet embraced a holistic approach to treaty interpretation,one in which the treaty interpreter looks thoroughly at allthe relevant elements of the general rule on treaty interpretationpursuant to Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention.     

Assessing the Credibility of Refugee Applicants: A Judicial Perspective

The principal responsibility of refugee decision makers is todetermine those to whom refugee protection is owed. The mannerin which these decisions are to be made in Australia is thesubject of ongoing debate. However, that debate is not the subjectof this paper. The focus of this paper is on the credibilityassessment of refugee applicants and its principal purpose isinstructive. It is my hope that it will enhance the credibilityof credibility assessment within existing processes. Its secondarypurpose is to provide a basis from which policy makers may considerlegislative and other procedural change. It has been suggested that the ‘devil is in the detail’in refugee decision making. Working in a common law country,Australian refugee decision makers are afforded the (often binding)benefit of extensive judicial review of the refugee determinationprocess.¹ Thus, for Australian decision makers, the ‘devilin the detail’ is often to be found in a plethora of bindinglegal precedent. Accordingly, while the first part of this paperdiscusses selected matters which have facilitated the assessmentof the credibility of refugee applicants in Australia, as oneof the most authoritative domestic sources available, the secondpart of this paper principally focuses on the expressed viewsof Australian courts after examining credibility findings indecisions of the Refugee Review Tribunal.²     

Implementation of Human Rights Treaties by Chinese Courts: Problems and Prospects

This article explores the implementation of human rights treatiesby courts in the People's Republic of China. The general applicabilityof treaties in China is not mentioned in its Constitution, whichleaves the status of treaties unclear in Chinese courts, andvarying from area to area. In the human rights area, the applicationof treaties at the domestic level requires incorporation. Thestatus of general comments and concluding observations madeby treaty bodies is unclear, too. On the basis of the currenthuman rights legislation in China, the problems and prospectsof four different kinds of litigation (constitutional, civil,criminal and administrative) in Chinese courts are discussedseparately.     

Market Fundamentalisms: Business Ethics at the Altar of Human Rights

In this article the author explores what he terms ‘anemergent trade-related, market-friendly paradigm of human rights’,in contrast to the paradigm of human rights enshrined in theUniversal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). It focuses ona reassertion of the UDHR paradigm in relation to corporategovernance and business conduct, looking specifically at theProposed Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporationsand Other Business Enterprises with regard to Human Rights (‘Norms’).The article examines, in this respect, five central themes:the intertextuality of the Norms; the ‘network’conception of trade and business conduct; ways of categorisinghuman rights obligations; duties regarding implementation ofthe Norms; and, finally, related ethical theory concerns.     

Copyright ownership in university students' academic works

Legal context. The impact of human rights on intellectual property(‘IP’), particularly in the light of the Human RightsAct 1998 and growing criticism of IP by civil society. Key points. There can be a greater legal, as well as political,role for human rights in the development of IP. The place ofhuman rights in IP litigation is established: see decisionsin Levi v Tesco, Ashdown v Telegraph and ITP v Coflexip. However,the impact of human rights has been limited to extreme peripheralcases, without challenging the central priority accorded tothe interests of IP owners. After considering practical applicationsin ‘non commercial’, ‘hybrid’, and ‘commercial’fields, this article argues for a more pervasive and centralrole for human rights, by greater reference to the Human RightsAct 1998, the EU Charter, international human rights instruments,TRIPS and decisions of other jurisdictions. This should enablea more balanced outcome to be reached in many, but not all,cases. Practical significance. IP owners, those challenging IP rights,and those advising them should all consider greater use of humanrights in IP litigation—not just in exceptional cases.Those resisting infringement may increase their prospect ofsuccess; those arguing for infringement will be better placedto counter arguments which may be raised. However, revisionof national, regional and international IP legislation wouldbe required to address all perceived social difficulties withIP.     

Can We Protect How We Do What We Do? A Consideration of Business Method Patents in Australia and Europe

In the long history of monopolies, business method patents area novel and recent edition. In the Digital Age, where time ismoney and speed is everything, innovative methods for undertakingbusiness are as important to a business as the products or servicesit provides to its clients. In recent years several reviews,conducted in both Australia and internationally,⁴ have questionedthe appropriateness of patenting business methods. This paperreviews the availability of business method patents in Australiain light of the 2006 decision of the Full Court of the FederalCourt in Grant v Commissioner of Patents,⁵ which confirmed theneed in Australia for a ‘useful product’ to issuefrom the working of a method (business or otherwise) in orderfor the method to be patentable. This paper will review argumentsboth criticising and defending business method patents and considerwhether business methods warrant special treatment.     

Amendment to new regulations enabling exempt private trust companies to be established in the British Virgin Islands

The Financial Services (Exemptions) (Amendment) Regulations,2007 (the ‘Amendment Regulations’) were made bythe British Virgin Islands Cabinet on 27 December 2007.¹ The Amendment Regulations amend the Financial Services (Exemptions)Regulations, 2007² by extending until 31 July 2008 the periodduring which paragraphs (c) and (d) of Direction 7 of the Banksand Trust Companies (Application Procedures) Directions, 1991(the ‘Directions’) apply. The effect     

Protecting the Right to Housing in the Aftermath of Natural Disaster: Standards in International Human Rights Law

In 2006, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees reportedthat an average of 211 million people each year were directlyaffected by the accumulated impact of natural disasters.¹ Thisis approximately five times the number of people thought tohave been affected by conflict over the past decade.² It iscommonly expected that, as a result of climate change, populationgrowth and inappropriate urbanisation, the incidence, severityand impact of natural disasters will continue to rise. And yetwhile the obligations of states in situations of armed conflicthave been extensively debated, the applicability of human rightslaw in the aftermath of natural disaster has not been so widelyexamined by regional or international human rights bodies. Thispaper considers the obligations of governments in the aftermathof natural disasters, with a particular focus on the right tohousing. The applicability of human rights law (and specificallyeconomic, social and cultural rights) in the aftermath of naturaldisaster is considered in a general sense, followed by a discussionof the content of the right to housing, and the obligationsof governments to respect, protect and fulfil this right inthe course of responding to disaster. The question of whetherstates have an obligation to provide restitution, compensationor other form of reparation to those who have lost homes, landand property by reason of natural disaster is also discussed.The paper draws on examples from the Indian Ocean tsunami (2004),the Pakistan earthquake (2005) and the South Asian floods (2007),and identifies specific elements of government obligations thatare of particular importance in ensuring the right to adequatehousing in the aftermath of natural disaster.     

The Alien Tort Statute: Blackstone and Criminal/Tort Law Hybridities

The importation of criminal law concepts into the area of civillaw is attracting increasing interest. The United States’Alien Tort Statute (ATS), though principally known for enablinginternational human rights suits to be filed in the domesticcourts of the United States, also imports criminal law notionsinto civil litigation. This article explores the hybrid natureof the ATS in the context of the development of internationallaw, and raises the question of whether ‘grandeur’is a principal reason for the ATS’ existence.     

Which law applies? A reply to Professor Torremans

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

‘A book may be good for nothing; or there may be onlyone thing in it worth knowing; are we to read it all through?’(Samuel Johnson) This section is dedicated to the review ofideas, articles, books, films and other media. It will includereplies (and rejoinders) to articles, the evaluation of newideas or proposals, and reviews of books and articles both directlyand indirectly related to intellectual property law.

In a recent article,¹ Professor Torremans argues that the countryof origin (sometimes called the lex originis) should be thelaw applied to authorship and ownership of copyright.² There is no doubt that several countries do apply the countryof origin to initial ownership and authorship of copyright works.Citing both the Austrian and Belgian Codes on Private InternationalLaw as examples,³ Professor Torremans also mentions the decisionof the US Second Circuit of Appeals in . . . [Full Text of this Article]