Considering advances in neuroscience through the lenses of law and human?rights

Advances in neuroscience should be subject to a robust public dialogue that includes attention to the legal and human rights issues raised by both research and its applications.     

A law for need or a law for greed?: Restoring the lost law in the international law of foreign investment

The 1990s brought about a change in the international law of foreign investment due to the primacy achieved by the tenets of neo-liberalism. They drove concerns about the environment and poverty away from the concerns of the law and gave priority to the interests of multinational corporations by enhancing their ability for movement of assets and the absolute protection of these assets through treaty rules. The regime created by this law was operated through secure systems of dispute settlement through arbitration which also enabled the stabilization of these rules. In the process, private power of a section within the hegemonic state was able to subvert international law through the use of low order sources of the law and secure a system of investment promotion and protection. The restoration of the more universal themes of environmental protection and poverty alleviation is necessary. This paper outlines the developments that accentuated the sectional interests of multinational capital and explores the means by which a change that reflects the global interests could be effected.

European human rights law and the United Kingdom—A note

This article asserts that established concerns about access to, and widening participation in higher education, are now reflected in interest around retention. Those law schools with inclusive admissions policies and widening participation practices face a number of challenges around the financial and human costs of poor retention. Most of these law schools fall within the “new university” sector.

This article argues that poor retention among first‐year law students often reflects a lack of engagement. This lack of engagement exists in two key relationships; first that of between students and the teaching and learning structures of their law school and university, and second between first year law students and many of the staff who teach them. It is argued that this lack of engagement reflects a clash of cultures, first between the requirements and structures of the law school and the everyday life experience of our students, and second between ourselves as teachers and our students.

The utilisation of aspects of the Oxbridge tutorial model of higher education together with an appropriate use of new technology is suggested as a response to this cultural clash and as a way of increasing engagement with our students.

In support of these arguments, the article refers extensively to the evidence presented to the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee hearings on retention in higher education, and to the Committee's conclusions.     

Can international law improve mental health? Some thoughts on the proposed convention on the rights of people with disabilities

This paper examines the promise of the proposed Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities to improve the position of people with mental illness. Proponents of the new Disability Convention argue that the state of human rights abuses experienced by people with disabilities is intolerable, that the existing international law is inadequate, that additional international law will increase the visibility of people with disabilities and will clarify the fundamental entitlement to equality, and that, as a result, the position of people with disabilities will be greatly enhanced. This paper questions the value of international law to achieve real change and warns against placing too much faith in the law. The potential of a new international law to rectify the wrongs experienced by people with psychiatric disabilities will depend on whether the new law specifically displaces the existing international law which undermines the rights of people with mental illness and on the final terms of the Convention with respect to recognition and enforcement. Ironically, it is the process of developing the Convention which has been empowering, and the utility of the new law will ultimately turn on the continuation of the momentum built through this process.     

Adult guardianship: human rights or social justice?

Adult guardianship in English-speaking countries has its roots firmly planted in the protective parens patriae principle. In the last 20 years, in response to societal changes and international developments, concerns about human rights have fundamentally challenged the historic basis of guardianship. This article argues that social justice offers a better framework than human rights for adult guardianship legislation.     

Laws to detain individuals with substance dependency: breaching human rights or restoring health?

At the turn of the 20th century in the United Kingdom and Australia, legislation was introduced to detain and treat "inebriates". Since that time, variations of such laws have continued to exist. This column examines current laws in Australia and New Zealand with a particular focus on recent law reform efforts in New South Wales and Victoria. The column raises some of the issues with these laws in relation to breaching human rights for the purpose of treatment.     

Mental health law and the EU: the next new regulatory frontier?

Over the last decade the EU's engagement with health law and policy has rapidly increased and there is now a growing body of literature highlighting this evolution and the impact of legal and regulatory structures in this area. In contrast the specific impact of EU law and policy in relation to the area of mental health remains the subject of comparatively little engagement. The aim of this paper is to examine whether mental health law and policy will become a major site for EU policy and law in the future. It examines the development of EU policy in this area. It sets this in the context of related legal developments such as the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the new EU Patients Rights Directives. It suggests that while it might be at present premature to envisage that a single body of EU mental health law itself may be unlikely that nonetheless the EU presents what is a potentially very influential site for regulation, law and policy in this area in the years to come.     

Same law–same rights? Analyzing why Sweden's disability legislation failed to create equal rights in mental health

This article analyzed the apparent paradox of disability rights in Sweden. Despite strong welfare state traditions and stated Government ambitions to create generous statutory entitlements for all disabled people using a single, comprehensive Disability Act, psychiatric disabilities were principally excluded from the Disability Act's rights and provisions. The study focused on Sweden's Mental Health Reform and Disability Reform using governance perspectives that traced and analyzed the policy-processes of both reforms. Theoretically guided analytical frameworks were developed to help understand the divergent reform outcomes. The first focused on legislative arguments of regulatory specificity and legal enforcement mechanisms to consider whether the Disability Act was formulated in a manner that was easier to apply to certain disabilities. The second analyzed ideological arguments and the influence of Government political beliefs that signaled specific reform ‘visions’ to implementers and thereby influenced policy implementation. The main findings are that both perspectives matter as the dual influences of legislative and ideological differences tended to exclude mental health service users from the Act's generous disability rights. The overall conclusion was that while legislation was an important regulatory mechanism, the Government's underlying ideological reform vision was also an essential governance instrument that signaled Government intentions to implementing agencies and thus influenced the creation of enduring disability rights.     

Foreign agents or agents of justice? Private foundations,backlash against non-governmental organizations,and international human rights litigation

The premise of Russia's 2012 “Foreign Agents” Law, one of the first such laws restricting foreign funding for non-governmental organizations (NGOs), is that foreign monies equal foreign agendas. Since then, over 50 countries have adopted similar laws using a similar justification. This paper interrogates this claim of foreign donor influence through examining legal mobilization by human rights NGOs at the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). We track donor support for litigation by providing an overview of all foundation grant flows relating to strategic litigation for 2013–2014, and then matching the granting activities of two major U.S. foundations over 14 years to human rights NGO participation in cases before the ECtHR. Further, through case studies of Russian NGOs, we assess the causal role that donor support has played in facilitating their increased involvement in ECtHR litigation. The combined analysis indicates broad patterns of private foundation support to litigating NGOs, but uncovers no evidence that foreign donors were “pushing” NGOs toward litigation as a strategy, but instead more evidence suggesting that NGOs convinced donors to support human rights litigation. Despite the inaccuracy of the justification underpinning Russia's foreign agent law, the law threatens the survival of human rights organizations.