Equality, pluralism, universality: current concerns in normative theory

This article reviews recent debates in normative theory. It argues that work on equality has bifurcated in a disturbing way, with much of the work on economic equality focusing on the principles that should regulate the distribution of goods between individuals, and much of the work on social equality dealing with patterns of oppression that affect the relationship between marginal and dominant groups. The first literature has been relatively indifferent to the group nature of contemporary inequality, while the second mirrors this failing by its lack of interest in the distribution of economic resources. The implications of cultural pluralism have also contributed to debates about the status of normative theory and the basis for making universal normative claims.     

Deaths While under Probation Supervision: What Role for Human Rights Legislation?

Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) states that ‘everyone has the right to life’. This right is contained in all human rights treaties that developed from the UDHR, including the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Yet, as we argue, the UK government is failing to protect this right when it comes to certain groups of people under probation supervision. To date, human rights legislation has failed adequately to protect these vulnerable individuals and to hold the state to account. This article explores the greater potential for using human rights legislation to ensure better accountability in this area.     

The Legal Characterization of the Armed Conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq: Implications for Protection

This article explores the implications for the protection of civilians and other vulnerable persons, of the requalification of a conflict downwards from international to non-international, focusing in particular on the changes in the characterization of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq from 2001 and 2003 respectively.

Determining the legal character of an armed conflict is rooted in an inherently political interpretation of black letter treaty law. It is generally agreed that when the United States and its coalition allies entered the wars in Afghanistan in 2001, and Iraq in 2003, their operations in those countries were initially subject to the laws of international armed conflict. However the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has determined that the conflict in Afghanistan became noninternational with the establishment of the United States’ backed government of Hamid Karzai on 19 June 2002 and that the conflict in Iraq became non-international with the establishment of the Iraqi Interim Government on 28 June 2004. The basis for this requalification is Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions read in conjunction with an interpretation of the meaning of ‘state’ (and of its power to authorize a foreign intervention in its own territory) that is inherently, and possibly inevitably, political.

Changes in the legal characterization of a war have profound implications for the protection of both non-combatants and combatants under international humanitarian law, in particular for humanitarian access; for the protection of non-nationals from deportation; for the protection of detainees; for the conduct of hostilities; and for the protection of persons transferred into the hands of local authorities. The practical consequence of a requalification of an armed conflict downwards to non-international is a marked loss of protection for persons that were protected by the Geneva Conventions in the earlier stages of the conflict.

     

Modernising policy for public value: Learning lessons from the management of bushfires

This article highlights the need for an inclusive and integrated policy‐making model by drawing on the experiences of the bushfire fighting efforts of community, business and government bodies during the bushfires that ravaged North‐East Victoria during January and February of 2003 and the delivery of recovery assistance since the fires. These experiences revealed some shortfalls which militated against delivering public value for the communities affected during and after the fires. A policy framework has been developed in light of these shortfalls and is used here to reveal the ways in which bushfire management policy and practice needs to be ‘modernised’ if arrangements in the future are to deliver public value.¹