Issue 3, 2009 22009
COURT OF CONSCIENCE
Issue 3, 2009
Editor’s Note Welcome to the latest issue of Court of Conscience. Court of Conscience aims to reaffirm the law’s prime function of establishing productive engagement with, and contribution to, solutions for social issues that challenge us. This issue features the prominent debates of whether Australia needs a Human Rights Act and whether nonstate actors are accountable under international law. Contributors to the magazine include the Social Justice Committee, industry experts and academics: Edward Santow – Director of the Charter of Human Rights Project, Gilbert an Tobin Centre of Public Law; Justice Nolan; Deputy Director of the Australian Human Rights Centre; George Williams – Foundation Director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law. I’d like to thank the Social Justice Officers – Mina Aresh and Rachel Smith for all their hardwork and efforts. I hope you enjoy this edition of Court of Conscience. Alpana Modi
Australian Bill of Rights George Williams Human Rights Act Edward Santow
Intellectual Property Law: The Indigenous Experience Ashley Walker
The applicability of human rights standards to non-state actors Justine Nolan
Responsibility to Protect Max Dalton
Commonwealth Reforms on Same Sex Couples Angela Small
Racism Raihana Wahab
A Culture of Life: The Death Penalty Kim Thanh Nguyen
Racial Discriminationor or Testamentary Freedom? Rahil Patel
Australia is the only democratic democracy without human rights legislation. Does this mean that the human rights of Australians are not adequately protected?
Does Australia need a Human Rights Act?
Edward Santow – Director of the Charter of Human Rights Project, Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law and George Williams – Foundation Director of the Gilbert and Tobin Centre of Public Law voice their views on this issue.
AUSTARLIAN BILL OF RIGHTS George Williams
Australia is now the only democratic nation in the world without a national charter or bill of rights.
It is long past time that we redressed this and modernised our system of government by introducing an Australia-wide human rights law. We should provide the best possible protection for vulnerable groups like children and the elderly and for important values like freedom of speech. Until recently, no Australian government had achieved a charter of rights. The breakthroughs came in the Australian Capital Territory with the Human Rights Act 2004 and Victoria with its Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. But is there a need for national reform? After all, there is rightly much to be proud of in our political freedoms and democratic institutions. The problem is that while our system of government generally works well for most Australians there are too many examples of it failing to protect the rights of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged in the community. We possess problems of law and accountability that range from restrictions on freedom of speech under sedition law to the removal of Aboriginal people as part of the Stolen Generations to the treatment of people with mental illness.
Despite the many good things about our democracy, Australian law still routinely permits the mistreatment of people in ways that are unjust and infringe the dignity, respect and freedom to which all human beings are entitled. We should aspire to do better. A large part of the problem lies in how human rights in Australia are uniquely dependent on the wisdom and good sense of our elected representatives. This can be an especially frail shield when any one party controls both houses of the federal or any other parliament. Without a charter of rights, freedoms can be ignored or taken away too easily. As Australians we like to assume that we have our rights, but as a matter of law we do so for only so long as they have not been taken away. While the legal system has many checks and balances to temper public power, we have no law that ensures respect for our basic freedoms. One example of the problem from recent years is how Australia locked up children in conditions that caused many of them to become mentally ill. It seems unthinkable that this could have occurred, yet it did.
The problem was the law, which said that the detention of people seeking asylum in Australia was mandatory. That law was applied without exception, even to unaccompanied children already suffering trauma. One of these children was five-yearold Shayan, who arrived in Australia in March 2000. Along with other members of his family he was taken to the Woomera detention centre, a facility ringed by desert in South Australia. While in detention, Shayan witnessed hunger strikes and riots, saw authorities responding with tear gas and water cannons, and watched as adult detainees harmed themselves. By December that year, the detention centre’s medical records reveal that Shayan was experiencing nightmares, sleep disturbance, bed wetting and anxiety. He would wake in the night, gripping his chest and saying, ‘They are going to kill us.’ He also drew pictures of fences containing himself and his family. Three times during that year the detention centre managers strongly recommended to the government that Shayan be moved from Woomera. Despite further recommendations and psychological assessments reporting high levels of anxiety and distress, it was several months before he and his family were moved to Villawood detention centre in Sydney. At this time, Shayan was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. During the next few months he was admitted to hospital eight times for acute trauma and, because he refused to drink, dehydration. He also became more withdrawn.
Medical staff consistently recommended that he should be removed from detention and drew a direct link between Shayan’s trauma and his experiences in detention. However, it was not until August 2001 that the government transferred him into foster care. In doing so, he was separated from his parents and sister until they were released in January 2002. Shayan was one child among many. The statistics make for grim reading. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission found that the number of children in immigration detention peaked at 1,923 in 2000–01. By the end of 2003, a child placed in detention was kept there for an average of one year, eight months and eleven days. Some children were detained for more than three years. Almost all of the detained children were found to be refugees and so were eventually released into the community. The detention of children like Shayan occurred under an Australian law introduced in 1992 by the Keating government and continued after John Howard became Prime Minister. In other nations, it would have been counter-balanced by law, called a bill of rights, charter of rights or human rights act, setting out and protecting people’s fundamental human rights. In Shayan’s case, this might have included the rights of children and more general rights such as freedom from arbitrary detention. By contrast, the Australian immigration law was unchecked. In fact, when it was challenged in the courts it was held to be legally unobjectionable.
The High Court of Australia ruled on the detention of children in 2004. Held in the Baxter detention centre near Port Augusta in South Australia, four children sought a court order for their release, arguing that the mandatory detention regime in the Migration Act did not apply to children. This was unanimously rejected on the basis that the Act was expressed in clear terms, with no exceptions made for children. According to Chief Justice Murray Gleeson: ‘It is hardly likely that parliament overlooked the fact that some of the persons covered … would be children. Human reproduction, and the existence of families, cannot have escaped notice.’ It was also argued on behalf of the children that the law breached the Australian Constitution. This too was unanimously rejected on the basis that the Constitution does not guarantee their freedom from involuntary detention.
Al-Kateb was born in Kuwait in 1976 of parents of Palestinian origin. Simply being born in Kuwait did not confer Kuwaiti citizenship, and the absence of a Palestinian nation left him ‘stateless’. The Commonwealth sought unsuccessfully to remove him to Egypt, Jordan, Kuwait and Syria as well as to Palestinian territories (which required the cooperation of Israel). Faced with this stalemate and no foreseeable end to his detention, Al-Kateb applied to the courts for his release. In nations like the United Kingdom and the United States, judges have found that the law does not permit indefinite detention. But the Australian High Court found by four to three that the Migration Act and the Constitution permit unlimited detention. Al-Kateb could be held in detention until his removal from Australia, which in turn might have lasted until an independent state of Palestine was created.
Another High Court case that year went further, finding that detention remains lawful even where the conditions are harsh or inhumane. A final High Court decision in 2004 added that the detention could be indefinite. Ahmed Al-Kateb arrived in Australia by boat in December 2000 without a passport or visa. Taken into detention under the Migration Act, he sought refugee status but was refused. In June 2002, Al-Kateb indicated that he wanted to leave Australia for ‘Kuwait, and if you cannot please send me to Gaza’. In August he stated, ‘I wish voluntarily to depart Australia, and ask the minister to remove me from Australia as soon as reasonably practicable.’
One of the majority judges, Justice Michael McHugh, conceded that AlKateb’s situation was ‘tragic’. He also noted that ‘Eminent lawyers who have studied the question firmly believe that the Australian Constitution should contain a Bill of Rights.’
But in the absence of such a law he found that ‘the justice or wisdom of the course taken by the parliament is not examinable in this or any other domestic court’ since ‘it is not for courts … to determine whether the course taken by Parliament is unjust or contrary to basic human rights.’ With these words, McHugh spelt out what it means for Australia not to have a charter or bill of rights. Without such an instrument, there may be no check on laws that violate even the most basic of human rights. Australian law is at odds with the fundamental rights of humankind set down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in 1948 by the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations. After recognising the ‘inherent dignity and… the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family,’ the declaration sets out our basic rights as ‘a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.’ These rights are described in a straightforward way and include that ‘Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person’ and that ‘No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’. Since the Universal Declaration was adopted, other treaties and conventions have set out in more detail the basic rights of all people. The two most important are the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. These entered into force internationally in 1976 and were ratified for Australia by the Fraser government.
When Australia ratified the two international human rights covenants we agreed to make them part of our domestic law. While there has been action in a few areas, such as in regard to privacy and racial discrimination, the covenants have not been enacted in full by the federal parliament. This leaves us in breach of international law. The best way to bring about an Australia charter of rights would be to honour our international commitments by passing an act through the federal Parliament to make the covenants part our of law. No change to the Constitution would be required, and there would thus be no need for a referendum. As an ordinary act of parliament, the charter could be changed over time. An Australian charter of human rights would better protect our freedoms in the law. It would provide valuable insights for government and the community on as to how effective the law can be in protecting human rights. In doing so it will show how any law has its limits, and indeed how the law can, by itself, not fix some of the most intractable problems. This will reveal how any strategy for better human rights protection must also pay close attention to political and other forms of leadership and to community attitudes. Without reinforcement from these quarters, the positive impact of a charter will be blunted. George Williams is the Anthony Mason Professor and Foundation Director of the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public Law at UNSW. This article is developed from his book A Charter of Rights for Australia (UNSW Press, 2007).
AUSTARLIAN BILL OF RIGHTS Edward Santow
Australia is a wonderful country, blessed with abundant natural resources and a liberal, stable democracy. Nevertheless, it should be absolutely clear that the laws of this country do not adequately protect human rights. Now is the time for an Australian Human Rights Act.
Some of the most egregious recent cases of human rights violation in Australia are well known. The indefinite detention of asylum seekers such as Ahmed Al-Kateb, the Cornelia Rau affair and so on have been covered extensively by the media. However, there are also numerous, quieter violations of human rights in Australia. To take an example:
A pregnant single mother, with two children, was to be evicted from public housing for no stated reason, with the near certainty of homelessness for herself and her children. Advocates used the Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities to persuade her landlord to overturn this cruel and damaging decision. Australia is now the only liberal democracy in the world that does not have some kind of national human rights statute. There are various countries whose human rights laws would not be suitable for Australia. Almost no-one in Australia suggests, for example, that we should adopt a USstyle Bill of Rights. Instead, Australia should adopt a Human Rights Act that properly responds to the values and principles that underpin our democratic system. The developing consensus favours the adoption of a Human Rights Act modelled on similar legislation in the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory. Those legal systems are very similar to Australia’s federal system. More importantly, the operation of those laws shows very clearly that these laws can make a significant difference in enhancing the legal protection of human rights, especially for people who are disadvantaged.
Operation of an Australian Human Rights Act But how would a Human Rights Act work? The model currently being considered would have four main elements. First, it would be an ordinary Act of Parliament, not part of the Constitution. This would make an Australian Human Rights Act significantly different from, say, the US Bill of Rights. In particular, in the separation of powers between Parliament, the Executive and the Judiciary, Parliament would remain the ‘first among equals’. This is because it would not allow the courts to invalidate legislation inconsistent with the Human Rights Act, and it would also allow Parliament to amend the Act without having a referendum. Secondly, a Human Rights Act would require Parliament to consider how each draft law complies with human rights standards. This would not stop Parliament from passing laws that are inconsistent with human rights, as is sometimes necessary to balance competing vital interests, such as the need to combat terrorism. However, it would require MPs openly to consider whether such rights infringements are necessary. For example, the Explanatory Memorandum that preceded the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) states that this reporting process“increases transparency in the consideration of human rights in parliamentary procedures” for the development of new legislation.1 Thirdly, a Human Rights Act would set out a list of rights deemed to be especially important in Australia.
The Act would oblige all public authorities to comply with those rights. The term ‘public authority’ refers to public servants, government departments and agencies, and private organisations performing functions on behalf of the government. Fourthly, a Human Rights Act would direct legislation to be interpreted consistently with the rights set out in the Act itself. To illustrate how this would work, take the leading United Kingdom case of Ghaidan v GodinMendoza,1 which considered the interpretive provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 (UK). In Ghaidan, the House of Lords was asked to interpret a provision of the Rent Act 1977 (UK), which gave the partner of a tenant certain property rights after the tenant dies. The Rent Act provided for the conferral of property rights to the ‘surviving spouse’ of a tenant when the spouse had been living as the tenant’s ‘wife or husband’. The House of Lords (Lord Millett dissenting) held that the term ‘spouse’ extended beyond heterosexual couples, to include homosexual couples. This interpretation allowed the Rent Act provision to operate consistently with the anti-discrimination principle and the right to private life in the UK’s Human Rights Act. The final element of this Human Rights Act model deals with the situation where the relevant legislation is irreconcilably inconsistent with a human right or rights.
It considers the kind of situation where, unlike in Ghaidan, the Parliament clearly manifests an intention to discriminate between people on, say, the ground of sexuality. In this situation, the impugned law would continue to operate. The Human Rights Act would not invalidate it. Instead, the Act would provide a mechanism to bring the human rights inconsistency to the attention of Parliament and the Government. The Government then would be required to account publicly for the inconsistency. However, Parliament would decide – at its absolute discretion – whether or not to amend the impugned law. Responding to criticism of a Human Rights Act The former NSW Premier Bob Carr recently wrote a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald in which he reiterated his opposition to an Australian Human Rights Act.1 Nowhere does he suggest how the protection of human rights in Australia should be improved. He seems to imply that the rights enjoyed by the strongest members of our community are shared equally by all. In the second part of this piece, I would like to respond to three of Mr Carr’s central arguments.
He ignores the fact that Mr McHugh has long advocated a Human Rights Act. Indeed, Mr McHugh – along with a panel of constitutional experts that included two former High Court judges and a number of senior members of legal practice and academia – stated clearly on 22 April 2009 that there is “no constitutional impediment” to a properly-drafted Human Rights Act.1 Secondly, Mr Carr fundamentally misconceives the role of the Australian Human Rights Commission under a Human Rights Act. He suggests that, under a Human Rights Act, the Commission would be given a role “in effectively striking down laws” that are incompatible with rights protected by the Act. This suggestion is absurd. Under the Human Rights Act model now being considered, where a court finds that a law is irreconcilably inconsistent with a legally-protected right, there will be a mechanism of notifying Parliament of this inconsistency. Parliament would then choose, at its absolute discretion, whether to amend the law, repeal it or simply leave it as it stands. This is exactly what happens now in countries such as the UK. Crucially, no court would be able to ‘strike down’ laws that are incompatible with human rights. Similarly, no executive body – be it the Human Rights Commission or some other entity – would be able to invalidate legislation for this or any other reason. For arcane constitutional reasons, it is preferable for an executive body to act as a go-between, simply to communicate the decisions of courts in this area to Parliament.
This preserves the strict separation of powers between Parliament and the Judiciary. This communication role could be performed by any executive body. Indeed, given that it involves very little discretion, the best option might be to give this role to the registry of the court itself. Thirdly, Mr Carr warns that the particular human rights protected by law can take on a life of their own. He warns that the right to privacy “could stifle media freedom” and “a right to free association [could] wipe out trade unionism”. The problem with Mr Carr’s examples is that they ignore the experience of comparable jurisdictions that have a Human Rights Act. For example, the UK has much more diverse media ownership and significantly less restrictive defamation laws than Australia, and yet it has a Human Rights Act. In fact, its defamation laws have been relaxed precisely to take account of freedom of expression. It is equally laughable to suggest that the law’s protection of freedom of association in New Zealand (or Victoria or the ACT) has threatened the union movement. The National Human Rights Consultation, chaired by Father Frank Brennan, is considering whether Australia should adopt a Human Rights Act. Over 35,000 people have made submissions, which makes this the largest public inquiry in Australian history. The vast majority of those submissions recognise that Australia needs to do more to protect human rights. In my view, the most important plank of the human rights reform process would be the passing of an Australian Human Rights Act.
Introduction
THE APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS STANDARDS TO NON-STATE ACTORS A New Frontier In Human Rights Protection: Human Rights, NGOs And Business Justine Nolan and Michael Posner Justine Nolan lectures in international human rights law at the University of NSW and is the Deputy Director of the Australian Human Rights Centre. She worked with Human Rights First from 1998-2003. Michael Posner is the President of Human Rights First (HRF). As the Executive Director of HRF he helped the organization earn a reputation for leadership in the areas of refugee protection, advancing a rights-based approach to national security, challenging crimes against humanity, and combating discrimination.
Traditionally, considerations of human rights take place in the context of a state-based system of global governance; however, the rise and rise of the corporation as a powerful non-state actor in recent decades has seen increased interest in understanding the emerging relationship between human rights and business and what if any, responsibility business should assume for protecting human rights. This discussion has been led, guided and pushed by non-governmental organisations (NGOs) intent on exposing and closing the accountability gap for corporate initiated human rights abuses. Beginning in the early to mid 1990s, Human Rights First1 (HRF) began to more publicly engage in the struggle to develop clarity and consistency around human rights standards that might be applicable to companies and develop potential accountability mechanisms to ensure such standards are reflected in their business operations. HRF’s work in teaming up with other groups to found the Fair Labor Association was a crucial step in the development of an innovative collaborative mechanism that involves companies and NGOs working together to protect workers’ rights. More recently, HRF has been working with a diverse group of stakeholders that includes NGOs and U.S. based technology companies such as Yahoo! Inc, Google Inc. and Microsoft Corporation to limit and ‘regulate’ corporate involvement in internet censorship activities in China.
Human rights and business – an accountability gap Instruments of public international law which enunciate human rights obligations are primarily directed towards states. It is commonly said that the main multilateral human rights instruments contain legal obligations only for states, and cannot be interpreted as implying human rights obligations for non-state actors.1 In the 60 years since the drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)1 international human rights law has continued to emphasise the primary responsibility of states to protect human rights while remaining at least partially blind to the opportunity to speak more directly to powerful non-state actors such as corporations. An alternative interpretation is that international human rights law establishes minimum standards for the treatment of all human beings, derived from the inherent dignity of the human person, which are to be adhered to by all – governments, individuals and all other entities in society, including corporations. International human rights law contains standards that all elements of society are obliged to observe, but the capacity to enforce those standards will differ according to the character of the obligation-holder. While public international law has developed mechanisms for the enforcement of human rights obligations against states, it has been left to states to develop their own enforcement mechanisms as far as non-state actors, including individuals and corporations, are concerned and the realities of the multijurisdictional nature of multinational companies means that in many cases, there is an accountability gap for protecting human rights from corporate abuse.
The influence of business on the economic and political environments has, in most countries, increased greatly in recent decades and so too have ‘soft law’ mechanisms, aimed at ‘regulating’ the impact of business on human rights in the form of codes of conduct, international guidelines and other devices. The emergence of the United Nations Norms on the Responsibilities of Transnational Corporations and Other Business Enterprises with Regard to Human Rights in 2003 sparked intense debate about how responsibility for human rights might be apportioned between state and non state actors. With many states unwilling or unable to assume the mantle of responsibility for protecting rights from corporate abuse, NGOs in particular have been asking long and hard, whether some, any or all of such responsibility should fall to business?
WORKERS RIGHTS IN THE APPAREL AND FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY In the mid 1990s increased NGO and media attention focusing on the ‘sweatshop’ conditions in which consumer goods, bound primarily for the U.S and European markets, were being produced led to a rash of initiatives aimed at curbing abuses of workers’ rights around the globe. The argument was advanced that in the rush to find cheaper and quicker ways to produce shoes, apparel, and other labour-intensive goods for the global marketplace, multinational corporations were moving much of their manufacturing to countries where basic legal protections for workers were nonexistent and union organizing is prohibited or discouraged. Substandard working conditions ranging from inadequate wages to inhumane hours to life-threatening hazards in the workplace were exposed and companies such as Nike, Levis and the
Gap were forced to defend their supply chain practices. Workers are largely unprotected from these abuses by either their own governments or the international system. Though the International Labour Organization has articulated labour rights standards for nearly 90 years, these assume that national governments will enforce them. Unfortunately, many governments lack the capacity and often the will to do so. Human Rights First’s own commitment to pursue labour rights as human rights was a response to these developments. In 1996 HRF joined with a unique new coalition of apparel and footwear companies, human rights, labour rights, and consumer advocates to draft a blueprint for the new, non-profit Fair Labor Association (FLA). The challenge was and is to create accountability— independent, transparent, and enforceable mechanisms for ensuring that human rights standards protect ordinary people. Officially incorporated in May 1999, the non-profit organization continues to be a collaboration of companies, NGOs, and colleges and universities. It engages in review and monitoring to assess whether companies are in compliance with FLA standards and requirements and reports the results of independent external monitoring and issues annual reports on participating companies and college and university licensees as part of its commitment to transparency. The challenge to protect workers’ rights from corporate abuse is ongoing and multifaceted but this NGO led initiative has provided greater transparency in supply chain production of those companies who have taken up the challenge to protect human rights.
INTERNET CENSORSHIP: CORPORATE COLLUSION IN VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS In February 2006 a very contemporary human rights dilemma rose to the forefront when companies such as Yahoo, Google and Microsoft, were called to a United States congressional hearing and subjected to a very public grilling about their cooperation with the Chinese government in censoring Internet content.1 In mid 2002 Yahoo signed China’s ‘Public Pledge on Selfdiscipline for the Chinese Internet Industry’ (sponsored by the government affiliated Internet Society of China) which required Yahoo to “refrain from producing, posting or disseminating harmful information that may jeopardize state security and disrupt social stability, contravene laws and regulations and spread superstition and obscenity” and that it “monitor the information publicized by users on websites according to law and remove the harmful information promptly”.1 The combination of vague instructions and associated harsh penalties often results in companies censoring even more aggressively than does the Chinese government. Most recently, Yahoo has attracted intense criticism after it was revealed it played a role in identifying Chinese journalist Shi Tao to the government.1 Shi had forwarded an email to an overseas human rights group in which the government had ordered journalists not to cover the 15th anniversary of the 1989 suppression of protestors in Tiananmen Square. Chinese authorities were able to trace the email back to Shi with the assistance of Yahoo! Holdings (Hong Kong), which provided account holder information to the Chinese Government.1 In April 2005 Shi received a ten-year prison term for attempting to exercise his right to freedom of
expression. Google and Microsoft have also come under criticism for their role in censoring internet content and initially at least, providing limited transparency to users about such censorship. Questions have arisen as to who should or can assume the responsibility for protecting human rights such as freedom of expression and privacy that are placed in jeopardy by such censorship? For the last 18 months, these companies along with human-rights groups including HRF, academics and socially responsible investors have been working to develop a code of conduct for operating in countries that limit free expression and individual privacy.1 The process of drafting such a code and a governance framework to regulate adherence to the code in a multistakeholder environment is complex, but not revolutionary. As the working group continues the process to develop its ‘Global Principles on Freedom of Expression and Privacy’, its credibility and integrity will be affected by two main factors: the substantive content of the code itself and the implementation process for ensuring corporate adherence to the code including the degree of transparency of that process. While governments continue to have the primary obligation to protect human rights the ‘supplementary responsibility’ of technology companies to ensure they are not complicit in the abuse of such rights remains.
The strength of the Principles will be impacted by such issues as the extent to which participating companies are required to ensure their subsidiaries, business partners and participants in their supply chain adhere to the principles? How will the code be monitored? How will the monitors be paid? How frequently will they monitor adherence to the principles and how will the monitored activities be chosen – by the corporation or by an independent group? These are all questions other industries, such as the apparel industry before it, have grappled with, with a mixed degree of success. The focus on technology companies and their role in protecting human rights is but the latest frontier for action being pursued by NGOs such as HRF. Conclusion The drive by NGOs, such as HRF, to apply human rights protection principles to business has contributed to the growing ‘corporate responsibility’ movement that asks corporations to operate in a manner that takes into account the human rights of all those they encounter. While the proliferation of codes of conduct and innovate litigious techniques applied by NGOs in the last two decades has meant that hundreds of companies have now publicly committed to upholding basic human rights, the challenge is to ensure the standards espoused in codes or guidelines adopted by business are consistent, comprehensive and implemented.
Capital punishment is the process in which the criminal justice system terminates the life of a guilty party. Though the world is moving towards an abolitionist approach accentuated in the United Nations resolutions and the Second Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, aiming at the abolition of the death penalty, capital punishment is still in practice. Countries which still have the death penalty cite reasons of deterrence, retribution, obtaining justice, closure for the victim and oddly, “rehabilitation�. Of course, the death penalty does not rehabilitate the guilty party and return them back to society, but this argument rests on Thomas Aquinas’ theory that the guilty party could escape punishment in the afterlife.1 As empirical evidence has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment, then why is it still implemented? Religious beliefs can also influence whether a country enforces the death penalty. Iran practices a system of religious law which is a strict interpretation of Sharia law where two main kinds of crimes are punishable by death.
A Culture of Life Kim Kim Thanh Thanh Nguyen Nguyen
The first is murder and the second fasad, meaning to spread mischief or undermine the authority of the state. Though fasad has been predominantly used to punish rapists, adulterers and drug mules; parliament has introduced a bill to punish bloggers that encourage corruption, prostitution or conversion from Islam2. In addition, in Iran capital punishment is applicable to homosexual behaviour even if the acts were consensual. Consequently if a rape occurred between two people of the same sex will often go unreported as the death penalty applies to both parties. Hence, there is an issue of miscarriage of justice as the offender gets away with the crime. Countries with the death penalty will also argue that they have the right to state sovereignty which is enshrined in the UN Charter; "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state."3 It is no wonder countries for example Malaysia is concerned with attempts by more powerful member states who question the national laws of the country and the administration of justice under these laws.4 Thus there is a clear tension between having to respect local laws, customs and sovereign rights reaffirmed in the United Nations Charter and protecting in the sanctity of life. The international community has taken important steps to protect those headed toward the death penalty. The safeguards guaranteeing protection of the rights of those facing the death penalty, paying special attention to the imposition of the death penalty on persons younger
than 18 years of age at the time of the offence, is particularly important as minors might not have the mental capacity to fully comprehend their actions and they are likely to rehabilitate. These safeguards do not condone the death penalty but recognises that all countries are not going to abolish the death penalty and ensures something is done to respect human rights particularly for the vulnerable. Problems start to arise as not all countries are transparent in reporting their capital punishment practices. More unsettling, is when the reports do come out about the thirteen year old girl from Somalia who “allowed herself� to be gang raped and was stoned to death in a stadium of a thousand people5. Or how in April of this year in Sudan, judicial authority allowed the execution of nine people who were innocent and whose guilty pleas were obtained under torture. Wrongful executions are a serious miscarriage of justice. It is suggested that police have high pressure to clear the books and in turn use their discretion to provide falsified evidence. This is particularly problematical in weak or corrupt countries. Sadly it appears that these practices of unfair trials and cruel executions disproportionately affect the poor, least educated and most vulnerable members of society. Western countries are also not immune to flaws in the justice system. The United States believes that valuable safeguards are implemented for example, if the punishment was disproportionate to the severity of the underlying offence, it could be challenged under the 8th Amendment of the Constitution as being cruel and
unusual punishment. The United States believes that the death penalty is not a cruel and unusual punishment if it is applied non-arbitrarily and nondiscriminatorily, yet racial discrimination blatantly plagues the system. In 2001 a Justice Department report found 75 percent involved minority defendants.6 Of this 75 percent, over half were black.7 In addition, geographical discrimination exists where the district (either retentionist or abolitionist) in which the trial takes place directly affects the trial’s outcome. In addition, most Americans on death row are financially disadvantaged and use public defenders who are arguably less experienced in capital punishment cases.8 In saying that, what are the Australian government’s obligations to those facing the death penalty overseas? The Australian government has made it clear that they oppose the death penalty and will provide diplomatic representation to those
people, without appearing to be prying in the Nation’s internal affairs. Again there is a clear tension as the Australian government cannot protest about individual executions of say, Indonesian citizens in Indonesia10. However, as a neighbour it can work quietly in encouraging the application of the rule of law and human rights. To conclude, I echo Cameron Murphy’s view that “Capital punishment is not a cultural difference... It is not a right that applies to some human beings but not others simply because of their race, where they happen to live or what crime they have committed.” Life is universal and should be respected regardless of cultural norms or religious authority. When States take a life of a human being, it contributes to a societal culture of violence. After all, how can a culture of life be built when it is bound by the paradox of ‘righting a wrong’ by taking another life?
[1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capital punishment/for_3.shtml [2]www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml [3]http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26073.html [4]http://www.un.int/malaysia/Recent%20Statement/GA_main.htm [5]www.amnesty.org/en/formedia/press-releases/somalia-girl-was-child-13-20081031 [6]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/race- and-death-penalty [7] "Pervasive Disparities Found in the Federal Death Penalty, "New York Times, Sept. 11, 2000 [8]http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/spring98/html/death.html [9]http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/apathy-is-not-anoption/1350903.aspx [10] Ibid
of
of
08
s’
tly
d
In 2008, Hallmark released a new line of Same-Sex wedding cards in response to “consumer demands.” Now Angela Small writes in hope that Kevin Rudd responds to his citizens.
Currently, s 5 of the Marriage Act 1961 defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, effectively banning gay marriage. Tasmania, Victoria, and the Australian Capital Territory, all allow a form of civil union, giving gay couples similar rights to married couples. The Rudd Government's recent SameSex Relationships Act 2008 amended 84 discriminatory laws including social security, Medicare, family law and child support. The Government says that it is committed to ending all other discrimination on the grounds of sexuality, yet recently reaffirmed its anti-gay marriage stance at the Labor Party conference in Sydney. The Greens have proposed a bill to amend the Marriage Act to allow gay marriage. The bill is currently being considered by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee.
In 2008, Hallmark released a new line of Same-Sex wedding cards in response to “consumer demand.” Now Angela Small writes in hope that Kevin Rudd responds to his citizens.
Angela Small Is a 24-year-old graduate law student at UNSW. She has been with her girlfriend for two and a half years and they are getting married (in all but the legal sense) in October in the Hunter Valley.
Dear Mr Rudd, Firstly, let me just say that I am, by and large, a supporter of yours. I was particularly proud to have voted for your party in the 2007 election when you apologised to Aboriginal Australians for the many atrocities they have been subjected to over the past 200 years. Many people criticised your apology as being merely symbolic and lacking any substance, but I believe that symbols are important. Why not make another symbolic gesture and remove the so called ‘ban’ on gay marriage. Really, Mr Rudd, if you think about it, you’ve already done the hard work. With the recent changes made by Same-Sex Relationships Act, you have, to your own admission, removed the discrimination from Commonwealth legislation. To be fair, it’s not as if I haven’t made any sacrifices on the path toward equality. I can no longer receive Youth Allowance while studying law because my partner’s income exceeds the very low threshold. But I haven’t complained, Mr Rudd, because equality involves such sacrifices. However, by the same token, you can’t have almost equality. Equality doesn’t lie on a continuum. It’s an all or nothing kind of thing, and if you’re stopping short of the right to marry, then that is what I would call nothing. It’s not as if it would be an unpopular decision, (and I know you value popularity). Sixty per cent of Australians support gay marriage. I know you like supporting minority groups, but this is just taking it too far. Don’t you see Mr Rudd, this isn’t just about me. Although I would love for my upcoming wedding in October to carry all possible legal weight, this is bigger than me. This is about a teenager growing up in a small town, with small-minded people, who thinks they might be gay. This is about the suicide rate for young queer people being eight times higher then their heterosexual peers. This is about the symbol. The symbol says homosexual love is not as valued as heterosexual love. The symbol says homosexuals are promiscuous. The symbol says gay people don’t deserve the same rights as straight people. The symbol says that Australia is a backward nation. The symbol says your personal opinion should shape the will of our nation. Yours Sincerely, Angela Small
P.S. Malcom, if you’re reading this, I would happily switch teams for you (in the political sense obviously) if you were to support gay marriage. Really, at this point, what have you got to lose?
The Racial Discrimination Act aims to ensure that Australians of all backgrounds are treated equally and have the same opportunities. Does this mean that the discrimination based on race in Australian is adequately protected?
Views on Racial Discrimination
Racial Discrimination or Testamentary Freedom? Rahil Patel
“The soul of the dying Testator beats against the barriers of the law, which appear to him to confine within such narrow limits the power which he thinks ought to be his, over the property which he fondly believes is his”1
Consider the situation of a Jewish testator both with an intention to maintain his property within his family line, and at the same time ensuring that his property is not disposed to a Gentile. Unimaginable that when he passed away his family might subvert his intent, he inserts an express condition requiring his daughter to marry a person “of Jewish race”2 on condition precedent. Yet, even with the strict principles surrounding testamentary freedom, in Re Tarnpolsk Danckwerts J held that the words “of Jewish race” were void for uncertainty, being “impossible for a possible candidate to show with reasonable certainty that he satisfies the test which the testator has attempted to lay down.”3 It is clear that while the doctrine of uncertainty underpinned this decision, the “unruly horse”4 of public policy played a large part in the fabric of the decision.
in contrast, it is an imperative role of the courts to provide not only „equality before the law,‟ but the redress of unequal treatment of one citizen to another. Finding the correct balance between the two is indeed a difficult task. The introduction of legislation in Australia, most notably the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) and the Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW), provides for a statutory framework in which to operate, but with explicit exemptions in the areas of charitable benefits5 and a resilient common law, questions of how far racist conditions on private dispositions of property should extend continue to plague the system. The first point of departure is that racist conditions have their roots in the beliefs and conscience of an individual. Due to the guiding role the judiciary has on the transformation of minds in society, it is argued that a move away from a strict freedom of property disposition will be adopted in the future. Even within the private sphere and acknowledged by the growing number of “widely accepted treaties and statutes”6 since the 1950‟s, “nothing could be more calculated to create or deepen divisions between existing religious”7 or racial groups than the sanction of property disposition which would permit racist conditions. The judicial arm – being “an active agent in the promotion of the public weal”8 - has a moral duty to eliminate the tacit enforcement of racist conditions.
Racist Conditions and Uncertainty On one hand, the private disposition of property by an interest-holder should be free to dispose their property as they see fit;
While there is an obvious disfavour towards racist conditions within the current judiciary (and no doubt, society),
this has not persuaded the courts to openly resolve the conflict in terms of public policy. Under the veil of ‘uncertainty’, conditions that impose a distinction on “race,” “religion‟ and “faith‟ have often required “the greatest precision and in the clearest language the events in which the forfeiture of the interest given to the beneficiary is to take place.”9 In Kay v South Eastern Sydney Area Health Service,10 the words “young White Australia Couple” were determined void for uncertainty.11 Determining whether someone was firstly “white” and secondly, “Australian” is ultimately a matter of degree and since the testator did not indicate as to what degree of “race” was required, the testator did not, “from beginning, precisely and distinctly,”12 provide adequate certainty. The uncertainty found in Kay surrounding the words “White Australian” demonstrates the courts adoption of a “subtle and…artificial”13 distinction between certainty of expression and certainty of operation.14 As used, the words “clearly express a definite requirement that the testator had in mind.”15 Yet in operation, the NSW Supreme Court has construed the words to be ambiguous. While „race‟ has been defined to include, “colour, nationality, descent and ethnic, ethnoreligious or national origin,”16 the concept of „race‟ is arguably very artificial and inevitably a product of social construct. As Young CJ demonstrated, “does it mean Australian by birth or a person who since has obtained Australian nationality?”17 Does it require pure Australian blood or is it based on skin colour alone? Is there in fact a practical means of ascertaining if one is of pure Australian blood at all?
These questions attack the heart of racial discrimination, for inevitably racism is a state of conscience plagued with “unadulterated vanity, malice, or spite.”18
Racist Conditions and Public Policy “[A] testator may impose any condition that his whim and caprice may dictate, however unreasonable, unless it be contrary to the law or public policy.”19 A useful framework that should be looked at in assessing the extent of racist conditions in private property disposition is that offered by the Canadian judiciary. In Pepsi-Cola the Supreme Court of Canada noted that “the common law does not exist in a vacuum,” but “reflects the experience of the past, the reality of modern social concerns and a sensitivity to the future.”20 These “sensitivities” have been replicated in “widely accepted treaties and statutes,” which for Canadian jurisprudence has “point[ed] the direction in which such conceptions, as applied by the courts, ought to move.”21
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has had a significant impact on the judiciary in respect to testamentary freedoms and conditions. In the pre-Charter era, Canadian judges “consistently refused”22 to endorse the doctrine of public policy to void racist conditions. Echoing the views of Windeyer J, public policy was “‟a vague and unsatisfactory term and calculated to lead to uncertainty and error when applied to the decision of legal rights.”23 However, highlighting the changed legal (and social) environment since the introduction of the Charter, the decision of Fox v Fox Estate24 confirmed within the private sphere: “[i]t is now settled that it is against public policy to discriminate on grounds of race or religion.”25 The seminal case of Canada Trust Co v Ontario Human Rights Commission26 established and weighed the competing dispositional interests and laid the foundations for Fox. Here, a public trust was designed to provide educational funds for needy, white, British, Protestant students, with repeated references to both the superiority of the white and Protestant classes. Justice Robins specifically acknowledged that the “freedom of an owner of property to dispose of his or her property as he or she chooses is an important social interest.”27 Whether inter vivos or within a will, the freemovement of interests by an interestholder is a vital element of common law. However, the Judge continued: „The concept that any one race or any one religion is intrinsically better than any other is patently at variance with the democratic principles governing our pluralistic society in which equality [of] rights are constitutionally guaranteed and in which the multicultural heritage of Canadians is to be preserved and enhanced.28
With an emphasis on the principles enunciated in the Charter, Human Rights Code and a democratic pluralistic society, and in light of both Canada Trust and Fox, the Canadian judiciary has developed the doctrine of public policy extensively. No longer is it adequate for a racist condition to hide behind the banner of „testamentary or depositional freedom.‟ As per Justice Galligan‟s judgement, it is no longer an option for will-makers to insert discriminatory clauses, even within the private sphere.29 Racist conditions and testamentary freedom must yield to public policy. Pausing here for a moment, it is interesting to consider the converse arguments that can be placed in favour of strict testamentary freedom – and consequentially, a tacit approval of racist conditions: firstly, testamentary freedoms is derived from an era of “rugged individualism”30 and has been labelled the “corner-stone”31 of the common law, precisely because it is “the freedom to choose [the] beneficiary and to set the conditions for the benefaction.”32 While the disposing interest-holder may “proceed more often from spite than from benevolence,”33 the intended recipient is under no legal compulsion to convert, practice or accept the racist condition. The donee always has a choice as to either accepting the gift with the conditions or to disclaim and maintain complete freedom of restrictions. It has also been argued that it is a logical extension of an owners freedom to deal with his or her property while alive, and any restriction on that right would blunt the advantages of dispositional freedom: namely, the promotion of the accumulation of wealth, and selfreliance in their children who are not guaranteed an inheritance.34
Notwithstanding these arguments, the influence of public policy within the private disposition of property can be argued as the primary “channel through which constitutional values flow into private law.”35 The “private/public divide is already an illusory concept; for example, one has to only look at private contractual arrangements that are capable of being void on public policy grounds if its terms are deemed detrimental to society or ‘contra bonos mores’ – a doctrine which already extends to contracts involving racial discrimination.36 Further, judicial enforcement of racist conditions, as an agency of the state, is in fact a public act of constitutionally prohibited discrimination.37 As Judge Edgerton stated in relation to racist covenants in America, “since the injunctions are based on covenants alone and the covenants are based on colour alone, ultimately the injunctions are based on colour alone.”38 The court must consider that enforcement of one racist condition will often mean the enforcement of all like conditions. Inevitably this “will have a tendency to produce injury to the public interest or good of the common weal.”39 It is time to resolve this conflict by openly acknowledging that the doctrine of public policy should, and indeed, must be used to override racial discrimination in testamentary dispositions.
Australia’s Future Direction In a legal environment where there is a distinct sparsity of cases related to racist conditions within the private disposition of property, Australian jurisprudence is in a state of formative development. While the substantive equality provisions provided for within the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 and the AntiDiscrimination Act 1977,
specifically ss 9(1A)(b), (2) & 12 (1)(b), (2) and ss 7 & 20 respectively, provide for an operational framework, it is clear that large gaps still exist in which racist conditions can operate. For example, both s 8(2) RDA and s 55 A-DA specifically exempts charitable gifts. In Kay, for example, where the deceased bequeathed $10, 000 to a children’s hospital “for the treatment of White babies” the Supreme Court upheld the condition on the basis it was not affected by either act.40 Further, to „bribe‟ one who receives a gift is also within the prerogative accorded to testators, with the common law recognising both the condition precedent and condition subsequent. While little regard has been given in the past to the unreasonable, absurd or spiteful motivations of the testator generally, there is a strong argument that alongside the repeated references to “persons”41 within the RDA, the private-sphere is now no longer exempt from public policy considerations. The inherently discriminatory nature of racist conditions abuses not only racial harmony, but more importantly the core value of equality, which brings it firmly within the realm of public policy. Racist conditions are grounded in the belief that a class of people should be treated inferior because of their race, and while it can be seen as irrelevant whether the disposition of property occurs because of a propagation of their belief or simply a perpetuation of individual prejudices, the outcome is equivalent in each case: that is, the beneficiary is required to act in accordance with the conscience of another.
of
of
08
s’
tly
d
The Human influence rights of and business business on –two the an Gap were forced to their supply The Act punishment. would oblige all public It considers the kind of situation where, Has there been an increase in the Capital land punishment and culture isof by awarding process intime damages which unusual The United States people, appearing to The INTERNET Communal first is CENSORSHIP: murder Ownership: and enshrined the second in than Above This shortcoming 18 without years all,note: itthe age isdefend isstrict derived at an the attack from ofbe the upon the He ignores the fact that Mr McHugh With This preserves an emphasis the on the separation principles of A pregnant single mother, with Operation of an Australian Human Accompanying the cultural One Dollar The Reserve Bank The Canadian Charter of and Introduction Notwithstanding these arguments, the Dear Mr Rudd, property is referred to by IPof While it may be conceded that aRights ‘choice’ this The has strength not persuaded of the Principles the will courts be toIntellectual These questions attack the heart economic The problem and was political the law, environments which said chain Medical practices. staff Workers are consistently largely authorities to comply with those rights. unlike in Ghaidan, the Parliament recognition The But accountability in High the Court absence of Indigenous of Australia gap of such Intellectual a ruled law on he criminal for Al-Kateb justice When 1 the Sir Arthur ‘cultural system Australia was Hobhouse, born terminates harm’ in The ratified Kuwait Dead the artists Hand: in the life 1976 had of two of a believes that the death penalty is not prying in the Nation’s internal affairs. fasad, s35 of the meaning Copyright to spread Act is the mischief notion or offence, fundamental communal is particularly Australian ownership values important and and oral as the has long advocated a Human Rights enunciated powers between in the Parliament Charter, and Human the children, was to be evicted from Rights Act significance of ICIP, is the economic Australia used a copy of a bark Freedoms has had atoFirstly, significant impact specifically 9(1A)(b), &mind 12 (1)(b), CORPORATE COLLUSION IN often does exist either accept or influence of public policy within the let me just say that I am, byssand large, a(2) supporter ofby Australia asdiscrimination, the property of the and AUSTARLIAN BILL OF RIGHTS openly impacted resolve by such the issues conflict as in the terms of racial for inevitably 1,International Commission on Intervention and has, that inindividual the most detention countries, of increased people seeking greatly unprotected recommended from that these he abuses should be Address on the Subject of Endowments The term ‘public authority’ refers to clearly manifests an intention to property the found detention that rights? ‘the of children justice or in wisdom 2004. Held of guilty suffered party. parents international within Though of their Palestinian human the own world communities. rights origin. is covenants moving Simply a cruel and unusual punishment if it is Again there is a clear tension as the undermine of the authority property of that the state. was minors idea tradition of a might “fairexperienced go”. not have the mental within Act. Rights Judiciary. Code This and communication a democratic role Intellectual public housing for no stated reason, aspect disclaim, of this intellectual prompts the property riposte that rights. it is painting by artist David Malangi on the judiciary in respect to 1 (2) and ss 7 & 20 respectively, provide Australia The Racial isAustralia the Discrimination only democratic Act aims democracy to ensure without that human rights ofa private disposition of property can be yours. Iand was particularly proud toto have voted for your party inofof the 2007 intellect .the This canvasses aAustralians range areas VIOLATING HUMAN RIGHTS Traditionally, considerations human State Sovereignty, The Responsibility Toveil Protect public extent to policy. which participating Under the of racism and is Settlements a state of of conscience Property (1880) plagued 16. in asylum recent in decades was so mandatory. too have either removed their from own detention governments and or drew the international community than public servants, government discriminate people on, say, threats to the entire global community, In 2008, Hallmark inwithout contrast, it isbetween an imperative role of the Instruments of public international law legally violate nation’s There is strong political opposition to It in the the course appears, Baxter taken detention through by the parliament centre increased near is towards Another being we agreed an development born in abolitionist to Kuwait make in them the did recognition not approach confer of our applied simply bad public non-arbitrarily policy to accept and nonAustralian government cannot protest But how would a Human Rights Act Though inherited fasad from has English been common predominantly law. capacity Indigenous to communities. fully comprehend Much their like pluralistic could be society, performed and by in any light executive of both with the near certainty of Although this aspect isanother more significant authorisation or testamentary freedoms and conditions. Rahil Patel for an operational framework, itpart ismany clear argued as the primary “channel through Max G. Dalton investigates our Property election Law: when you apologised to Aboriginal Australians for the such as trademarks, copyright, designs 2 Re Tarnpolsk. Barclays Bank Ltd v Hyer (2001) rights take place in the context of aI legislation. Does this mean that the human rights of Australians ‘uncertainty’, companies all backgrounds are conditions required that to are ensure impose treated a equally and have the same with “unadulterated vanity, malice, or George Williams ‘soft That law’ law mechanisms, was applied aimed without at international illegal direct link ad between hoc system. interventions Shayan’s Though such trauma the as Editor’s Note departments discrimination in and any form. agencies, and the ground of sexuality. In this situation, as the nature of the modern system courts to provide not only „equality which enunciate human rights sovereignty Racism. I know (Köchler what 2001: you are 13). thinking. This decentralising Within my first state few sovereignty weeks in Australia, in favour awareness, Port not Indeed, examinable Augusta Mr that McHugh in South in there this – Australia, has or along any been with other four an accentuated a of Kuwaiti Indigenous domestic in citizenship, the law. Intellectual United While Nations and there Property the resolutions has absence rights been discriminatorily, yet racial discrimination about individual executions of say, work? The model currently being used This to directly punish rapists, contrasts adulterers with the and actions native Title, and indigenous they are communities likely to Canada body. Indeed, Trust and given Fox, that the it Canadian involves homelessness for herself and her with contemporary, rather than acknowledgement. The bank wrongly In the pre-Charter era, Canadian judges released a“race,” new that large gaps stillsystem exist inproperty which racist [1958] 3over All ER 479. which constitutional values flow into atrocities they have been subjected to the past 200 years. Many and patents. Intellectual is state-based of global distinction their subsidiaries, on business “religion‟ partners and spite.”18 ‘regulating’ exception, In February even the 2006 impact a to very unaccompanied of contemporary business on International and his experiences Labour In 2008, Organization in detention. has 10 Yugoslavia. private organisations performing impugned lawv would continue to means that all threats are transnational. before the law,‟ but the redress of 2.increase Ibid. obligations are directed license, opportunities. Responsibility combined Does with are to Protect not the this power adequately of had the the protected? UN my discrimination multilateralism first experience R2P of based being proposes, a long victim on as children domestic panel ofsought in court’ constitutional the level aprimarily court of the order ‘it experts is recognition for not that for is the found of action Second alittle Bulun Palestinian inof Optional a Bulun few R&T areas, nation Protocol Textiles such left to [1998] as him in blatantly plagues the system. In aofthat Indonesian citizens in Indonesia .the considered would have four main drug Indigenous mules; parliament concept of has communal introduced are disadvantaged by exhibiting judiciary rehabilitate. very has discretion, developed the the best doctrine option of children. Advocates used the 4being Trustees Church of the traditional indigenous art, it2001 isand assumed that Mr Malangi was Not again. It is asince topic that ismean atheir useful “consistently refused”22 to endorse the conditions can operate. For example, private law.”35 The “private/public people criticised your apology as merely symbolic and lacking usually considered inProperty the business line of Same-Sex governance; however, the rise and and participants inpermanent their supply “faith‟ The have Indigenous often required “the children already suffering trauma. However, itNewcastle was not until August 2001 human human rights rights in dilemma the form rose of codes to the of articulated labour rights standards for functions on behalf of the operate. The Human Rights Act would This fundamental change must be towards states. It is commonly said given to the five members, some of a argue racist it attack. will provide Not only powerful was I insulted states that release, courts included Indigenous … arguing two to former determine that Intellectual High the whether Court mandatory property judges International 157 unequal ‘stateless’. regard Diocese 193. Covenant In this of treatment to The case Commonwealth privacy on it was v of Civil Ebbeck one found and and (1960) citizen that Political sought 104 racial the to Justice Department report found 75 However, as a neighbour it can work Köchler, elements. H. (1995) ‘The Principles of a ownership bill to punish experienced bloggers that in communal title to property, real or public might policy be to give extensively. this role No to the longer registry is it Victorian Charter of Human Rights and Hallmark important Welcome nonetheless. to the latest It was issue once of Court dead. of conversation starter, an easy prey for ill doctrine of public policy to void racist both sof 8(2) RDA and sproprietary 55not A-DA race in Australian isas adequately protected? isadhere already an illusory concept; for 3. divide Bull, H. The Anarchical Society (1977) any substance, but I believe that symbols are important. Why environment, in the form oftransferred rise the corporation as a powerful chain to the principles? greatest precision and in the clearest Racist that Conditions the government and Public Policy him conduct, forefront international when companies guidelines such and 6 nearly 90 years, these assume that CLR 394, 415 (Windeyer J). government. not invalidate it. Instead, the Act codified in international law and wedding cards in International Law and Human Rights’ inEgypt, that the main multilateral human rights has meant that the operation of the UN with and a vehicle told to to “go justify back the use to of where force in rights detention course and Experience ahave taken number regime received. by of Parliament in senior the This Migration members is recognition unjust Act of Rights, Ganalbingu another. aiming unsuccessfully discrimination, at Finding the clan to abolition the remove of correct covenants North-Central of him the to balance death have percent involved minority defendants. quietly in encouraging application encourage communities corruption, throughout prostitution Australia. It or intellectual. It also seems that the only adequate of Another the court argument for itself. athe racist advocating condition the to hide UN’s Responsibilities to persuade her claimed by deceased former mannered jokes and a favorite for conditions. Echoing the views of specifically exempts charitable gifts. Inyou These safeguards do not condone the example, one has to only look at private Conscience. make another symbolic gesture and remove so called ‘ban’ knowledge. However, released this branch a of law non-state actor in recent decades has How will the code be monitored? 5 Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (Cth) son language the events in which the One of these children was five-yearinto foster care. In doing so, he was other Yahoo, devices. Google The and emergence Microsoft, of were the national governments will enforce 4.has Makinda, “The soul S.M, of the ‘The dying Global Testator Covenant beats as an Democracy and the International Rule of Law: 2 would provide a mechanism to bring monitored by the UN to ensure First, it would be an ordinary Act of instruments contain legal obligations Charter, and thus international law itself, advancing came from”, their the interests attack (Vincent persisted 1974: every did contrary legal been not practice apply to received basic and to human academia children. through rights.’ This both – stated With was the Arnhem between Jordan, not been Land Kuwait the enacted were two and is owed in indeed Syria full by as a the a well fiduciary difficult federal as to Of this 75 percent, over half were penalty, capital punishment is still in practice. of the rule of law and human rights. is this contrast which makes it difficult way to overcome this disadvantage is conversion from Islam . Chairman behind adoption the of banner R2P of refers „testamentary again to the or landlord to overturn this cruel and Aboriginal Arts Board and Western Desert Underpants: theworld unique debaters. Why, the most popular girl at Kay, Windeyer J, public policy was “‟a vague response to for example, where the deceased death penalty but recognises that all contractual Australia arrangements is now the that only are democratic nation in the gay marriage. has come into contact with Aboriginal 8(2)(a). seen increased interest in How will the monitors be Evolving Institution’ (2002)6 The International Propositions for an Alternative World Order. forfeiture Fourthly, a of Human the interest Rights given Act would tothat the old Shayan, who arrived inpaid? Australia in “[A] separated testator may from impose his parents any condition and sister United called 7 to Nations a United States Norms congressional on the them. Unfortunately, new line of many against the barriers of the law, the human rights inconsistency to the accountability. The acquiescence of Parliament, not part of only for states, and cannot be has been underpinned by the individual 345; morning Köchler on 2001: my 28). way Köchler to school. (2001: What 28) common unanimously these clearly words, on law 22 rejected and McHugh April the 2009 legislature. on spelt the that out basis there what it is duty task. Thirdly, Palestinian parliament. by the Mr artist territories This Carr Bulun leaves warns Bulun (which us in as that breach required he was the of black. In addition, geographical for many Ashley Aboriginal Walker artists to claim to stagnate oral stories behind artwork depositional notion of a new, freedom.‟ globalised As per world Justice order. damaging decision. artist, LinHuman Onus, that Aboriginal artists style of western desert artists was used my school was the one who could put and unsatisfactory term and calculated bequeathed $10, 000 to a abolish children’s countries 6 Blathwayt are v Baron not going Cawley to [1976] AC have capable ofisa being void on public policy Really, Mr Rudd, ifvbill you think about it, you’ve already done theof and expression. Torres Strait Google Islanders and across Microsoft Australia Journal “consumer offrequently Rights 113, 115 Selected understanding Papers Published the on the Occasion emerging How will they monitor without national charter or of rights. beneficiary direct legislation to take to place.”9 be interpreted In Kay March 2000. Along with other that until his whim they were and caprice released may in dictate, January Responsibilities hearing and subjected of to Transnational a very public governments lack the capacity and which appear to him to confine Court of Conscience aims to reaffirm attention of Parliament and the the international community to illegal Constitution. This would make an interpreted as implying human rights interests of the permanent members. This happened to freedom expression and the means “no Act constitutional for was Australia expressed impediment” not in clear to have terms, to a a embodies using particular the international designs cooperation this human that argument: law. traditionally of rights Israel). protected Faced belonged with by discrimination exists where the district copyright as it would be claiming by reducing them to a written form. Galligan‟s The nature judgement, of the new it is no global longer order for the implementation of a program of Same-Sex 397, 426 (Lord Wilberforce). accounted paradigmatic for shift half in of all the Australian sovereignty be in acknowledged designing underpants by the international with an to on lead several to uncertainty accents and and error ridiculed when Countries which still have penalty hospital To conclude, “for the Icriticism treatment echo Cameron of Nations, White In addition,if into Iran capital punishment death penalty and ensures something grounds its terms are deemed hard work. With the recent changes made by Same-Sex Relationships the also Fiftieth come the Anniversary under mediums ofthe the ofdeath United for art their role in relationship between human rights adherence the principles and 1Health South consistently Eastern with Sydney the rights Area set out inin through members of his family he was taken 1an to however 2002. unreasonable, unless itand be Corporations grilling about their and cooperation Other Business with often the will to do so. within such narrow limits the power Government. The Government then were proposed reforms to the demands.” ad hoc interventions such as NATO Australian Human Rights Act creates obligations the paradox for non-state that the actors. permanent Inlegal the liberty? Should already limited with charter properly-drafted no or exceptions bill of rights. Human made Without Rights for children. such Act. to The law this the 7 Re can stalemate clan. introduction Drummond take Although on and Wren life no of [1945] the of foreseeable court legislation their 4upheld DLR 647, did not end He inin 5.There Ibid (either retentionist or abolitionist) Australia isthat now the only liberal something in fact belongs to the means The absence that modern of aour written threats language toown. security in the law’s prime function of establishing option for will-makers to insert humanitarian intervention by the United artists. norm. In Hedley 2001, this Bull claim prompted contests a that community, “aboriginal look”. sovereignty The symbols could applied different to races, the decision not unlike of famous cite reasons of deterrence, retribution, babies” Murphy’s the Supreme view that Court “Capital the is If applicable humanitarian to homosexual intervention behaviour is, is done to respect human rights detrimental to society or ‘contra bonos ViennaNew York, Springer, pp.63-84 Act, you have, to your own admission, removed the discrimination academic censoring research. internet wedding This content intersection and initially is and business and what if any, how will the monitored activities be Service,10 Act itself. the To words illustrate “young how White this the Woomera detention centre, a contrary to the law or public policy.”19 Enterprises Chinese with government Regard to Human in censoring Rights which he thinks ought to be his, 678 (Mackay J). would be required to account publicly Copyright Act through the tabling of the Yugoslavia 1 would be highly detrimental significantly different from, say, the US members 60 years since are largely the drafting in control of the and protection of human rights in the According instrument, there to Chief may be Justice no check Murray on recognise Australia, warns to The his that best detention, communal most the way right notably to Al-Kateb to copyrights bring privacy the applied about “could in Racial the to an which the trial takes place directly democracy in the world that does not community. are Aboriginal deeply culture interconnected, makes artwork and Annan and discriminatory clauses, even within the Nations. However R2P isthe from being Macquarie international University society economist is highlighting comprised the of five consequently employed within adapt this to unique design the rights.”23 standup However, comedian Russell Peters. the The revival of the just war concept... may obtaining justice, closure for victim and condition punishment on isas the not basis afar it4 DLR was cultural not productive engagement with, and even ifD, the acts were consensual. particularly for the vulnerable. mores’ –Couple” a doctrine which already from Commonwealth legislation. To be fair, it’s not as ifcomplement Ishould haven’t 6.in Rodrik, inby now at referred providing to Indigenous limited transparency Cultural responsibility business assume 1globalisations’, chosen –‘Feasible by the corporation by 8least, Re Drummond Wren [1945] 647, Human Rights First’s own commitment Australia would indeed, work, an unacceptable take were the determined leading United void facility ringed by desert inor South A Shayan useful framework was one child that among should many. be Internet 2003 sparked content. intense In mid debate 2002 about Yahoo Nef, J.(2002) ‘Globalisation cards in and the crisis of over the property which he fondly for the inconsistency. However, Indigenous Secondly, Communal Mr Carr Moral fundamentally Rights Bill to peace and security, as the level of Bill of Rights. In particular, in the therefore Universal exempt Declaration from the of Human application Rights of affected constitution be further limited by our Gleeson: laws that violate ‘It is even hardly the likely most basic that artwork, Discrimination stifle the Australia courts media itprovides was charter for freedom” noted Act his release. of 1975 that rights and (Cth) ifimportance InBulun would “a nations and right Bulun be like the to to affects the trial’s outcome. In addition, have some kind of national human (Ibid.) oral stories of the ‘terrorism’ utmost and global in private sphere.29 Racist conditions and seriously implemented, as the tensions Now Angela name “institutions” of David which Langsam legitimise to do some the were used by the original artist to changed However, legal why (and is it social) that such environment a widely contemporary environment. open the gates to ideological fanaticism oddly, “rehabilitation”. Of course, the death difference... by It either is not a act.40 right that Further, applies to Consequently if a rape occurred Weinstein, M. (ed.), Globalisation: What’s New? extends to contracts involving racial made any sacrifices on the path toward equality. I can no longer and to Intellectual users Property about rights such (ICIP). censorship. 679 (Mackay J). contribution to, solutions for social for statistics protecting human rights. This an independent group? These are sovereignty, legitimacy, and democracy’, initsto to pursue labour rights asand human rights 1of for Kingdom uncertainty.11 case of Determining Ghaidan v rights Godinwhether Australia. While inthey detention, Shayan looked The at in assessing make the for extent grim reading. racist how signed responsibility China’s ‘Public for Pledge human on rights believes is his”1 Parliament would decide –of at 2003. misconceives Janke and the role co. of interpreted the Australian itSelfto state-exploitation cannot be monitored. separation of powers between the (UDHR) rule international law human are entrusted law to intolerance for devout civilians parliament of human rights. overlooked the fact that did Anti-Discrimination free the honour not association United take our action Kingdom international [could] against Act wipe 1977 commitments a the copyright out (NSW), United trade most Americans on death row are rights statute. There are various Time: the copyrights Act also pandemics the survival as of possible Aboriginal outcomes tradition. of It the is testamentary freedom must yield to between the response notion of an to international research existence assault on into of sovereignty, the the subject. order how that Although defines represent scared dreaming sites and since addressed the introduction issue remains of the unresolved? Charter, the (2005)177, 194 of an emotional intensity... it will penalty does not rehabilitate the guilty party „bribe‟ to some one human beings receives but a not gift others is332 also between two people of the same sex 9 Clayton vwho Ramsden [1943] AC 320, discrimination.36 Further, judicial receive Youth Allowance while studying law because my partner’s Questions have arisen as to who should Small writes in 1apportioned discussion has been led, guided and Latin Perspectives, 29(6), pp.59-69 Problems start to arise as not all all other industries, such ItHuman is questions long past time that we redressed was Despite aAmerican response the many to these good developments. things about someone Mendoza, issues was which challenge firstly considered “white” the and witnessed hunger strikes and riots, saw conditions The Human in private Rights property and disposition Equal might discipline bethat for the between Internet state absolute discretion –through whether or not to establish Rights “the Commission of a us. community under a It is acknowledged that the Parliament, Executive and the uphold has continued (Robertson to emphasise 2008: 490). the Köchler express themselves through their beliefs? 2Chinese provides for athe statutory framework in some of the persons covered … would infringement, unionism”. States, by passing judges the an have act community found that would the the federal be law financially disadvantaged and use countries whose human rights laws provides protection for 50 years after international for this reason community’s that protection failure of to public policy. rule of law and politics have seen the („Clayton‟) (Lord Romer). accurate international figures society. are difficult He to argues obtain, that ancestral journeys. decision of Fox vright Fox Estate24 confirmed undermine international legitimacy and and return them back to society, but this within simply because the prerogative of their race, accorded where to will often go unreported as the death enforcement of racist conditions, as an Why are Indigenous Cultural and income exceeds the very low threshold. But I haven’t complained, Mr Discussion of R2P gives rise to the notion or can assume “consumer the responsibility for pushed by non-governmental countries are transparent in reporting should as the apparel we respond... industry to before gross it, Al Jazeera. (2009) ‘H1N1: At A Glance’, this and modernised our system of In our 1996 democracy, HRF joined with Australian a unique law new still interpretive provision of the Human authorities responding with tear gas is Opportunity that offered Commission by the found Canadian that and Industry’ non state (sponsored actors. by With the many government states secondly, hope that “Australian” Kevin is ultimately a amend the impugned law. member Human Rights to bring Act. He an suggests action that, for implementation of R2P would Judiciary, Parliament would remain (2003: primary 1) responsibility consequently of states argues to that a which to operate, but with explicit be Australian public children. defenders law Human is at who reproduction, odds are with arguably and the able does Parliament to not do permit to so. make indefinite This the approach detention. covenants isbe Orend, B. (2002) ‘Michael Walzer on Resorting would not be suitable for Australia. 10 [2003] NSWSC 292 („Kay‟). an author dies. This limitation renders intervene intellectual in property war-torn of nations. artists Implicit and in Racism is the belief that the culture and realist policies of states stymie any it these was institutions found that war, the while balance only of within the private sphere: “[i]t is now destroy any hopes of peaceful argument rests on Thomas Aquinas’ theory that testators, they happen with to the live or common what crime law penalty applies to both parties. agency of the state, is in fact a public Intellectual Property Rights important to Rudd, because equality involves such sacrifices. However, by the of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, coined protecting human rights such as accessed May 18th 2009, organisations (NGOs) intent on their capital punishment practices. have grappled with, with apunishment mixed government by introducing an routinely permits mistreatment of coalition of apparel and footwear Rights Act 1998 (UK). In Ghaidan, and water cannons, and watched asaofis judiciary. number demand.” of children in immigration unwilling affiliated or Internet unable to assume of China) the Instead, we will turn our focus the infringement matter under of adegree Human or and moral Rights since rights the Act, testator inthe the The problem with Mr Carr’s examples isin to challenging; Force’, Canadian however Journal the of Political alternative, the 11party Kay ‘first [2003] among NSWSC 292, equals’. 34. This is paradigmatic protect human shift rights isSociety required while remaining by way exemptions in the areas of charitable the fundamental less existence experienced of rights families, in of capital humankind cannot have set grounded But part the our Australian in of equity law. which High No Court change establishes found to that the by a Almost no-one in Australia suggests, for protection somewhat useless this storytellers argument is paramount isthe the for reality Indigenous and systematic violations of practices of a race or group of people substantial attempts to enforce it.onto Rudd responds to accounting power, This the issue great for 1.7% features powers, of the diplomacy, Australian the prominent and Bulun Bulun T-Shirt: John Bulun Bulun settled that it is against public policy toIndigenous the guilty coexistence. could escape punishment recognising they have committed.” both the Life is universal condition Hence, there is an issue of miscarriage act of constitutionally prohibited people? same token, you can’t have almost equality. Equality doesn’t lie on a <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/20 by Francis Deng (1996) and embodied in freedom of expression privacy that exposing and closing the More unsettling, is when the reports do degree of success. The focus on Australia-wide human rights law. We people in ways that are unjust companies, rights, labour rights, House of Lords was asked to interpret Responding 12 Clavering vto Ellison criticism (1859) 11 of ER a 282, Human 289 adult detainees 8of harmed themselves. Science, detention 33(3), peaked pp.523-547 at 1,923 in 2000–01. mantle which required responsibility Yahoo to for “refrain protecting from legal community. Itthe may be obvious copyright did Commission not indicate work would or as film be to given what that a degree embodies role “in of that ignore experience ofisto forcing the UN to become a bystander because ithuman would not allow the courts democratic at least partially reform blind of to the the UN and the benefits5 and a resilient common law, escaped down cases. in In the notice.’ saying Universal It that, was Declaration what also argued are the of constructive Pausing four Constitution to here three trust would for that on the athe be moment, legal Migration required, owner itand Act and of example, that we should adopt aor USconsidering that the traditional sovereignty communities. 1 they is no longer able to protect superior to that of others. Racist acts and population, international Aboriginal law -As are people not static, make but attained permission from a senior discriminate on grounds of race or afterlife. the precedent and should be and respected condition regardless subsequent. of 09> of justice as the offender gets away discrimination.37 Judge Edgerton debates of continuum. whether It’s Australia an all nothing needs kind a(ICISS ofCranworth). thing, and if doctrine you’re stopping R2P 2004). This recognises his citizens. are placed in jeopardy by such human rights that offend every accountability gap for corporate come (Lord out about the thirteen year old Consider the situation of a Jewish technology companies and their should provide the best possible infringe the dignity, respect and and consumer advocates to draft aon a provision of the Rent Act 1977 (UK), Rights Act By the end of 2003, a child placed in rights producing, from corporate posting or abuse, disseminating NGOs in “race” was required, the testator did some that the most influential high court communally effectively striking owned down material laws” that such are as comparable jurisdictions that have a to human rights abuses, is far worse. As to invalidate legislation inconsistent abrogation opportunity of to speak the more veto directly right. to This 1to questions of how far racist conditions on Human Australian behalf Rights, of government’s the adopted children in obligations that 1948 the by law the the interesting and there copyright the would Constitution to consider with thus be the permit no the clan need converse unlimited being for a style Bill of Rights. Now knowledge behind much Aboriginal a state from security threats, and that thoughts demean individuals or groups This essay argues that the internationally up rather 25-50% evolve of all working to visual accommodate artists . traditional owner to use a dreaming religion.”25 Robertson, G. (2008) Crimes Against Humanity, ICIP While cultural rights little are norms regard important or has religious been because given authority. they in the with the crime. stated in relation to racist covenants in short of the right towhether marry, then that Iwas would call nothing. 13 Dwhat M Parry, „Uncertainty andCourt that inNisfrom maintaining sovereignty over a censorship? This opposition to R2P isexample, heightened by human rights abuses. girl Somalia who “allowed testator both with an intention to Human Rights Act and nonrole ingave protecting human rights is In Pepsi-Cola the Supreme of protection for vulnerable groups like blueprint freedom 1initiated for to the which new, all non-profit human beings Fair Anderson, which K. & Hurrell, the partner A. (2000) of Hedley a tenant Bull on By December that year, the detention detention kept there for an particular harmful have information been asking that long and may judge’s bench is occupied primarily by designs incompatible themes with and rights dances”. protected Despite by Human Rights Act. For the UK Annan (2005: 65) notes, “future not, “from beginning, precisely and with the Human Rights Act, and it argument powerful is non-state consistent actors with the such proposals as precept of our common 3 private dispositions of property should breached General those Assembly facing the Australian the of the death newly Constitution. formed penalty beneficiaries. arguments detention. referendum. that Al-Kateb Although can As an be could placed ordinary this approach be in held favour act in of art has been passed on for over forty no nation can deal with these threats Penguin Books, Camberwell byaddition disempowering them. While there upheld norm of the equality of political In changing circumstances. to this, the Makinda Report of links design in his painting. The design was Conditional Gifts‟ (1982) 126 The Solicitors’ are past When aim to to States the prevent unreasonable, take of a life exploitation of a absurd human the or America, “since the injunctions are Angela It’s not as iftenant itthat would be an unpopular decision, (and Iand know region, the of that region has As empirical the significant evidence obstacle has failed that in to order provide for Beginning inmales. the early to mid 1990s, herself” tosovereign be gang raped was maintain hisThe property within his family International but the latest Society, frontier London, for Macmillan action Canada The former noted NSW that “the Premier common Bob law Carr children and the elderly and for Labor are Association entitled. We (FLA). should The aspire challenge certain property rights after the http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/introducti centre’s medical records reveal average of one year, eight months hard, jeopardize whether state some, security any or and all of disrupt such state actors are accountable under aged white Although itsystem. could be this the propositions Act. attempt to recognise has diverse media generations will never forgive us ifRdo we distinctly,”12 Instead, Australia provide should adopt adequate a would also allow Parliament to amend of corporations. the R2P report An alternative (Wheeler 2005: 49). extend continue to plague the This United overseas? too was unanimously Australian After recognising rejected government the on does of detention parliament, strict not testamentary establish until the any his charter freedom copyright removal could –to rights from and be thousand years. on its own. The recent global threat of are, inNations. extreme situations, psychological sovereignty directly prohibits any form Journal 518., 518. Contemporary Bull’s thesis to the Visual modern Arts conception and Craft printed onto amore tof shirt produced by & The seminal case of Canada Trust Co vof intellectual spiteful being, itmuch motivations property contributes to the a Indigenous societal testator 1of based on covenants alone and the For the last 18 months, these companies humanity? you value popularity). Sixty per cent of Australians support gay an inherent responsibility to protect the scientific this proof level that of recognition executions of have international a greater UN. (2006) Charter the United Nations and Human Rights First (HRF) began to Countries with the death penalty will stoned to death in a stadium of a line, and at the same time ensuring that being pursued by NGOs such as on.shtml does recently not wrote exist a in piece a vacuum,” in the Sydney but important values like freedom of was better. and is to create accountability— Small writes dies. The Rent Act provided for the Shayan was experiencing nightmares, and eleven days. Some children were responsibility social stability, should contravene fall to business? laws and reasoned that these judge’s are indeed communal copyrights, it essentially relies ownership and significantly less continue down this path.” certainty. Human Rights Act that properly the Act without having a referendum. Without interpretation such is reform, that international the UN and 14 Clayton [1943] AC 320, 334 (Lord the ‘inherent has basis made dignity that it clear the and… Constitution that the they equal oppose does and for consequentially, Australia, changed the clan, which over it time. a at in tacit least turn approval provides might have of a Conclusion Influenza A (H1N1) provides veracity to Annan, international (2005) ‘In Larger law. Freedom: Decision Time reasons for racism, not many of us can un-requested humanitarian intervention, sovereignty, and contests that the survival Inquiry of 2002 estimated the T Textiles. Ontario Human Rights Commission26 people, generally, culture thus of protecting violence. there ishuman-rights a After both strong all, the how argument cultural can covenants are based on colour alone, along 1more with 5 groups marriage. Isuperstition know you like supporting minority groups, but this isreiterated just Statute ofthe the International Court of Justice, individual human rights of its citizens deterrent law to effect take than place, life states imprisonment, would have then to blackwords publicly engage in the struggle also argue that they have the right to thousand people . which Or how in April of his property islaw not disposed to a Gentile. HRF. “reflects Morning Herald experience in of the he past, the speech. independent, transparent, and conferral of property rights to the sleep disturbance, bed wetting and detained for more than three years. regulations This suggestion and spread isof absurd. Under the and Romer); 329 (Lord Russell). Kofi Annan, 1999 qualified and possess the qualities most on aUN’, voluntary agreement between restrictive defamation laws than responds human to the law values establishes and principles minimum international will remain paralysed in at not inalienable the guarantee inrights Foreign rights their Affairs, all members freedom 84(3), pp.63-74 of from the method The lasted first to point until seek an of remedy departure independent should is that there state racist be of the death penalty and will provide racist conditions: firstly, testamentary in hope this contention, as although the virus say that we suffer from xenophobia. and thus renders itofbuilt illegitimate under of sovereignty is dependent on these contribution to the economy of the established and weighed the 1culture and that a economic alongside of life the rights be repeated of Indigenous when references it is New York, Department Public Information ultimately the injunctions are based on including HRF, academics and socially taking it too far. Langsam, D. 1996 ‘Aboriginal Art: (Deng 1996: 32). When a state is unwilling undertake the normative process in why is it still implemented? to develop clarity and consistency state sovereignty which is enshrined in this year in Sudan, judicial authority Unimaginable that when he passed 15 Trustees of Church Property of the his opposition of modern to social an Australian concerns Human and a enforceable A large part mechanisms of the problem for lies ensuring inwould ‘surviving spouse’ of aHUMAN tenant when anxiety. He would wake in the night, Almost all of detained children obscenity” Human Rights and Act that model itTHE “monitor now being the reality Secondly, a Human Rights Act valued in the profession, itclaims ishow also author WORKERS and RIGHTS community. IN APPAREL It is this Australia, and yet itroots has a Human The that standards uncertainty underpin for our the found democratic treatment in Kay surrounding of system. all Aside from constrained relation involuntary human to family,’ humanitarian detention. the declaration intervention. sets an conditions Palestine infringement. An Australian have was created. charter their of in human the beliefs rights diplomatic representation to those freedoms isHidden derived from an era of originated in a developing country, it Over THE APPLICABILITY the course OF of history, RIGHTS though current international law. The practicality institutions, and if these institutions evolve Indigenous art market to be $200 Ten In conclusion, Dollar Note: contrary the bicentennial to the ten of competing dispositional interests and peoples to bound “persons”41 with by regards the paradox within to their the of artwork ‘righting RDA, and the a Australia’s Resource’ Art Monthly no colour alone.”38 The court must responsible investors that Kevin have been working Annan, K. (1999) ‘Two concepts Don’t of you sovereignty’, see Mr Rudd, this isn’t just about me. Although I or unable to 1 carry out this duty, the Diocese of Newcastle v Ebbeck (1960) 104 Contributors to the magazine include international law of introducing R2P into Conclusion around human rights standards that the UN Charter; "Nothing contained in allowed the execution of nine people away his family might subvert his intent, sensitivity Rights Act. to Nowhere the future.”20 does he suggest These Until recently, no Australian that human human rights rights in Australia standards are protect uniquely the spouse had been living as the Vincent, R.J. (1974) Non-intervention and gripping his chest and saying, ‘They were found to be refugees and so information considered, where publicized a court by finds users that on a in “rugged require Parliament to consider how indicative of an underlying preference voluntary element that leaves the Rights Act. In fact, its defamation laws the The human developing words beings, consensus derived “White from favours Australian” the the acknowledgement inas the courts, out our basic rights 4very ‘a common and would conscience better protect of an individual. our freedoms Due to in individualism”30 and has been penetrated the security of the world’s FOOTWEAR INDUSTRY fortunately STANDARDS few, TO NON-STATE there have ACTORS been overt of R2P relies on the strict adherence to a realists, R2P would provide the solely million then In order so per will to annum. maintain sovereignty. It peace is and likely security that dollar note featured an artwork by Mr laid the foundations for Fox. Here, a 87 pages 4-5 cultural private-sphere knowledge. is now There no longer is a exempt close inAND The Economist, 352(8137), p.49 wrong’ CLR 394, by taking 411 (Windeyer another J). life? consider that enforcement of one racist to develop a code of conduct for would love for my upcoming wedding in October to carry all possible international community has an their domestic law. arguments are might be applicable to companies the present Charter shall authorize the who were innocent and whose guilty he inserts an express condition requiring International Order, Princeton, Princeton “sensitivities” how the protection have been of human replicated rights in in government had achieved a for charter ordinary dependent people. on Officially the wisdom incorporated and good Rudd the Social Justice Committee, tenant’s ‘wife or husband’. The House are to kill us.’ He also drew were eventually released into the websites law isgoing irreconcilably according to inconsistent law and remove with Religious a beliefs can also influence whether a each draft law complies with human for people who fitThese this unofficial criteria proposition somewhat impotent to What have incompatibilities been relaxed still precisely exist between to take 1One demonstrates adoption inherent dignity the a of courts Human the human adoption Rights person, Act of aindustry Intellectual law appears to Another standard High of Court achievement case that year all labelled the the guiding law. of the the role It “corner-stone”31 would majority the judiciary provide judges, has valuable of Justice on the the most powerful nations within weeks (Al blackwords displays of racism that have significantly legally codified set of rules overseen by 16 Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) s place accepted legal means for intervention, this the anarchic figure isproperty international now higher. community, The vast anfrom Yumbulul of “the Morning Star Pole”. public trust was designed to provide The practical implementation of R2P will connection public between considerations. indigenous condition will often mean the operating in countries that limit free legal weight, this is bigger than me. This ispolicy about adeath teenager growing The drive by NGOs, such as HRF, to automatic responsibility to act itstorture. the manifestation of the realist suspicion University Press and develop potential accountability United Nations intervene in matters 1 The pleas were obtained under his daughter to marry a person “of Australia should be improved. He rights. The breakthroughs came in in May sense 1999, of our the elected non-profit representatives. organization Annan, K. (1999) ‘UN press release’, The United “widely accepted treaties and statutes,” of Lords (Lord Millett dissenting) held pictures of fences containing himself country community. enforces the penalty. Iran the legally-protected harmful information right, there promptly”. will be a 1 rights standards. This would not stop to sit on the bench. protect communal copyright. There has Intellectual account of Property freedom Law of and expression. Indigenous It is “subtle modelled which are and…artificial”13 on to similar be adhered legislation todetention distinction by all the –now. fall short infunds its recognition of went peoples experts further, and and all finding nations.’ academics: that Edward common transformation Michael insights State 4(1). section law, McHugh, for of precisely government minds conceded in because society, and that it itthe Alisis In A the New mid Frontier 1990s In increased Human Rights NGO and responds to Jazeera 2009). R2P recognises the affected our experiences of racism the UN, so as to curtail the exploitation or 1 need and would therefore limit the ability of nature international of these rule figures of illuminates law is ain essential, how The Morning Star ceremeny isserious very only educational be effective for and needy, sustainable white, if of knowledge, land and law, meaning that enforcement of like conditions. expression and individual privacy. The up inMay aall small town, with small-minded people, who thinks they might Realist apply critics human argue rights protection that such shift in (ICISS 2004: 4). Specifically, R2P intervention and mechanisms to ensure such standards which are essentially within the Wrongful executions are a Nations, Jewish accessed race”2 16 on condition precedent. seems to imply that the rights enjoyed the Australian Capital Territory with continues This can to be be an especially ato collaboration frail of which for Canadian jurisprudence has that the term ‘spouse’ extended and his family. practices ahumanitarian system of religious law which is a combination mechanism of of notifying vague instructions Parliament and of 17 Kay [2003] NSWSC 292, 34. Parliament from passing laws that are been much discussion about this Bill, peoples? equally laughable to suggest that the between United governments, Kingdom, certainty individuals of2009, New expression and Zealand, all other Indigenous intellectual property Wheeler, N. (2005) ‘Strangers in Peril’, in The remains lawful even where the “the argued Kateb’s community freedom that situation ahis on move as was to away how ‘tragic’. choose effective from He ashield [the] strict also the media Protection: attention Human focusing Rights, NGOs on And the for international cooperation on human The holocaust has created a world that misuse of humanitarian intervention by states to utilise intervention of any sort important whereby Santow any it – is actor Director to protect within of the Indigenous the international Charter important of and the artist believed that employed British, Protestant multilaterally students, under with the role of custodians as guardians of that citizens. Inevitably this “will have a tendency 3 to process of drafting such a code and a be gay. This is about the suicide rate for young queer people being sovereignty principles to business would has undermine the advocates a global, UN-implemented <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999> ultimately an enforceable international are reflected inmembers their business domestic jurisdiction of any state." Itto is miscarriage of justice. Itcolleges iswhich suggested Yet, even with the strict principles by 18 Sheena the strongest Grattan and Heather Conway, of our Human Rights Act 2004 and Victoria companies, when any NGOs, one party and controls and both “point[ed] the direction in such beyond heterosexual couples, strict interpretation Regardless, The detention of Obama’s of Sharia children law like inauguration where Shayan two associated this inconsistency. harsh penalties Parliament often would results World inconsistent Today, 61(8/9), with pp.15-17 human rights, as is Currently, s 5 of the Marriage Act 1961 defines however, no decisive action has been law’s protection of freedom of certainty Victoria entities in and of society, operation.14 the including Australian As used, Capital the rights. conditions These rights are are harsh described or inhumane. in A a beneficiary freedom noted law can that of be and property ‘Eminent in to protecting set lawyers disposition the conditions human who will have rights. for be ‘sweatshop’ Business conditions in which rights, and provides an accountable is more tolerant of Jews for Gilbert the hardship other international organisations. Despite The to inherently cloak their discriminatory interests. Ateaming nature legitimate of Cultural order can and be held Intellectual accountable Property forthe their the importance of the pole had been international repeated references law. The emerging to both norm of knowledge is to ofpeers. the utmost importance. produce injury to the public interest or governance framework to regulate Human Rights eight Project, times higher then an heterosexual Tobin This isconsequently about the institutions contributed that to the govern growing international strategy “prevent” humanitarian „Testamentary Conditions in Restraint of rule of law. They are the operations. HRF’s work in up no wonder countries for example that police have high pressure to clear surrounding testamentary freedom, intheir community are shared equally by all. with its Charter of Human Rights and universities. houses of Itso the engages federal in or review any other and conceptions, as applied by the courts, include homosexual couples. Three times during that year the remains occurred the under most widely an Australian watched show, law in then companies choose, at censoring its absolute even discretion, more main kinds Despite of crimes the developments are punishable by in death. recent sometimes necessary to balance marriage as the union ofand a man and aRe woman to taken by Parliament. association in New Zealand (or Glennon, words Territory. corporations. M.J. “clearly Those (1999) International legal ‘The express New systems Intervention: a human are definite very The final straightforward High Court way decision and include in 2004 that the adopted studied In benefaction.”32 doing the in the question itinappropriate future. will While show firmly Even the how believe within disposing any that the law consumer goods, bound primarily for strategy for the implementation of suffered by their ancestors while the for the obvious protection of individuals racist system conditions of humanitarian abuses not only intervention racial rights. actions. Intrinsic to this notion is the reduced by its use. un-lawful superiority of intervention, the white born Protestant out of Indigenous Wheeler, N. intellectual (2001) ‘International Property law and is Religion in the 21st Century: An Anglogood of the common weal.”39 It is time adherence to the code in aa symbol. relations, ‘corporate and responsibility’ inevitably undermine disaster, “react” to humanitarian crisis dominant obstacles to the practical with other groups found the Fair Malaysia is concerned with attempts the books and in turn use their Tarnpolsk Danckwerts J held that the Centre of Public Law; Justice Nolan; Responsibilities Act 2006. monitoring parliament. Without to assess a charter whether of rights, ought to move.”21 detention centre managers strongly standing introduced at 37.8 in 1992 million by viewers. the Keating This may aggressively whether to amend than the does law, the repeal Chinese it or time, there are a number of reasons why Search for a Just International Law’, in Foreign competing vital interests, such as the the exclusion of all others, effectively banning gay Victoria or the ACT) has threatened requirement similar Justine rights law to Nolan Australia’s contains that and the Michael standards federal testator Posner that system. had all indescribed added ‘Everyone that has the the detention right to life, could liberty be interest-holder private the has its Australian sphere limits, and may and Constitution indeed acknowledged “proceed how the should more law by the U.S and European markets, were policy of intervention. world wars have created an integrating in Canadian need, Perspective‟ traditional (2005) conceptions 50 McGill of harmony, organisation’, through but the in more practical International importantly proposals Affairs, the 77(3), of core R2P altruistic advocacy of ‘humanitarian frustration classes. Justice over the paralysis Robins of specifically the UN, is by solicitor Terri Janke to be to resolve this asks conflict by openly multistakeholder environment is international movement that peace corporations and security. with the use of force as a resort, and implementation of R2P. In Labor the Association second part was of alast crucial this piece, step in by more powerful member states who discretion to provide falsified words “of Jewish race” were void for This interpretation allowed the Rent companies freedoms are can innot be compliance ignored with or taken FLA Affairs,78(3), pp.2-7 seem to suggest that the many people recommended to the government government and continued after John Due government. simply toisproduced leave the Most lack it as recently, of it action stands. Yahoo by This the has isThe Intellectual property law falls short of Deputy Director of the Australian need combat terrorism. However, itI marriage. Tasmania, Victoria, and the Australian the union movement. mind.”15 More elements importantly, Yet of society inthat operation, the are operation obliged the to NSW of indefinite. and security Ahmed of person’ Al-Kateb and arrived that ‘No in often the contain can, growing by from a itself, Bill of number Rights.’ spite fix some than of of the “widely from most Law Journal 512, 516. being led to a rash of pp.687-688 What the history of Indigenous Japanese community which contributes sovereignty must yield to a new norm of value is ultimately of equality, the which essential brings ingredient it firmly for intervention’, which is ostensibly utilised to In addition to obvious artistic inconsistent acknowledged with international the “freedom security of an Indigenous people’s rights to their acknowledging that the doctrine of complex, but not revolutionary. As the predominance to operate in a of manner this view that takes has meant to assist affected regions with “recovery, would the development like to respond of to an three innovative of Mr question the national laws of the evidence. This is particularly uncertainty, being “impossible for a Act provision to operate consistently The symbol says homosexual love is not as valued as But is there a need for national reform? standards away too and easily. requirements As Australians and reports we like AUSTARLIAN BILL OF RIGHTS are forvalid change and transformation. that Shayan be moved from Howard became Prime Minister. In legislative attracted exactly branch what intense of happens criticism government, after now it itthat was has in Williams protecting the rights of Indigenous would 19 effective „Conditions require on MPs Testamentary openly to Gifts consider as since alaw. Australian Capital Territory, Bill of Rights all allow atorture form of civil union, Supreme those observe, laws Court but shows the has capacity construed very clearly to the enforce words Australia one shall by be subjected boat in December to or 2000 to benevolence,”33 accepted intractable treaties problems. the and intended statutes”6 This will recipient initiatives aimed at curbing abuses of Human Rights Centre; George Intellectual Property Rights? tremendously to the global economy. legally multilateral humanitarian ICISS. (2004) Summary of ‘The Responsibility to within an the realm international of public policy. rule Racist of protect the basic human rights of citizens exploitation, the traditional knowledge (Glennon owner of property 1999: to 6). dispose NATO’s of his military or her Justine Nolan lectures in international heritage, which consists of “the intangible Wheeler (2001: 688) states that “itreveal isto an public policy should, and indeed, must working group continues the process that, into account although the adopted human rights at the of all ‘2005 reconstruction and reconciliation” (ICISS Intellectual Property Law: Carr’s collaborative central arguments. that involves country and the administration of problematical in weak or corrupt possible candidate to show with with the anti-discrimination principle heterosexual love. After all, there isjudiciary rightly much tosome be the to Device assume results of Control‟ of that independent we Note have (1936) our 36 rights, external but Again, why is itmechanism that such a simple issue Woomera. countries such as Despite the UK. further In The other opposition nations, National to realist it would Human claims, have Wheeler Rights been been revealed left to it played the a role to in form identifying peoples. These include: whether such rights infringements are George giving gay Williams couples similar rights to married to these those be laws ambiguous. standards can will make While differ a according „race‟ significant has to without cruel, a inhuman passport or or visa. Taken degrading into is the under how 1950‟s, no any legal strategy “nothing compulsion for could better to be convert, human more Protect’, workers’ accessed rights around 11 May the 2009, globe. The Throughout the history of Australia, intervention, as this is the essential conditions Both those are who grounded are committing in the belief human in nation-states where the state itself is of many Indigenous has also been intervention property as in he Yugoslavia or she chooses reflects is an this human rights law at the University of and tangible aspects of the whole body – Foundation Director of the Gilbert inherently flawed legal order that be used to override racial 4 discrimination develop its ‘Global Principles on World those they Summit’ encounter. by the UN General 2004: 3-7). However, as was noted earlier, The Indigenous Experience companies Columbia Law Review and 439, NGOs 439. working justice under these laws. Thus there is countries. Sadly it problem appears that these reasonable certainty that heinthe satisfies the and the right toadvanced private life the UK’s The symbol homosexuals are promiscuous. proud of in our political freedoms and monitoring as a 15) matter and of issues law we annual do so reports for only on so remains a huge to date?The recommendations and psychological (2005: Consultation, counter-balanced notes chaired that by a strong law, by Father called argument Frank aclose bill sort Chinese of protection journalist for Indigenous Shi Tao people. to the necessary. For example, the couples. The Rudd Government's recent Same<http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.p Angela Small difference the character in enhancing of obligation-holder. legal detention treatment under or punishment’. the Migration Act, he practice rights protection or the must racist also condition. pay been defined tothe include, “colour, As much as Australia prides itself in being argument was that insays the calculated to create or deepen Indigenous people have been ingredient to attaining an effective that rights a Pepsi-Cola class abuses, ofaccept people and those who intervene unable orSantow to protect those rights. subject to exploitation at the hands of concern, important as social the use interest.”27 of force was Whether prima Edward NSW and isunwilling the Deputy Director of the ofI’d cultural practices, resources and requires law-abiding states to break the in testamentary dispositions. Freedom of Expression and Privacy’, its 20 Beverages (West) Ltd vwritten Assembly, politics has stymied the the practicality and legitimacy of such a and Tobin Centre of Public Law. like Ashley Walker together to protect workers’ rights. a clear tension 1reporting between having to practices of unfair trials and cruel test which the testator has attempted to Human Rights Act. The symbol says gay people don’t deserve the same democratic Crucially, no institutions. court would The be problem able to is participating Oral long tradition: as they companies the have absence not and been of a college taken answer would lie simply in the fact that assessments high levels of can Brennan, of be rights, made charter is that considering adopting of rights R2P or whether human would hp/pages/summaryofR2PCS> The government. landmark case Shi had in recognising forwarded the an Explanatory Memorandum that Human Sex Relationships Rights Act Act 2008 amended 84 protection While public of human international rights, law especially has sought refugee status but was refused. The attention donee always to political has a and choice other as forms to nationality, descent and ethnic, ethnoa multicultural society, one fact remains rush tovivos cheaper and quicker ways divisions between existing religious”7 or exploited for gain. There international rule of law. should to halt be treated the atrocities inferior will because be held of academic research. Author Anita facie inter infind breech or financial within ofof 2(4) aof of will, the the Charter. free-knowledge Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Australian Human Rights Centre. She systems developed, nurtured law inrecently, order to protect minimum While the proliferation codes of credibility and integrity will be affected implementation the measures policy requires a paradigmatic shift in the More HRF has been working respect local laws, customs and executions disproportionately affect lay down.”3 rights as straight people. that ‘strike while down’ our system laws of government that are and language away. university While has licensees meant the legal that as Is system a part Indigenous 24-year-old of has its to thank the Social Justice Officers –race, change takes effort. An effort many anxiety and distress, itindicated was several both Australia rights reduce act, should the setting risk adopt out of states aand Human protecting employing Rights intellectual email to an property overseas rights human is Phrases Milpurrurru rights preceded the of Human Edward discriminatory Santow laws including social security, for developed people who mechanisms are disadvantaged. for the In Since June the 2002, Universal Al-Kateb Declaration that was either of leadership accepting and the gift to community with the religious or national origin,”16 the true: racism is a To problem. such to produce shoes, apparel, and other racial groups than the sanction Union, Local 558 [2002] 1can SCR 156 („Pepsihave been numerous accounts of their accountable and while toCharter it“over the be objective, seen asof The Responsibility Protect (‘R2P’) report Heiss highlights that the last two Robertson movement (2008: of interests 473) is by not an alone interestKöchler, H. (2001), Humanitarian 5 Intervention inin worked with Human Rights First from and refined by Indigenous people and standards of humanity”, and Annan conduct and innovate litigious by two main factors: the substantive recommended inof R2P. However, the Australia’s Future Direction sovereignty norm. The final element this Human Rights with achecks diverse group of stakeholders sovereign rights reaffirmed in the the poor, least educated and most The symbol says that Australia isand afundamental backward nation. generally incompatible works with well human for rights. most commitment intellectual many property to and transparency. balances in the to form temper The of aren’t willing to take and when they do, months before he and his family were “bogus Act. people’s Over humanitarian 35,000 people claims” human have to justify rights. made the & group Others in v which Indofurn the Pty government Ltd and Others had Rights Responsibilities Act 2006 Medicare, family law and child support. The Cola‟), 167. enforcement of human rights Mina Aresh and Rachel Smith for all he adopted, wanted other to leave treaties Australia and for conditions attitudes. or Without to disclaim reinforcement and maintain from concept of „race‟ is arguably very as “wogs” referring to Lebanese people labour-intensive goods for the global property disposition which would permit improper use of Aboriginal artwork A legitimate program of humanitarian the Context of Modern Power Politics: Is the democratically whether adopted the disposition measures ofIn addresses the emerging ofirrelevant hundred years, Indigenous Australians arguing holder isNations that, a vital aselement well as the of common breech of law. the 1998-2003. passed on includes by them as part of expressing (1999: 49) argues that the UNSC must techniques applied by NGOs innorm the content of the code itself and the forces of post-Cold War globalisation graduate law [1]http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/capital punishment/for_3.shtml Act model deals with the situation that NGOs and U.S. based United Charter and protecting th vulnerable members of society. It is clear that while the doctrine of The symbol says your personal opinion should shape Australians Similarly, no executive there are body too – be many it the challenge cultural public knowledge power, to protect we is have passed workers’ no down law rights that the it is merely a small step forward. This moved to Villawood detention centre use submissions, Shayan’s 21 of Blathwayt force, and case, v which Baron increase Cawley this makes might the [1976] likelihood this AC have the (1994) ordered 130 journalists ALR 659. not It to was cover found the that 15 (Vic) states that this reporting The applicability of human rights Government says that it is committed to ending obligations against states, itproduct has been ‘Kuwait, conventions and have if you set cannot out in please more complete these quarters, freedom the of positive restrictions. impact It has of Revival and of “fobs” the Doctrine or “curry” of the toin “Just War” Indians marketplace, artificial and inevitably aindicate multinational of racist conditions. The arm – 1. copious such as: intervention would require a their hardwork and efforts. property which will occurs provide because ajudicial serious of and a humanitarian necessity the ‘new world have provided amounts of Charter, However, the Judge conflict continued: was outside of their cultural identity” rise to the challenge. There must be last two decades has meant that implementation process for ensuring [2]www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/islamethics/capitalpunishment.shtml continue to fundamentally challenge the Responsibility toabuse Protect where the relevant legislation isor technology companies such as Australia In aother legal is environment a wonderful where country, there isof a Some of the most egregious recent in uncertainty the sanctity underpinned life. this decision, 397, 426 (Lord Wilberforce). examples Human Rights of itof failing Commission the to will protect of our some the nation. from generations ensures corporate respect through an for is oral our tradition. basic and Referring again to Bull’s thesis, itthe isto small step is negligible inongoing comparison carpets in Sydney. produced in Vietnam and sold of largest included the UNSC public the acting rights inquiry to prevent, of in children Australian and and end anniversary of the 1989 suppression standards to non-state actors all discrimination on the grounds of Compatible with the International Rule of Law?, left to states to develop their own send detail me the basic to Gaza’. rights In of August all people. he also a charter been argued will be blunted. that it is a logical are not uncommon. While you can say it corporations social construct. were moving As much Young of their CJ being “an active agent in the promotion paradigmatic process “ increases transparency in propagation information legitimate program of for their PhDs, belief of research intervention. or simply theses, This a order’, and sets out practical guidelines for international „The concept law that in any other one areas, race such or any as Michael Posner is the President of student at UNSW. [3]http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/154/26073.html consensus amongst the great powers hundreds ofthe companies have corporate adherence the codeis institution of state, requiring increased 22 Grattan and Conway, above n 21, 526. Max Dalton irreconcilably inconsistent with anow Yahoo! Inc, Google Inc. and Microsoft blessed the distinct sparsity with horse”4 of abundant cases ofrelated public natural to policy racist cases ofthat human rights violation inremains rights other of entity the –“does most would be able and to multifaceted This freedoms. presents a but problem this NGO as the led Copyright initiative arguable this shift into sovereignty the people’s mentality which by protestors a “unruly Perth in based Tiananmen company Square. were future history. more atrocities. general The vast Proponents rights majority such of as R2P of freedom argue those Vienna-New York, International Progress Justine Nolan sexuality, yet reaffirmed its anti-gay Western countries are also not immune enforcement mechanisms as far as stated, The two ‘IRights wish most voluntarily important to are depart the extension of an owners freedom to deal is slang, it isisrecently a cause for division and manufacturing demonstrated, to countries itvulnerable mean where Australian basic of the public weal”8 -comprehensive has a moral duty [4]http://www.un.int/malaysia/Recent%20Statement/GA_main.htm It isperpetuation easy governmental commitment consideration to see, from of reviews individual of is the human as etc, prejudices, critical rights but few in to Kim Thanh Nguyen the one “indiscriminate religion intrinsically bombing better from 15 than 000 Human First (HRF). As the 23 Trustees of Church Property of the that the nature of sovereignty must be publicly committed Kim Thanh to upholding Nguyen including the degree of transparency interdependence between nations. human right or rights. Corporation to limit and ‘regulate’ resources played conditions a large within and part the a in private liberal, the fabric disposition stable of the Australia are well known. The indefinite I hope you enjoy this edition of Court Organisation disadvantaged invalidate legislation in the community. for this or any We has Act only provided deals greater with work transparency that is reduced inof possible through an evolution inor backward. Let’s stop acknowledging; identical At Chinese this time, authorities in Shayan form were and was able diagnosed colour to and trace tonature that submissions from if implemented arbitrary recognise detention. by the that By UN, Australia contrast, states The international community has to flaws in the justice system. The marriage stance at the Labor Party conference in non-state actors, Yours including Sincerely, individuals Australia, International and Covenant ask the on minister Civil to with his or her property while alive, and disrupts the fabric of society. legal by birth protections or a person for workers who were since nonhas to eliminate the tacit enforcement of [5]www.amnesty.org/en/formedia/press-releases/somalia-girl-was-child-13-20081031 She has been with her Diocese of Newcastle v Ebbeck (1960) 104 the have international parliamentary outcome of ever this is equivalent peace benefited definition, procedures” and in security in each why terms for case: as an the it of is feet any which other is caused patently the at death variance of the with very Executive Director of HRF he helped re-evaluated and re-interpreted to basic human rights, the challenge that process. While governments Rodrik indicates the incompatibility of this corporate involvement in internet democracy. decision. of property, Australian jurisprudence is in detention of asylum seekers such as possess other reason. problems of law and supply to One a material example chain form. production of In the addition problem of offering those from international law. Such a change to wanting worse, to denying; intervene the would existence be beholden of racism traditional with the email post-traumatic artwork back created to stress Shi by Aboriginal disorder. with the needs the Australian to do more immigration to protect law human was Commonwealth taken of Conscience. important Reforms steps to on protect Same those Sex United States believes that valuable Sydney. The Greens have proposed a to George Williams isofthe Anthony Mason and corporations, Angela are Small concerned [6]http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/raceand-death-penalty CLR 394, 415 (Windeyer J). 11whose remove Political me Rights from and Australia the International as soon and as any restriction on that right would existent obtained and Australian union organizing nationality?”17 isbill racist conditions. infringement that financial to development is,the the protection on beneficiary or ICIP of academic new rights isin legislation. individuals required would gain” have to .blunt act As people the democratic the Western principles governing alliance our was the organization earn a reputation for legally permit humanitarian intervention. is to ensure the standards espoused continue to have the primary obligation ‘new world order’ with the political Racism censorship activities China. a state of formative development. While Ahmed Al-Kateb, the Cornelia Rau Köchler, H. (2003) The Dialects of Power accountability that range from companies norights. recent protection years who for is how oral have Australia stories, taken it locked is up often the up a in international law must come from UN to in the our strict world. guidelines Let’s start outlined with the inman the artists. During assistance The the Aboriginal of next Yahoo! few artists months Holdings succeeded he (Hong was unchecked. 24 (1996) In my 28 OR view, In (3d) fact, 496 the („Fox‟). most when important itthe was Couples headed [7] "Pervasive toward Disparities the death Found inblood penalty. theand Federal Death safeguards Penalty, "New are York implemented Times, Sept. 11, for amend the Marriage Act to allow gay girlfriend for two and a Professor and Foundation Director Itthe appears of that the multijurisdictional multiculturalism has reasonably Covenant practicable.’ Economic, Social and advantages of dispositional prohibited Does itrealities require or discouraged. pure Australian Substandard or ismarriage. Racist Conditions and Uncertainty culturally inthe noted basic accordance dire above, human effects with for the rights the the conscience protection Indigenous are being of ofof ostensibly pluralistic society meaning in to protect”. equality However [of] 6which leadership in the areas of refugee This involves the acceptance that in the codes oron guidelines adopted by to protect human rights the sovereignty of states. Raihana Wahab Law: United Nations and the ‘New World Nevertheless, the substantive it should equality be absolutely provisions affair and so on have been covered For arcane constitutional reasons, itinto is 25 Fox (1996) 28 OR (3d) 496, 502. restrictions on freedom of speech challenge person children such to in protect as conditions an human anthropologist that rights. caused or Security Council (UNSC), and this 1 stems 2000 report, the mirror forcing and them change to prove in a their holistic actions effort in admitted Kong), bringing which to an hospital provided action under eight account s37 times of holder for the plank challenged of the in the human courts rights it was held reform to Angela The Small safeguards guaranteeing example, if the punishment was The bill is currently being considered by the the Gilbert + Tobin Centre of Public become nature of a multinational pride forced companies upon Australians Cultural Rights. These entered freedom: namely, the promotion of the working itthe based on conditions skin colour alone? ranging Is there in Thirdly, a Human Rights Act security would set person Indigenous or (1990) persons involved. Intellectual property, another. compromised. rights paradox are constitutionally of this argument guaranteed isfrom that protection, advancing aOrganisation, rights-based Alpana Modi humanitarian constitute business are consistent, ‘supplementary responsibility’ of On one hand, the private disposition of Order’, International Progress 26 74 OR (2d) 481 („Canada Trust‟). 1an clear provided that the for within of this country the Racial do extensively by the media. preferable for executive body to [8]http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/spring98/html/death.html half years and they are getting under sedition law to the removal of academic many ofreality them who to holds become the copyright, ill.is from the that the organisation were in conformity with R2P and Copyright acute information trauma Act .laws to and, However, the because what Chinese was he Edward process be Santow legally would unobjectionable. –iscrisis Director be the passing of the of Charter an protection of the rights of those facing disproportionate to the severity of the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Law UNSW. This article ismentally developed than means one that embraced in many cases, and there desired ismillion an inif athis, force inimplemented. 1976 and were accumulation of wealth, and selfinadequate fact aininternationally practical wages means to inhumane of hours aat list of rights deemed to be P.S. Malcom, ifascertaining you’re reading Iout would happily switch teams for you (in the While there an obvious disfavour particularly in relation to traditional without and which NATO the intervention, multicultural 1.7 heritage approach to national security, accessed 9th May 2009, <http://www.i-pcomprehensive and technology companies to ensure they property by an interest-holder should be 27 Canada Trust (1990) 74 OR (2d) 481, [9]http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/apathy-is-not-anRacial Discriminationor or Testamentary 1 In not Discrimination adequately Act protect 1975 human and the rights. AntiHowever, there are also numerous, act as a go-between, simply to Aboriginal people as part of the Stolen simply It seems for unthinkable recording that traditional this could Thus, applying Bull’s thesis, if a new norm inherently inequitable. Chapter VII of the international law (Ibid.). Therefore it isLaw significant refused Government. to about drink, this April dehydration. case 2005 was Shi that He received also Von Australian Human Rights Act. to make this world a better place. A the Culture death of Life: penalty, The Death paying Penalty special underlying offence, it could be Committee. from his book ACentre Charter of Rights for accountability gap forby protecting futuristic approach. ratified for Australia the Fraser reliance inisracist their children who are not political sense obviously) if Gilbert you were to support gayconditions marriage. Really, at this to one life-threatening isto of pure Australian hazards blood atin all?the especially important in Australia. of Human Rights Project, and Tobin of Public towards within the artwork, necessary inbut order to avoid o.org/Koechler-lecture-Reykjavik-summary.pdf> Kosovo-Albanians of Canadians istheir towould be preserved have become and 495. challenging crimes against humanity, are not complicit in the abuse of such free dispose property as they see option/1350903.aspx married (in all the legal sense) Freedom? Now Discrimination is the time Act 1977, for an Australian quieter violations of human rights in communicate the decisions of courts Generations to the treatment of knowledge. have occurred, yet it did. of humanitarian necessity was to Charter establishes the UNSC as the sole arguable that UN-sponsored multilateral Doussa became a ten-year more J prison withdrawn. acknowledged term for attempting the to Kim attention Thanh Nguyen to the imposition of the challenged under the 8th Amendment Australia (UNSW Press, 2007). point, what have you got to lose? human rights from corporate abuse. government. guaranteed an workplace were exposed and 28 Canada Trustinheritance.34 (1990) 74 ORoldest (2d) 481,doubt, current judiciary noGilbert the subversion of (and the living and enhanced.28 victims of genocide (Ibid.). and combating discrimination. [10] rights fit; and George Williams Director of the Rahil Patel Human Rights Act. Australia. To take an example: in thisIbid area to Parliament. people with mental illness. body inremains. international society which can connection exercise his between right topersons freedom aboriginal ofand art,the– Foundation action actually provides more protection death penalty on younger of the Constitution as being cruel and 495. companies such as Nike, Levis society), culture in world. in the October in the Hunter Valley.
Racial Discrimination or Testamentary Freedom? Thoughts of racism ... And the world
“
just walks on by…
Issue 3, 2009 22009
Does Australia Views on Racial Discrimination need a COURT OF CONSCIENCE Human Rights Act?
A Culture of Life
Issue 3, 2009
”
Raihana Wainrab
Tobin Centre of Public Law voice their views on this issue.
Thoughts of racism ...
“Racism. I know what you are thinking. Not again. It is a topic that is a useful conversation starter, an easy prey for ill mannered jokes and a favorite for debaters. Why, the most popular girl at my school was the one who could put on several accents and ridiculed different races, not unlike famous standup comedian Russell Peters. However, why is it that such a widely addressed issue remains unresolved? Racism is the belief that the culture and practices of a race or group of people is superior to that of others. Racist acts and thoughts demean individuals or groups by disempowering them. While there are, in extreme situations, psychological reasons for racism, not many of us can say that we suffer from xenophobia. Over the course of history, though fortunately few, there have been overt displays of racism that have significantly affected our experiences of racism now. The holocaust has created a world that is more tolerant of Jews for the hardship suffered by their ancestors while the world wars have created an integrating Japanese community which contributes tremendously to the global economy. As much as Australia prides itself in being a multicultural society, one fact remains true: racism is a problem. Phrases such as “wogs” referring to Lebanese people and “fobs” or “curry” to indicate Indians are not uncommon. While you can say it is slang, it is a cause for division and disrupts the fabric of society. It appears that multiculturalism has become a pride forced upon Australians than one embraced and desired in a futuristic approach.
Above all, it is an attack upon fundamental Australian values and the idea of a “fair- go”. Within my first few weeks in Australia, I had my first experience of being a victim of a racist attack. Not only was I insulted and told to “go back to where you came from”, the attack persisted every morning on my way to school. What happened to freedom of expression and liberty? Should our already limited protection of human rights in the constitution be further limited by our intolerance for devout civilians to express themselves through their beliefs? Instead, we will turn our focus onto the legal community. It may be obvious to some that the most influential high court judge’s bench is occupied primarily by aged white males. Although it could be reasoned that these judge’s are indeed qualified and possess the qualities most valued in the profession, it is also indicative of an underlying preference for people who fit this unofficial criteria to sit on the bench. Regardless, Obama’s inauguration remains the most widely watched show, standing at 37.8 million viewers. This may seem to suggest that the many people are for change and transformation. Again, why is it that such a simple issue remains a huge problem to date?The answer would lie simply in the fact that change takes effort. An effort many aren’t willing to take and when they do, it is merely a small step forward. This small step is negligible in comparison to the people’s mentality which remains backward. Let’s stop acknowledging; or worse, denying; the existence of racism in our world. Let’s start with the man in the mirror and change in a holistic effort to make this world a better place.
”
Raihana Wainrab
And the world just walks on by… Max G. Dalton investigates our Responsibility to Protect
If humanitarian intervention is, indeed, an unacceptable assault on sovereignty, how should we respond... to gross and systematic violations of human rights that offend every precept of our common humanity? Kofi Annan, 1999 In order to maintain peace and security in the anarchic international community, an international rule of law is essential, whereby any actor within the international order can be held accountable for their actions. Intrinsic to this notion is the altruistic advocacy of ‘humanitarian intervention’, which is ostensibly utilised to protect the basic human rights of citizens in nation-states where the state itself is unable or unwilling to protect those rights.
for the implementation of a program of humanitarian intervention by the United Nations.1 However R2P is far from being seriously implemented, as the tensions between the notion of an international rule of law and politics have seen the realist policies of states stymie any substantial attempts to enforce it. This essay argues that the internationally upheld norm of the equality of political sovereignty directly prohibits any form of un-requested humanitarian intervention, and thus renders it illegitimate under current international law. The practicality of R2P relies on the strict adherence to a legally codified set of rules overseen by the UN, so as to curtail the exploitation or misuse of humanitarian intervention by other international organisations. Despite for the obvious protection of individuals in need, traditional conceptions of sovereignty must yield to a new norm of legally valid multilateral humanitarian intervention, as this is the essential ingredient to attaining an effective international rule of law.
The Responsibility To Protect (‘R2P’) report addresses the emerging norm of A legitimate program of humanitarian would require a humanitarian necessity in the ‘new world intervention order’, and sets out practical guidelines for paradigmatic
paradigmatic shift in the sovereignty norm. Hedley Bull contests that international society is comprised of five “institutions” which legitimise the existence of the order that defines international society.2 He argues that these institutions - war, the balance of power, the great powers, diplomacy, and international law - are not static, but rather evolve to accommodate changing circumstances.3 Makinda links Bull’s thesis to the modern conception of sovereignty, and contests that the survival of sovereignty is dependent on these institutions, and if these institutions evolve then so will sovereignty.4 Realist critics argue that such a shift in sovereignty would undermine the institutions that govern international relations, and inevitably undermine international peace and security. The predominance of this view has meant that, although adopted at the ‘2005 World Summit’ by the UN General Assembly, politics has stymied the implementation of the measures recommended in R2P.5 However, the forces of post-Cold War globalisation continue to fundamentally challenge the institution of the state, requiring increased interdependence between nations. Rodrik indicates the incompatibility of this ‘new world order’ with the political sovereignty of states.6
be acknowledged by the international community, sovereignty could consequently adapt to complement the contemporary environment. Discussion of R2P gives rise to the notion of ‘sovereignty as responsibility’, coined by Francis Deng (1996) and embodied in R2P (ICISS 2004). This doctrine recognises that in maintaining sovereignty over a region, the sovereign of that region has an inherent responsibility to protect the individual human rights of its citizens (Deng 1996: 32). When a state is unwilling or unable to carry out this duty, the international community has an automatic responsibility to act its place (ICISS 2004: 4). Specifically, R2P advocates a global, UN-implemented strategy to “prevent” humanitarian disaster, “react” to humanitarian crisis with the use of force as a last resort, and to assist affected regions with “recovery, reconstruction and reconciliation” (ICISS 2004: 3-7). However, as was noted earlier, the practicality and legitimacy of such a policy requires a paradigmatic shift in the sovereignty norm.
Referring again to Bull’s thesis, it is arguable that this shift in sovereignty is possible through an evolution in international law. Such a change to international law must come from the UN Security Council (UNSC), and this 1 stems from the reality that the organisation is Thus, applying Bull’s thesis, if a new norm inherently inequitable. Chapter VII of the of humanitarian necessity was to Charter establishes the UNSC as the sole body in international society which can
legally violate another nation’s sovereignty (Köchler 2001: 13). This license, combined with the power of given to the five permanent members, has meant that the operation of the UN Charter, and thus international law itself, has been underpinned by the individual interests of the permanent members. This creates the paradox that the permanent members are largely in control and therefore exempt from the application of the rule of law they are entrusted to uphold (Robertson 2008: 490). Köchler (2003: 1) consequently argues that a paradigmatic shift is required by way of democratic reform of the UN and the abrogation of the veto right. This argument is consistent with the proposals of the R2P report (Wheeler 2005: 49). Without such reform, the UN and international law will remain paralysed in relation to humanitarian intervention. The practical implementation of R2P will only be effective and sustainable if employed multilaterally under international law. The emerging norm of un-lawful intervention, born out of frustration over the paralysis of the UN, is inconsistent with international security (Glennon 1999: 6). NATO’s military intervention in Yugoslavia reflects this concern, as the use of force was prima facie in breech of 2(4) of the Charter. Robertson (2008: 473) is not alone in arguing that, as well as the breech of the Charter, the conflict was outside of international law in other areas, such as the “indiscriminate bombing from 15 000 feet which caused the death of the very people the Western alliance was ostensibly meaning to protect”. However the paradox of this argument is that without NATO intervention, 1.7 million Kosovo-Albanians would have become victims of genocide (Ibid.).
There is strong political opposition to decentralising state sovereignty in favour of the UN multilateralism R2P proposes, as some argue it will provide powerful states with a vehicle to justify the use of force in advancing their interests (Vincent 1974: 345; Köchler 2001: 28). Köchler (2001: 28) embodies this argument: The revival of the just war concept... may open the gates to ideological fanaticism of an emotional intensity... it will undermine international legitimacy and destroy any hopes of peaceful coexistence. This opposition to R2P is heightened by the significant obstacle that in order for this level of recognition of international law to take place, states would have to undertake the normative process in international law of introducing R2P into their domestic law. These arguments are the manifestation of the realist suspicion of humanitarian intervention and ultimately an enforceable international rule of law. They are consequently the dominant obstacles to the practical implementation of R2P. In opposition to realist claims, Wheeler (2005: 15) notes that a strong argument can be made that adopting R2P would both reduce the risk of states employing “bogus humanitarian claims” to justify the use of force, and increase the likelihood of the UNSC acting to prevent, and end future atrocities. Proponents of R2P argue that if implemented by the UN, states wanting to intervene would be beholden to the strict guidelines outlined in the report, forcing them to prove their actions were in conformity with R2P and international law (Ibid.). Therefore it is arguable that UN-sponsored multilateral action actually provides more protection
to the to international community than threats the entire global community, illegal hoc of interventions as as the ad nature the modernsuch system Yugoslavia. means that all threats are transnational. This fundamental change must be codified in international and Another argument advocatinglaw the UN’s monitored by the UN to ensure adoption of R2P refers again to the accountability. acquiescence of notion of a new, The globalised world order. the to order illegal The international nature of thecommunity new global ad hocthat interventions such as in means modern threats to NATO security Yugoslavia would be highly and detrimental are deeply interconnected, Annan to peace and security, as and the level of (Ibid.) provides ‘terrorism’ global state-exploitation cannot be monitored. pandemics as possible outcomes of the It is acknowledged international community’s that failure the to implementation of R2P would intervene in war-torn nations. Implicit be in challenging; however alternative, this argument is thethereality that forcing the UN become bystander sovereignty is notolonger ablea to protect to human rights abuses, is far and worse. As a state from security threats, that Annan (2005: 65) notes, “future no nation can deal with these threats generations will recent never global forgive threat us if we on its own. The of continue this path.” Influenza down A (H1N1) provides veracity to this contention, as although the virus originated in acontrary developing it In conclusion, to thecountry, claims of penetrated security of the realists, R2P the would provide theworld’s solely most powerful weeks (Al accepted legalnations meanswithin for intervention, Jazeera 2009). R2P recognises need and would therefore limit the the ability of for international cooperationof onany human states to utilise intervention sort rights, andtheir provides an accountable to cloak interests. A legitimate strategy of for humanitarian the implementation of a system intervention policy of the intervention. through practical proposals of R2P is ultimately the essential ingredient for an effective international rule of law. Wheeler (2001: 688) states that “it is an Both those who are committing human inherently flawed legal order that rights abuses, and those who requires law-abiding states to intervene break the to will be held law halt in the orderatrocities to protect minimum accountable to the and objective, standards of humanity”, Annan democratically measures (1999: 49) argues adopted that the UNSC must which will challenge. provide a There serious rise to the mustand be legitimate intervention. This consensus program amongst ofthe great powers commitment as critical to that the nature is of sovereignty must be international security as it to is re-evaluated peace and and re-interpreted to the permit protection of individuals whose legally humanitarian intervention. basic humantherights are being This involves acceptance that compromised. humanitarian crisis constitute security
1,International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, The Responsibility To Protect (2001) 2. Ibid.
5. Ibid
Köchler, H. (1995) ‘The Principles of International Law and Human Rights’ in Democracy and the International Rule of Law: Propositions for an Alternative World Order. Selected Papers Published on the Occasion of the Fiftieth Anniversary of the United Nations, Vienna- New York, Springer, pp.63-84
6. Rodrik, D, ‘Feasible globalisations’, in Weinstein, M. (ed.), Globalisation: What’s New? (2005)177, 194
Nef, J.(2002) ‘Globalisation and the crisis of sovereignty, legitimacy, and democracy’, in Latin American Perspectives, 29(6), pp.59-69
Al Jazeera. (2009) ‘H1N1: At A Glance’, accessed May 18th 2009, <http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/20 09>
Orend, B. (2002) ‘Michael Walzer on Resorting to Force’, Canadian Journal of Political Science, 33(3), pp.523-547
3. Bull, H. The Anarchical Society (1977) 4. Makinda, S.M, ‘The Global Covenant as an Evolving Institution’ (2002)6 The International Journal of Human Rights 113, 115
Anderson, K. & Hurrell, A. (2000) Hedley Bull on International Society, London, Macmillan Annan, (2005) ‘In Larger Freedom: Decision Time at the UN’, in Foreign Affairs, 84(3), pp.63-74 Annan, K. (1999) ‘Two concepts of sovereignty’, in The Economist, 352(8137), p.49 Annan, K. (1999) ‘UN press release’, The United Nations, accessed 16 May 2009, <www.un.org/News/Press/docs/1999> Glennon, M.J. (1999) ‘The New Intervention: The Search for a Just International Law’, in Foreign Affairs,78(3), pp.2-7 ICISS. (2004) Summary of ‘The Responsibility to Protect’, accessed 11 May 2009, <http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org/index.p hp/pages/summaryofR2PCS> Köchler, H. (2001), Humanitarian Intervention in the Context of Modern Power Politics: Is the Revival of the Doctrine of the “Just War” Compatible with the International Rule of Law?, Vienna-New York, International Progress Organisation Köchler, H. (2003) The Dialects of Power and Law: the United Nations and the ‘New World Order’, International Progress Organisation, accessed 9th May 2009, <http://www.i-po.org/Koechler-lecture-Reykjavik-summary.pdf>
Robertson, G. (2008) Crimes Against Humanity, Penguin Books, Camberwell UN. (2006) Charter of the United Nations and Statute of the International Court of Justice, New York, Department of Public Information Vincent, R.J. (1974) Non-intervention and International Order, Princeton, Princeton University Press Wheeler, N. (2005) ‘Strangers in Peril’, in The World Today, 61(8/9), pp.15-17 Wheeler, N. (2001) ‘International law and organisation’, in International Affairs, 77(3), pp.687-688
Intellectual Property Law: The Indigenous Experience Ashley Walker
Intellectual property is referred to by IP Australia as the property of the mind and intellect1. This canvasses a range of areas such as trademarks, copyright, designs and patents. Intellectual property is usually considered in the business environment, in the form of proprietary knowledge. However, this branch of law has come into contact with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders across Australia through the mediums of art and academic research. This intersection is now referred to as Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property rights (ICIP). Why are Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights important to Indigenous people? ICIP rights are important because they are aim to prevent of exploitation the intellectual property of Indigenous people, thus protecting both the cultural and economic rights of Indigenous peoples with regards to their artwork and cultural knowledge. There is a close connection between indigenous knowledge, land and law, meaning that the role of custodians as guardians of that knowledge is of the utmost importance. Indigenous intellectual Property is described by solicitor Terri Janke to be Indigenous people’s rights to their heritage, which consists of “the intangible and tangible aspects of the whole body of cultural practices, resources and knowledge systems developed, nurtured and refined by Indigenous people and passed on by them as part of expressing their cultural identity”1. It is easy to see, from the comprehensive nature of this definition, why an infringement on ICIP rights would have culturally dire effects for the Indigenous person or persons involved.
Accompanying the cultural significance of ICIP, is the economic aspect of intellectual property rights. Although this aspect is more significant with contemporary, rather than traditional indigenous art, it is important nonetheless. It was once claimed by deceased former Aboriginal Arts Board Chairman and artist, Lin Onus, that Aboriginal artists accounted for half of all Australian artists. In 2001, this claim prompted a Macquarie University economist by the name of David Langsam to do some research into the subject. Although accurate figures are difficult to obtain, it was found that while only accounting for 1.7% of the Australian population, Aboriginal people make up 25-50% of all working visual artists1. In addition to this, the Report of Contemporary Visual Arts and Craft Inquiry of 2002 estimated the contribution to the economy of the Indigenous art market to be $200 million per annum. It is very likely that this figure is now higher. The vast nature of these figures illuminates how important it is to protect Indigenous Cultural and Intellectual Property rights.
One Dollar note: The Reserve Bank of Australia used a copy of a bark painting by artist David Malangi without authorisation or acknowledgement. The bank wrongly assumed that Mr Malangi was long dead.
What is the history of Indigenous Intellectual Property Rights? Throughout the history of Australia, Indigenous people have been exploited for financial gain. There have been numerous accounts of improper use of Aboriginal artwork such as:
In addition to obvious artistic exploitation, the traditional knowledge of many Indigenous has also been subject to exploitation at the hands of academic research. Author Anita Heiss highlights that “over the last two hundred years, Indigenous Australians have provided copious amounts of information for PhDs, research theses, governmental reviews etc, but few have ever benefited in terms of financial or academic gain”1. As noted above, the protection of Indigenous Intellectual property, particularly in relation to traditional artwork, is necessary in order to avoid the subversion of the oldest living culture in the world.
Western Desert Underpants: the unique style of western desert artists was used in designing underpants with an “aboriginal look”. The symbols employed within this unique design were used by the original artist to represent scared dreaming sites and ancestral journeys. Bulun Bulun T-Shirt: John Bulun Bulun attained permission from a senior traditional owner to use a dreaming design in his painting. The design was printed onto a t shirt produced by R & T Textiles. Ten Dollar Note: the bicentennial ten dollar note featured an artwork by Mr Yumbulul of “the Morning Star Pole”. The Morning Star ceremeny is very important and the artist believed that the importance of the pole had been reduced by its inappropriate use.
Has there been an increase in the recognition of Indigenous Intellectual property rights? It appears, through increased awareness, that there has been an increase in the level of the recognition that Indigenous Intellectual property rights have received. This recognition has been received through both the common law and the legislature. There were proposed reforms to the Copyright Act through the tabling of the Indigenous Communal Moral Rights Bill 2003. Janke and co. interpreted it to establish “the right of a community member to bring an action for infringement or moral rights in a copyright work or film that embodies communally owned material such as designs themes and dances”. Despite this propositions attempt to recognise communal copyrights, it essentially relies on a voluntary agreement between author and community. It is this voluntary element that leaves the proposition somewhat impotent to protect communal copyright. There has been much discussion about this Bill, however, no decisive action has been taken by Parliament. Due to the lack of action by the legislative branch of government, it has been left to the judiciary to form some sort of protection for Indigenous people. The landmark case in recognising the intellectual property rights is Milpurrurru & Others v Indofurn Pty Ltd and Others (1994) 130 ALR 659. It was found that carpets produced in Vietnam and sold by a Perth based company were identical in form and colour to traditional artwork created by Aboriginal artists. The Aboriginal artists succeeded in bringing an action under s37 of the Copyright Act1. However, what was significant about this case was that Von Doussa J acknowledged the connection between aboriginal art,
land and culture by awarding damages for the ‘cultural harm’ the artists had suffered within their own communities. Another development in the recognition of Indigenous Intellectual Property rights is found Bulun Bulun v R&T Textiles [1998] 157 193. In this case it was found that the Ganalbingu clan of North-Central Arnhem Land were owed a fiduciary duty by the artist Bulun Bulun as he was using designs that traditionally belonged to the clan. Although the court did not recognise communal copyrights in the artwork, it was noted that if Bulun Bulun did not take action against a copyright infringement, the community would be able to do so. This approach is grounded in equity which establishes a constructive trust on the legal owner of the copyright with the clan being beneficiaries. Although this approach does not establish any copyright rights for the clan, it at least provides a method to seek remedy should there be an infringement. What incompatibilities still exist between Intellectual Property Law and Indigenous peoples? Despite the developments in recent time, there are a number of reasons why Intellectual property law falls short of protecting the rights of Indigenous peoples. These include: Oral tradition: the absence of a written language has meant that Indigenous intellectual property in the form of cultural knowledge is passed down the generations through an oral tradition. This presents a problem as the Copyright Act only deals with work that is reduced to a material form. In addition offering no protection for oral stories, it is often a person such as an anthropologist or academic who holds the copyright, simply for recording traditional knowledge.
Communal Ownership: enshrined in s35 of the Copyright Act is the notion of individual property that was inherited from English common law. This directly contrasts with the Indigenous concept of communal ownership experienced in communities throughout Australia. It is this contrast which makes it difficult for many Aboriginal artists to claim copyright as it would be claiming something that in fact belongs to the community. Time: the copyrights Act also provides protection for 50 years after an author dies. This limitation renders protection somewhat useless considering that the traditional knowledge behind much Aboriginal art has been passed on for over forty thousand years. Conclusion Aside from constrained acknowledgement in the courts, Intellectual property law appears to fall short in its recognition of Indigenous intellectual property rights.
This shortcoming is derived from the communal ownership and oral tradition experienced within Indigenous communities. Much like native Title, indigenous communities are disadvantaged by exhibiting communal title to property, real or intellectual. It also seems that the only way to overcome this disadvantage is to stagnate oral stories behind artwork by reducing them to a written form. The absence of a written language in Aboriginal culture makes artwork and oral stories of the utmost importance in the survival of Aboriginal tradition. It is for this reason that protection of the intellectual property of the artists and storytellers is paramount for Indigenous communities. 1
http://www.ipaustralia.gov.au/ip/introducti on.shtml 1 blackwords 1 Langsam, D. 1996 â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Aboriginal Art: Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Hidden Resourceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Art Monthly no 87 pages 4-5 1 blackwords 1 State section