Pub Date : 2018-11-27DOI: 10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART811
A. Keay, T. Iqbal
This article documents a study on the sustainability efforts of the largest UK general retail companies that are listed on the FTSE 100. Along with offering empirical insights into the position taken by large listed UK retail companies on sustainability issues, the study also provides an interpretive analysis of the data examined in order to gain greater understanding of what the companies are communicating and the attitude that they are taking in relation to sustainability. Based on an extended content analysis of each corporation’s annual and sustainability reports, the study was intended to be a pilot study, that is, a small study conducted in advance of a planned larger and broader project that would examine more companies and in different industrial sectors. It would specifically test aspects of the research design and allow necessary adjustment before final commitment to the design for the larger project. Nonetheless, the results of the study documented here are sufficiently substantive to constitute a stand-alone study and permit us to ascertain the state of sustainability in retail companies. Our findings demonstrate that companies are taking substantive actions to integrate sustainability into their business operations and are willing to communicate these actions to their stakeholders. They are actively engaged in re-designing their strategies in order to address factors that are at the root of unsustainability.
{"title":"Sustainability in Large UK Listed Retail Companies: A Sectoral Analysis","authors":"A. Keay, T. Iqbal","doi":"10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART811","url":null,"abstract":"This article documents a study on the sustainability efforts of the largest UK general retail companies that are listed on the FTSE 100. Along with offering empirical insights into the position taken by large listed UK retail companies on sustainability issues, the study also provides an interpretive analysis of the data examined in order to gain greater understanding of what the companies are communicating and the attitude that they are taking in relation to sustainability. Based on an extended content analysis of each corporation’s annual and sustainability reports, the study was intended to be a pilot study, that is, a small study conducted in advance of a planned larger and broader project that would examine more companies and in different industrial sectors. It would specifically test aspects of the research design and allow necessary adjustment before final commitment to the design for the larger project. Nonetheless, the results of the study documented here are sufficiently substantive to constitute a stand-alone study and permit us to ascertain the state of sustainability in retail companies. Our findings demonstrate that companies are taking substantive actions to integrate sustainability into their business operations and are willing to communicate these actions to their stakeholders. They are actively engaged in re-designing their strategies in order to address factors that are at the root of unsustainability.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45073309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-11-26DOI: 10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART809
C. Villiers
Global supply chains present major challenges for company law and corporate governance, nationally and internationally. Their increasing relevance in international business has led to a serious regulatory gap, especially in light of corporate involvement in human rights abuses, labour exploitation and environmental degradation. Alongside a number of international norms such as those expressed in the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, there has been a proliferation in domestic and international law of disclosure provisions, mandating greater transparency by companies in response to the problems caused by global supply chains. In this paper, however, it is argued that disclosure is not a sufficient answer to such problems. It is suggested that we should approach the problems with a different conceptualisation of supply chain structures. If we regard them as ‘global poverty chains’, such a perspective brings about a moral response — a recognition that we have a collective responsibility to eradicate the poverty and suffering caused by the chains. This response necessitates that transparency requirements be altered and accompanied by a regulatory framework that empowers victims of poverty to be able to escape it.
全球供应链对国内和国际的公司法和公司治理提出了重大挑战。它们在国际商业中日益重要，造成了严重的管理空白，特别是考虑到企业参与侵犯人权、剥削劳工和环境恶化。除了《联合国商业与人权指导原则》(UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights)等一系列国际规范之外，国内和国际法律中披露条款的数量也在激增，要求企业在应对全球供应链引发的问题时提高透明度。然而，本文认为信息披露不足以解决这些问题。有人建议，我们应该用不同的供应链结构概念来解决问题。如果我们把它们视为“全球贫困链”，这种观点会带来道德上的回应——认识到我们有集体责任消除贫困和由这些链条造成的痛苦。这一反应需要改变透明度要求，并伴随着一个使贫困受害者能够摆脱贫困的管理框架。
{"title":"Collective Responsibility and the Limits of Disclosure in Regulating Global Supply Chains","authors":"C. Villiers","doi":"10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART809","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2018VOL23NO0ART809","url":null,"abstract":"Global supply chains present major challenges for company law and corporate governance, nationally and internationally. Their increasing relevance in international business has led to a serious regulatory gap, especially in light of corporate involvement in human rights abuses, labour exploitation and environmental degradation. Alongside a number of international norms such as those expressed in the UN’s Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, there has been a proliferation in domestic and international law of disclosure provisions, mandating greater transparency by companies in response to the problems caused by global supply chains. In this paper, however, it is argued that disclosure is not a sufficient answer to such problems. It is suggested that we should approach the problems with a different conceptualisation of supply chain structures. If we regard them as ‘global poverty chains’, such a perspective brings about a moral response — a recognition that we have a collective responsibility to eradicate the poverty and suffering caused by the chains. This response necessitates that transparency requirements be altered and accompanied by a regulatory framework that empowers victims of poverty to be able to escape it.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-11-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47929987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-10-27DOI: 10.33107/ubt-ic.2018.256
Miah Gibson
Forced migration has been the subject of intense debate in the past 50 years and has spawned a wealth of literature as a result. Few commentators, however, have considered the value or viability of an international agreement on refugee resettlement that would include mandatory resettlement quotas. This article puts forward a proposal for an International Convention on Refugee Resettlement. Such a convention would, I argue, help to address some of the current limitations of resettlement as a solution to the increase in refugee numbers. Appendix 1 contains the suggested wording for such a convention, drawing on several international human rights treaties (particularly the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) as well as resettlement principles and policies set out by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Appendix 2 provides explanatory notes for the draft wording. It is hoped that such wording might be of use to those campaigning for the development of a binding, international agreement on resettlement.
{"title":"An International Convention on Refugee Resettlement","authors":"Miah Gibson","doi":"10.33107/ubt-ic.2018.256","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.33107/ubt-ic.2018.256","url":null,"abstract":"Forced migration has been the subject of intense debate in the past 50 years and has spawned a wealth of literature as a result. Few commentators, however, have considered the value or viability of an international agreement on refugee resettlement that would include mandatory resettlement quotas. This article puts forward a proposal for an International Convention on Refugee Resettlement. Such a convention would, I argue, help to address some of the current limitations of resettlement as a solution to the increase in refugee numbers. Appendix 1 contains the suggested wording for such a convention, drawing on several international human rights treaties (particularly the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees) as well as resettlement principles and policies set out by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Appendix 2 provides explanatory notes for the draft wording. It is hoped that such wording might be of use to those campaigning for the development of a binding, international agreement on resettlement.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-10-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46248584","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART718
P. Rajapakse
This article examines the Australian law determining liability of manufacturers and retailers for injury or death allegedly caused by food and drink products which were spoiled, contaminated, or otherwise in a deleterious condition. Product liability and the issue of negligence associated with consumption of foods or drinks deemed as contaminated form the key points of discussion in this article. The liability of manufacturers, processors, wholesalers and retailers are explored with reference to elements of negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, misrepresentation, and strict liability in tort. Australian case law as it pertains to duty of care, breach, causation, and damage has been established and there are consumer protection and product safety laws at both state and federal levels that provide for those affected by contamination/harmful condition of food and drink products. This article explores examples of negligence as the basis of manufacturer’s, processor’s and retailer’s liability in tort (common law and Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)) as well as liability under the federal and state legislation such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the Food Act 2006 (Qld) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code). The various defences of contributory negligence of consumers, and obvious risk of injury suffered, as well as those established by manufacturers/retailers in the relevant proceedings are used to show the complexity of this issue. The article concludes with recommendations for consumers and businesses to avoid the risk of food contamination and to maintain food safety.
{"title":"Contamination of Food and Drinks: Product Liability in Australia","authors":"P. Rajapakse","doi":"10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART718","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART718","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines the Australian law determining liability of manufacturers and retailers for injury or death allegedly caused by food and drink products which were spoiled, contaminated, or otherwise in a deleterious condition. Product liability and the issue of negligence associated with consumption of foods or drinks deemed as contaminated form the key points of discussion in this article. The liability of manufacturers, processors, wholesalers and retailers are explored with reference to elements of negligence, breach of express or implied warranty, misrepresentation, and strict liability in tort. Australian case law as it pertains to duty of care, breach, causation, and damage has been established and there are consumer protection and product safety laws at both state and federal levels that provide for those affected by contamination/harmful condition of food and drink products. This article explores examples of negligence as the basis of manufacturer’s, processor’s and retailer’s liability in tort (common law and Civil Liability Act 2003 (Qld)) as well as liability under the federal and state legislation such as the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth), the Food Act 2006 (Qld) and the Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code). The various defences of contributory negligence of consumers, and obvious risk of injury suffered, as well as those established by manufacturers/retailers in the relevant proceedings are used to show the complexity of this issue. The article concludes with recommendations for consumers and businesses to avoid the risk of food contamination and to maintain food safety.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45812934","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART722
Kayleen Manwaring
A new model, or ‘third wave’, of computing is emerging, based on the widespread use of processors with data handling and communications capabilities embedded in a variety of objects and environments that were not previously computerised. Various terms have been used to describe this third wave, including ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘pervasive’ computing, ‘ambient intelligence’, the ‘Internet of Things’ and ‘eObjects’. With the socio-technical change brought about by this third wave comes the possibility of a disconnection between the law and the new things, activities, and relationships enabled by this new model of computing. This disconnection may lead to legal problems of uncertainty, under- or over-inclusiveness of conduct in existing law, obsolescence, or the complete absence of laws regulating new behaviour. Early and rigorous identification and categorisation of legal problems is crucial for emerging technologies, to assist in avoiding two problems: the first being the stifling of beneficial innovation by over-regulation, the second the cementing of socially undesirable outcomes when vested interests are left too long unchecked. Although the technologies in the third wave are diverse, common attributes can be identified, and from examination of these attributes significant innovations are revealed. This paper examines these innovations to assist in identifying legal problems arising from the third wave.While privacy and data protection issues have unsurprisingly dominated the scholarly and popular literature on the third wave, this article shows that legal problems extend well beyond these concerns. It uncovers a diversity of legal problems in areas including product liability, anti-hacking legislation, consumer protection, contract, and intellectual property. It does not attempt to uncover all legal problems that might arise, but instead provides a roadmap to further research in this area.
{"title":"Kickstarting Reconnection: An Approach to Legal Problems Arising from Emerging Technologies","authors":"Kayleen Manwaring","doi":"10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART722","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART722","url":null,"abstract":"A new model, or ‘third wave’, of computing is emerging, based on the widespread use of processors with data handling and communications capabilities embedded in a variety of objects and environments that were not previously computerised. Various terms have been used to describe this third wave, including ‘ubiquitous’ and ‘pervasive’ computing, ‘ambient intelligence’, the ‘Internet of Things’ and ‘eObjects’. With the socio-technical change brought about by this third wave comes the possibility of a disconnection between the law and the new things, activities, and relationships enabled by this new model of computing. This disconnection may lead to legal problems of uncertainty, under- or over-inclusiveness of conduct in existing law, obsolescence, or the complete absence of laws regulating new behaviour. Early and rigorous identification and categorisation of legal problems is crucial for emerging technologies, to assist in avoiding two problems: the first being the stifling of beneficial innovation by over-regulation, the second the cementing of socially undesirable outcomes when vested interests are left too long unchecked. Although the technologies in the third wave are diverse, common attributes can be identified, and from examination of these attributes significant innovations are revealed. This paper examines these innovations to assist in identifying legal problems arising from the third wave.While privacy and data protection issues have unsurprisingly dominated the scholarly and popular literature on the third wave, this article shows that legal problems extend well beyond these concerns. It uncovers a diversity of legal problems in areas including product liability, anti-hacking legislation, consumer protection, contract, and intellectual property. It does not attempt to uncover all legal problems that might arise, but instead provides a roadmap to further research in this area.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48248388","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART716
M. Storey
This article considers the issue of the requirements of establishing the Australian Commonwealth government’s Indigenous preferential procurement program, the ‘indigenous business exemption’ as a special measure under Article 1.4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It does this by, considering jurisprudence regarding special measures and other affirmative action programs from Australia and other jurisdictions, concluding that it is necessary to establish some evidential base to justify the establishment (in Australian law) and ongoing operation of such measures (in international law). The article then examines the effectiveness of procurement policies aimed at achieving secondary social objectives in addition to the primary procurement of government goods and services.
{"title":"The Australian indigenous business exemption as a 'special measure': Questions of effectiveness","authors":"M. Storey","doi":"10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART716","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART716","url":null,"abstract":"This article considers the issue of the requirements of establishing the Australian Commonwealth government’s Indigenous preferential procurement program, the ‘indigenous business exemption’ as a special measure under Article 1.4 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. It does this by, considering jurisprudence regarding special measures and other affirmative action programs from Australia and other jurisdictions, concluding that it is necessary to establish some evidential base to justify the establishment (in Australian law) and ongoing operation of such measures (in international law). The article then examines the effectiveness of procurement policies aimed at achieving secondary social objectives in addition to the primary procurement of government goods and services.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41529667","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART725
C. Tao
Since China’s WTO accession it has been involved in four WTO disputes relating to financial services as the respondent, while other WTO Members remain concerned that China continues to limit access to foreign financial services and service suppliers. As other WTO Members’ concerns could be either realistic or overcritical, this paper aims to explore whether there are any further inconsistencies in China’s GATS obligations and financial regualtions. After reviewing all WTO Members’ concerns on China’s financial services, this paper examines the consistency of four frequently and constantly raised issues with the GATS agreement and China’s WTO obligations. As a result, this paper finds that two regulations are inconsistent with Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS: the 20 per cent cap on shareholding in a Chinese-funded bank by a single foreign financial institution, and the 1 million RMB minimum for foreign banks’ local currency business. Further, China still has not complied with its transparency obligations under the Accession Protocol and Working Party Report. These findings are significant for the Chinese government as well as other WTO Members who already have or want to have close trade relations with China in financial services.
{"title":"China’s Financial Regulations: Are Other WTO Members’ Concerns Realistic or Overcritical?","authors":"C. Tao","doi":"10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2017VOL22NO1ART725","url":null,"abstract":"Since China’s WTO accession it has been involved in four WTO disputes relating to financial services as the respondent, while other WTO Members remain concerned that China continues to limit access to foreign financial services and service suppliers. As other WTO Members’ concerns could be either realistic or overcritical, this paper aims to explore whether there are any further inconsistencies in China’s GATS obligations and financial regualtions. After reviewing all WTO Members’ concerns on China’s financial services, this paper examines the consistency of four frequently and constantly raised issues with the GATS agreement and China’s WTO obligations. As a result, this paper finds that two regulations are inconsistent with Article XVI and Article XVII of the GATS: the 20 per cent cap on shareholding in a Chinese-funded bank by a single foreign financial institution, and the 1 million RMB minimum for foreign banks’ local currency business. Further, China still has not complied with its transparency obligations under the Accession Protocol and Working Party Report. These findings are significant for the Chinese government as well as other WTO Members who already have or want to have close trade relations with China in financial services.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44696337","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art721
R. Solomon
Interpreting human rights statutes through their objectives encourages their description as empowering instruments with their hortatory language emphasising the potential of each instrument to protect and promote rights. This article examines Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) through a different lens and argues that a focus on their limitations and derogations offers a better understanding of the nature and extent of the human rights protection that each purports to provide. These limitations are no mere peripheral encumbrances and help shape the rights protecting functions of each statute. This article adopts a social constructivist approach to explain how, as socially constructed instruments, the operation of the limitations reveals an ambivalent role for each statute. The design and functionality of each statute, with their self-limiting provisions, means that each acts to sustain as well as challenge the existing power relationships and social arrangements.
{"title":"The Social Construction of Human Rights Legislation: Interpreting Victoria’s Statutes through their Limitations","authors":"R. Solomon","doi":"10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art721","url":null,"abstract":"Interpreting human rights statutes through their objectives encourages their description as empowering instruments with their hortatory language emphasising the potential of each instrument to protect and promote rights. This article examines Victoria’s Equal Opportunity Act 2010 (Vic) and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) through a different lens and argues that a focus on their limitations and derogations offers a better understanding of the nature and extent of the human rights protection that each purports to provide. These limitations are no mere peripheral encumbrances and help shape the rights protecting functions of each statute. This article adopts a social constructivist approach to explain how, as socially constructed instruments, the operation of the limitations reveals an ambivalent role for each statute. The design and functionality of each statute, with their self-limiting provisions, means that each acts to sustain as well as challenge the existing power relationships and social arrangements.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46083478","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART727
F. Cantatore, Jane Johnston
This article examines how moral rights are treated in Australian publishing contracts, and whether this approach is consistent with the expectations of authors, journalists and academics. Although, in theory, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned in Australia, the apparent wide scope for exceptions raises questions of whether there is any real protection afforded to creators under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), notably in circumstances that relate to pressure on creators to accept contractual terms in order to get published. Additionally, Australian case law reflects some uncertainty about the traditionally accepted non-economic nature of moral rights. The article examines recent case law in this field, found in Meskenas, Perez and Corby, and considers the literature associated with development of moral rights in Australia. It then presents the findings of a two-part study of moral rights in Australia; first through the results of interviews with 176 Australian authors, journalists and academics, followed by an analysis of 20 publishing contracts. It concludes that — in some, but not all, instances — a combination of the exceptions allowed under the Act and practical exigencies have diluted the unique character of authors’ moral rights and have created an environment of uncertainty.
{"title":"Moral Rights: Exploring the Myths, Meanings and Misunderstandings in Australian Copyright Law","authors":"F. Cantatore, Jane Johnston","doi":"10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART727","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/DLR2016VOL21NO1ART727","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines how moral rights are treated in Australian publishing contracts, and whether this approach is consistent with the expectations of authors, journalists and academics. Although, in theory, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned in Australia, the apparent wide scope for exceptions raises questions of whether there is any real protection afforded to creators under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), notably in circumstances that relate to pressure on creators to accept contractual terms in order to get published. Additionally, Australian case law reflects some uncertainty about the traditionally accepted non-economic nature of moral rights. The article examines recent case law in this field, found in Meskenas, Perez and Corby, and considers the literature associated with development of moral rights in Australia. It then presents the findings of a two-part study of moral rights in Australia; first through the results of interviews with 176 Australian authors, journalists and academics, followed by an analysis of 20 publishing contracts. It concludes that — in some, but not all, instances — a combination of the exceptions allowed under the Act and practical exigencies have diluted the unique character of authors’ moral rights and have created an environment of uncertainty.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46660844","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2018-02-23DOI: 10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726
Glen Anderson
Since at least the seventeenth century, courts of equity have upheld the assignment of future property for valuable consideration. Despite this long lineage, however, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of how these principles might interact with the Torrens system. The present article addresses this deficiency. Generally, it argues that there are no reasons why principles of future property cannot be fully subsumed within the Torrens system.
{"title":"Future Property and the Torrens System","authors":"Glen Anderson","doi":"10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21153/dlr2017vol22no1art726","url":null,"abstract":"Since at least the seventeenth century, courts of equity have upheld the assignment of future property for valuable consideration. Despite this long lineage, however, there has been almost no scholarly analysis of how these principles might interact with the Torrens system. The present article addresses this deficiency. Generally, it argues that there are no reasons why principles of future property cannot be fully subsumed within the Torrens system.","PeriodicalId":43081,"journal":{"name":"Deakin Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2018-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44518105","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：