Pub Date : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1891609
S. Dehm, Jordana Silverstein
ABSTRACT In 2015, the Australian government commissioned a telemovie as part of its strategic communication campaign to deter would-be asylum seekers from travelling to Australia unauthorised by boat. In this article we explore this film as one instance of state practices that seek to control migration at their borders, and a form of state messaging which uses gendered story-telling techniques and characterisations to do so. Officially termed ‘public information campaigns’ (PICs) by states or ‘information strategies’ by international organisations such as the UNHCR, the use of such practices has increased in volume, frequency and prominence in recent years. While there has been some academic attention to PICs, to date, the gendered dimensions of these campaigns have remained largely unexamined. In this article, we argue that a feminist analysis of PICs is critical to understanding both how state borders ‘gender’ refugee subjectivities as well as international law’s authorisation of the violence of state borders more generally. By allocating blame and responsibility on individual refugees and their gendered choices, rather than on state actions and state violence, the film reveals how the institution and policing of state borders simultaneously rest upon gendered imaginaries of refugee responsibilisation and the invisibilisation of state responsibility.
{"title":"Film as an anti-asylum technique: international law, borders and the gendering of refugee subjectivities","authors":"S. Dehm, Jordana Silverstein","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1891609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891609","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2015, the Australian government commissioned a telemovie as part of its strategic communication campaign to deter would-be asylum seekers from travelling to Australia unauthorised by boat. In this article we explore this film as one instance of state practices that seek to control migration at their borders, and a form of state messaging which uses gendered story-telling techniques and characterisations to do so. Officially termed ‘public information campaigns’ (PICs) by states or ‘information strategies’ by international organisations such as the UNHCR, the use of such practices has increased in volume, frequency and prominence in recent years. While there has been some academic attention to PICs, to date, the gendered dimensions of these campaigns have remained largely unexamined. In this article, we argue that a feminist analysis of PICs is critical to understanding both how state borders ‘gender’ refugee subjectivities as well as international law’s authorisation of the violence of state borders more generally. By allocating blame and responsibility on individual refugees and their gendered choices, rather than on state actions and state violence, the film reveals how the institution and policing of state borders simultaneously rest upon gendered imaginaries of refugee responsibilisation and the invisibilisation of state responsibility.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"425 - 450"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891609","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48089138","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1869880
Valeria Coscini
ABSTRACT Relationship recognition schemes regulate the way that relationships are entered, maintained, and dissolved. The jurisprudence on this topic includes substantive cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and an advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Foucault demonstrates that sexuality and relationships are socially constructed concepts that are subject to constant reproduction through various discourses. In the substantive jurisprudence on relationship recognition schemes, the dominant discourse has been one that focuses on relationship structures like marriage and civil partnerships rather than the relationship rights of all people, which has led to discriminatory outcomes. By contrast, incorporating a foundational discourse of relationships as a form of self-expression shifts the focus away from relationship structures to the applicants and their rights, helping to ensure equality and non-discrimination for all relationships while respecting the diversity of relationships.
{"title":"Relationships as a form of self-expression in regional and international human rights jurisprudence","authors":"Valeria Coscini","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1869880","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1869880","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Relationship recognition schemes regulate the way that relationships are entered, maintained, and dissolved. The jurisprudence on this topic includes substantive cases decided by the European Court of Human Rights and the United Nations Human Rights Committee, and an advisory opinion of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Foucault demonstrates that sexuality and relationships are socially constructed concepts that are subject to constant reproduction through various discourses. In the substantive jurisprudence on relationship recognition schemes, the dominant discourse has been one that focuses on relationship structures like marriage and civil partnerships rather than the relationship rights of all people, which has led to discriminatory outcomes. By contrast, incorporating a foundational discourse of relationships as a form of self-expression shifts the focus away from relationship structures to the applicants and their rights, helping to ensure equality and non-discrimination for all relationships while respecting the diversity of relationships.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"351 - 373"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1869880","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45290609","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1933810
T. Paige, J. Stagg
ABSTRACT In 2015, the Australian Defence Force, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 15, implemented for the first time concrete measures to give effect to the Australian Government’s commitment to the prevention of conflict-based sexual violence articulated in the ‘National Action Plan on Women Peace and Security 2012–2018’. This short article analyses through a queer/feminist critique the National Action Plan and associated policy documents and then the operational implementation documents from Talisman Sabre 15 to assess how the ADF is going about the job of conflict-based sexual violence prevention. We conclude that while the practical implementation of conflict-based sexual violence prevention measures are common sense and reasonable, the optics and language used to implement these measures undermine these efforts and render them mostly ineffective.
{"title":"Well-intentioned but missing the point: the Australian Defence Force approach to addressing conflict-based sexual violence","authors":"T. Paige, J. Stagg","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1933810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1933810","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2015, the Australian Defence Force, during Exercise Talisman Sabre 15, implemented for the first time concrete measures to give effect to the Australian Government’s commitment to the prevention of conflict-based sexual violence articulated in the ‘National Action Plan on Women Peace and Security 2012–2018’. This short article analyses through a queer/feminist critique the National Action Plan and associated policy documents and then the operational implementation documents from Talisman Sabre 15 to assess how the ADF is going about the job of conflict-based sexual violence prevention. We conclude that while the practical implementation of conflict-based sexual violence prevention measures are common sense and reasonable, the optics and language used to implement these measures undermine these efforts and render them mostly ineffective.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"468 - 492"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1933810","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41833414","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608
G. Simm
ABSTRACT In 2020 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) found for the first time that a state had breached its obligations to prevent discrimination against women in the case of a lesbian couple subjected to a homophobic hate crime. No international human rights treaty specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The UN treaty bodies are developing a jurisprudence on the basis of such claims, with claimants sometimes forced to argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of ‘other status’. This article situates the CEDAW Committee's Views in ON and DP v Russian Federation in the context of attempts to queer international law, and international human rights law in particular. It analyses the costs and benefits of three strategies aimed at queering international human rights law: equality/universalism, special rights/a SOGIESC treaty; and queering CEDAW. The article aims to evaluate the significance of the first decision finding for the complainants on the basis of intersectional sexuality discrimination under CEDAW and to assess whether this amounts to queering CEDAW.
{"title":"Queering CEDAW? Sexual orientation, gender identity and expression and sex characteristics (SOGIESC) in international human rights law","authors":"G. Simm","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In 2020 the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW Committee) found for the first time that a state had breached its obligations to prevent discrimination against women in the case of a lesbian couple subjected to a homophobic hate crime. No international human rights treaty specifically prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or sex characteristics (SOGIESC). The UN treaty bodies are developing a jurisprudence on the basis of such claims, with claimants sometimes forced to argue that they were discriminated against on the basis of ‘other status’. This article situates the CEDAW Committee's Views in ON and DP v Russian Federation in the context of attempts to queer international law, and international human rights law in particular. It analyses the costs and benefits of three strategies aimed at queering international human rights law: equality/universalism, special rights/a SOGIESC treaty; and queering CEDAW. The article aims to evaluate the significance of the first decision finding for the complainants on the basis of intersectional sexuality discrimination under CEDAW and to assess whether this amounts to queering CEDAW.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"374 - 400"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1891608","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41557714","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1933793
G. Simm, Tamsin Phillipa Paige
This special issue brings together seven articles addressing international law and international relations through queer/feminist lenses. It originates from the inaugural workshop of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Interest Group on Gender and Sexuality in International Law held in February 2020 at Deakin Law School. The special issue explores how queer and feminist frameworks dislocate normative approaches to, and propose alternate conceptions of, issues at the heart of the international. The special issue aims to continue the dialogue between feminist and queer scholars (and queer feminist scholars) that started in earnest with the 2017 publication of Dianne Otto’s edited collection Queering International Law. It takes up Gina Heathcote’s call in her 2019 book, Feminist Dialogues on International Law: successes, tensions, futures, for feminist (international) legal scholars to engage fully with queer (international) legal scholars, as queer scholars already embrace feminist scholarship. By publishing both queer and feminist engagements on key international concerns, we hope to deepen and expand intersectional and inclusive queer/feminist scholarship in Australia and internationally. Further, the special issue applies the insights of socio-legal, interdisciplinary research to the international. Its theme is built on socio-legal approaches that bring the human back into law and analyse how binary distinctions – such as masculine/feminine, straight/queer and cisgender/transgender – structure society and law. These insights depend on critical and theoretical developments in feminist and queer theory that the authors apply to aspects of international law and international relations. It includes contributions from authors trained as international lawyers (Coscini, Vijeyarasa, Dehm, Paige, Stagg, Simm), as international relations scholars (Biddolph, Sapiano) and historians (Silverstein). The topics addressed-human rights, international criminal justice, asylum, war and peace – all raise questions about how the international is intertwined with the domestic. While adopting a range of perspectives, the papers nevertheless cohere around a shared interest in highlighting what queer and feminist approaches to the international reveal about law and society.
{"title":"Introduction to special issue: queer/feminist internationalisms","authors":"G. Simm, Tamsin Phillipa Paige","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1933793","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1933793","url":null,"abstract":"This special issue brings together seven articles addressing international law and international relations through queer/feminist lenses. It originates from the inaugural workshop of the Australian and New Zealand Society of International Law (ANZSIL) Interest Group on Gender and Sexuality in International Law held in February 2020 at Deakin Law School. The special issue explores how queer and feminist frameworks dislocate normative approaches to, and propose alternate conceptions of, issues at the heart of the international. The special issue aims to continue the dialogue between feminist and queer scholars (and queer feminist scholars) that started in earnest with the 2017 publication of Dianne Otto’s edited collection Queering International Law. It takes up Gina Heathcote’s call in her 2019 book, Feminist Dialogues on International Law: successes, tensions, futures, for feminist (international) legal scholars to engage fully with queer (international) legal scholars, as queer scholars already embrace feminist scholarship. By publishing both queer and feminist engagements on key international concerns, we hope to deepen and expand intersectional and inclusive queer/feminist scholarship in Australia and internationally. Further, the special issue applies the insights of socio-legal, interdisciplinary research to the international. Its theme is built on socio-legal approaches that bring the human back into law and analyse how binary distinctions – such as masculine/feminine, straight/queer and cisgender/transgender – structure society and law. These insights depend on critical and theoretical developments in feminist and queer theory that the authors apply to aspects of international law and international relations. It includes contributions from authors trained as international lawyers (Coscini, Vijeyarasa, Dehm, Paige, Stagg, Simm), as international relations scholars (Biddolph, Sapiano) and historians (Silverstein). The topics addressed-human rights, international criminal justice, asylum, war and peace – all raise questions about how the international is intertwined with the domestic. While adopting a range of perspectives, the papers nevertheless cohere around a shared interest in highlighting what queer and feminist approaches to the international reveal about law and society.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"331 - 333"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1933793","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41408138","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 : 2020-07-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1903666
Jenna Sapiano
ABSTRACT The assumption that peace mediation is gender-neutral reproduces and reinforces the already gendered aftermath(s) of war. Peace mediation is a multilayered conflict resolution mechanism that ranges from grassroots peacebuilding to high-level diplomacy. As a ‘language of peace’, international law has become foundational in high-level peace mediation processes and institutions. International legal feminist and queer theory are critical of international law for its gendered and heteronormative frameworks that reinforce the binaries of war/peace, masculine/feminine or heterosexual/homosexual. Global governance gender law reforms, such as the Women, Peace and Security agenda, are part of the institutional frameworks that guide peace mediation processes. High-level peace mediators are also members of an ‘epistemic community’ regulated by international and regional organisations. The article analyses how masculine and heteronormative international legal institutions and experts shape peace mediation’s already gendered processes and outcomes. The article concludes that contemporary peace mediation approaches must be rethought and that alternatives to the traditional peace table must be imagined.
{"title":"The boundaries of peace: a feminist analysis of international mediation processes","authors":"Jenna Sapiano","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1903666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1903666","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The assumption that peace mediation is gender-neutral reproduces and reinforces the already gendered aftermath(s) of war. Peace mediation is a multilayered conflict resolution mechanism that ranges from grassroots peacebuilding to high-level diplomacy. As a ‘language of peace’, international law has become foundational in high-level peace mediation processes and institutions. International legal feminist and queer theory are critical of international law for its gendered and heteronormative frameworks that reinforce the binaries of war/peace, masculine/feminine or heterosexual/homosexual. Global governance gender law reforms, such as the Women, Peace and Security agenda, are part of the institutional frameworks that guide peace mediation processes. High-level peace mediators are also members of an ‘epistemic community’ regulated by international and regional organisations. The article analyses how masculine and heteronormative international legal institutions and experts shape peace mediation’s already gendered processes and outcomes. The article concludes that contemporary peace mediation approaches must be rethought and that alternatives to the traditional peace table must be imagined.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"451 - 467"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1903666","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44979657","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1790332
Z. Wang
ABSTRACT This article analyses the role(s) of law in several critical aspects in China’s fight against COVID-19 during the period of its initial outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020. It first provides an analytic framework on the existing laws on the prevention and control of infectious diseases and responses to public health emergencies, focusing on the relevant mechanisms, institutions and procedures under the law. It then analyses several critical aspects of the operation of the legal framework, including information disclosure, the management of the crisis, and the legality of the various post lockdown measures and practices. It reveals that few legal requirements were in fact complied with during the fight against the COVID-19 emergency and, as such, Chinese law in a time of crisis was indeed itself in crisis.
{"title":"Law in crisis: a critical analysis of the role of law in China’s fight against COVID-19","authors":"Z. Wang","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1790332","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1790332","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article analyses the role(s) of law in several critical aspects in China’s fight against COVID-19 during the period of its initial outbreak in Wuhan in late 2019 and early 2020. It first provides an analytic framework on the existing laws on the prevention and control of infectious diseases and responses to public health emergencies, focusing on the relevant mechanisms, institutions and procedures under the law. It then analyses several critical aspects of the operation of the legal framework, including information disclosure, the management of the crisis, and the legality of the various post lockdown measures and practices. It reveals that few legal requirements were in fact complied with during the fight against the COVID-19 emergency and, as such, Chinese law in a time of crisis was indeed itself in crisis.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"253 - 272"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1790332","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44954715","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1804659
C. Arup, J. Dixon, Jo Paul-Taylor
ABSTRACT How does law regulate the system of food production and consumption? This study distinguishes three roles for law: supporting private regulation by industry through the market, supporting civil society co-regulation with industry and government, and supporting direct government regulation. This study employs empirical methods to assesses the progress of civil society co-regulation in three Australian cases where the public interest is at stake: added sugar nutrition, hen laying animal welfare and dairy farmer security. The study finds that support for the market regulation of the major supermarket chains remains the dominant role for law. Civil society co-regulation is making progress; nonetheless, it would have more impact if it had the support of government and law. Government is reluctant to give legal standing to the co-regulatory process and to legislate baseline standards. Beyond Australia, this study shows how all three roles of law are essential ingredients of food regulatory governance.
{"title":"The essential ingredients of food regulatory governance","authors":"C. Arup, J. Dixon, Jo Paul-Taylor","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1804659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804659","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT How does law regulate the system of food production and consumption? This study distinguishes three roles for law: supporting private regulation by industry through the market, supporting civil society co-regulation with industry and government, and supporting direct government regulation. This study employs empirical methods to assesses the progress of civil society co-regulation in three Australian cases where the public interest is at stake: added sugar nutrition, hen laying animal welfare and dairy farmer security. The study finds that support for the market regulation of the major supermarket chains remains the dominant role for law. Civil society co-regulation is making progress; nonetheless, it would have more impact if it had the support of government and law. Government is reluctant to give legal standing to the co-regulatory process and to legislate baseline standards. Beyond Australia, this study shows how all three roles of law are essential ingredients of food regulatory governance.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"273 - 301"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804659","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45376428","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1790101
J. Dehm
ABSTRACT This article traces debates within international climate regime on loss and damage from climate impacts. Impacts from climate change should be understood as incremental violence structurally over-determined by international relations of power and control that affect most acutely those who contributed least to dangerous levels of anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions. Calls for compensation or reparation for ‘loss and damage’ are therefore a demand for climate justice. This article shows how questions of loss and damage were initially avoided within the climate regime. At the nineteenth Conference of the Parties in December 2013 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Warsaw International Mechanisms for Loss and Damage (WIM) associated with climate change. However, even then questions of compensative or reparative justice were persistently evaded. The institutionalisation of the WIM focused on questions of comprehensive risk assessment and disaster risk reduction and the promotion of privatised, insurance-based and financialised approaches to financing loss and damage. These operate in different ways to displace responsibility away from historical polluters, by nationalising responsibility to anticipate and prepare for disasters and seeking to responsibilise the vulnerable and risk-exposed subject.
{"title":"Climate change, ‘slow violence’ and the indefinite deferral of responsibility for ‘loss and damage’","authors":"J. Dehm","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1790101","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1790101","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article traces debates within international climate regime on loss and damage from climate impacts. Impacts from climate change should be understood as incremental violence structurally over-determined by international relations of power and control that affect most acutely those who contributed least to dangerous levels of anthropocentric greenhouse gas emissions. Calls for compensation or reparation for ‘loss and damage’ are therefore a demand for climate justice. This article shows how questions of loss and damage were initially avoided within the climate regime. At the nineteenth Conference of the Parties in December 2013 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) adopted the Warsaw International Mechanisms for Loss and Damage (WIM) associated with climate change. However, even then questions of compensative or reparative justice were persistently evaded. The institutionalisation of the WIM focused on questions of comprehensive risk assessment and disaster risk reduction and the promotion of privatised, insurance-based and financialised approaches to financing loss and damage. These operate in different ways to displace responsibility away from historical polluters, by nationalising responsibility to anticipate and prepare for disasters and seeking to responsibilise the vulnerable and risk-exposed subject.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"220 - 252"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1790101","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42608332","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 : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671
J. Bosse
ABSTRACT This article examines the history of a legal-scientific controversy: the challenges to criminal prohibitions on marijuana, which invoked contested scientific views of the taxonomy of the cannabis plant. Facing prosecution in the 1970s, numerous defendants raised the ‘botanical defence’, an argument that relied on the expert testimony of scientists to dispute the classification and nomenclature of genus Cannabis. This article analyses judicial opinions from the three nations where the botanical defence was raised – the United States, Canada, and Australia – where the meaning of the name, ‘Cannabis sativa L.’, was found to be in the domain of judicial, not scientific, authority. Although this satisfied the need for closure in the criminal cases, the article draws attention to the ongoing consequences of the taxonomic debate for the regulation of the cannabis plant under intellectual property laws.
{"title":"Before the High Court: the legal systematics of Cannabis","authors":"J. Bosse","doi":"10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This article examines the history of a legal-scientific controversy: the challenges to criminal prohibitions on marijuana, which invoked contested scientific views of the taxonomy of the cannabis plant. Facing prosecution in the 1970s, numerous defendants raised the ‘botanical defence’, an argument that relied on the expert testimony of scientists to dispute the classification and nomenclature of genus Cannabis. This article analyses judicial opinions from the three nations where the botanical defence was raised – the United States, Canada, and Australia – where the meaning of the name, ‘Cannabis sativa L.’, was found to be in the domain of judicial, not scientific, authority. Although this satisfied the need for closure in the criminal cases, the article draws attention to the ongoing consequences of the taxonomic debate for the regulation of the cannabis plant under intellectual property laws.","PeriodicalId":45376,"journal":{"name":"Griffith Law Review","volume":"29 1","pages":"302 - 329"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10383441.2020.1804671","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46215099","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：