The idea of sustainable development has a long history and is comparable to that of democracy, freedom, and justice.3 In the twenty-first century, sustainable development is an unavoidable paradigm underpinning all human actions from local to global levels, in both the public and private sectors. Sustainable development is high on the global governance agenda and needs to be followed by making a balance between the competing priorities of economic growth, environmental protection, and social progress.4 Sustainable development, on the one hand, is closely dependent on transnational investment activities to promote economic growth, especially in developing countries. On the other hand, it requires foreign investors to consider socio-environmental issues associated with their investment activities. Despite the universal importance of the role of transnational investment activities in sustainable development, whether and to what extent international investment law could amount to a legal norm that protects socio-environmental values while encouraging economic growth is not a settled issue. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/8
可持续发展的理念有着悠久的历史，可以与民主、自由和正义的理念相媲美在二十一世纪，可持续发展是一种不可避免的模式，是公共和私营部门从地方到全球各级所有人类行动的基础。3 .可持续发展是全球治理的重要议题，需要在经济增长、环境保护和社会进步等相互竞争的优先事项之间取得平衡一方面，可持续发展密切依赖于跨国投资活动来促进经济增长，特别是在发展中国家。另一方面，它要求外国投资者考虑与其投资活动有关的社会环境问题。尽管跨国投资活动在可持续发展方面的作用具有普遍重要性，但国际投资法是否以及在多大程度上可以成为一项保护社会环境价值同时鼓励经济增长的法律规范，这一问题尚未得到解决。这篇书评可以在Osgoode Hall Law Journal上找到:https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/8
{"title":"Integrating Sustainable Development in International Investment Law, by Manjiao Chi","authors":"Haniehalsadat Aboutorabifard","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3592","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3592","url":null,"abstract":"The idea of sustainable development has a long history and is comparable to that of democracy, freedom, and justice.3 In the twenty-first century, sustainable development is an unavoidable paradigm underpinning all human actions from local to global levels, in both the public and private sectors. Sustainable development is high on the global governance agenda and needs to be followed by making a balance between the competing priorities of economic growth, environmental protection, and social progress.4 Sustainable development, on the one hand, is closely dependent on transnational investment activities to promote economic growth, especially in developing countries. On the other hand, it requires foreign investors to consider socio-environmental issues associated with their investment activities. Despite the universal importance of the role of transnational investment activities in sustainable development, whether and to what extent international investment law could amount to a legal norm that protects socio-environmental values while encouraging economic growth is not a settled issue. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/8","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71318950","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}
Can we reject a monstrous act without rejecting the actor as a monster? This is the question occupying Hadley Louise Friedland, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Alberta, in The Wetiko Legal Principles: Cree and Anishinabek Responses to Violence and Victimization. Speaking broadly, the book is dedicated to identifying and examining Indigenous laws for guidance on how Indigenous communities can deal with high rates of interpersonal violence in Indigenous communities today, particularly violence against children. The innovation in Friedland’s work is her creative use of source material: She takes as her starting point traditional Cree and Anishinabek stories about wetikos, or cannibal giants, which she positions as vestibules of Indigenous law. In Friedland’s view, wetiko stories contain legal principles and practical resources that can help First Nations manage community members who act violently toward others. It is her task, as a scholar, to examine those stories through a legal lens and mine them for solutions to a rarely acknowledged problem. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/7
我们能拒绝一个可怕的行为而不把行为人当作怪物来拒绝吗?这是阿尔伯塔大学法学助理教授哈德利·路易斯·弗里德兰在《韦提科法律原则:克里人和阿尼什纳贝克人对暴力和受害的回应》一书中所关注的问题。从广义上讲，这本书致力于确定和审查土著法律，以指导土著社区如何处理当今土著社区中高比例的人际暴力，特别是针对儿童的暴力。弗里德兰作品的创新之处在于她对原始材料的创造性使用:她以关于食人巨人的传统克里人和阿尼什纳贝克人的故事为出发点，她将这些故事定位为土著法律的前厅。在弗里德兰看来，wetiko故事包含了法律原则和实用资源，可以帮助原住民管理那些对他人采取暴力行为的社区成员。作为一名学者，她的任务是通过法律的视角来审视这些故事，并从中挖掘出一个很少被承认的问题的解决方案。这篇书评可以在Osgoode Hall Law Journal上找到:https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/7
{"title":"The Wetiko Legal Principles: Cree and Anishinabek Responses to Violence and Victimization by Hadley Louise Friedland","authors":"Natasha Novac","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3590","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3590","url":null,"abstract":"Can we reject a monstrous act without rejecting the actor as a monster? This is the question occupying Hadley Louise Friedland, Assistant Professor of Law at the University of Alberta, in The Wetiko Legal Principles: Cree and Anishinabek Responses to Violence and Victimization. Speaking broadly, the book is dedicated to identifying and examining Indigenous laws for guidance on how Indigenous communities can deal with high rates of interpersonal violence in Indigenous communities today, particularly violence against children. The innovation in Friedland’s work is her creative use of source material: She takes as her starting point traditional Cree and Anishinabek stories about wetikos, or cannibal giants, which she positions as vestibules of Indigenous law. In Friedland’s view, wetiko stories contain legal principles and practical resources that can help First Nations manage community members who act violently toward others. It is her task, as a scholar, to examine those stories through a legal lens and mine them for solutions to a rarely acknowledged problem. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/7","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42863908","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}
{"title":"Rethinking the Doctrine of Aboriginal Rights: The Métis Cases","authors":"P. Chartrand","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3587","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3587","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42641910","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}
Human rights have come to represent some of the highest ideals of humanity. In Samuel Moyn’s Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, the Professor of History and Law at Yale University traces the history of the origins of human rights and details a comprehensive narrative of their evolution through various sources. Despite their status as a legal ideology, human rights have often been colloquially invoked to describe broader social entitlements. For this reason, Moyn’s work goes far beyond situating rights as legal instruments, and engages with the political philosophies that underpin human rights as an ideology that function as a reflection of their place in history. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss1/11
人权已成为人类某些最高理想的代表。在塞缪尔·莫恩的《不够:不平等世界中的人权》一书中，这位耶鲁大学历史和法学教授追溯了人权起源的历史，并详细介绍了人权通过各种来源的演变过程。尽管人权是一种法律意识形态，但它经常被口语化地用来描述更广泛的社会权利。出于这个原因，莫恩的工作远远超出了将权利定位为法律工具的范畴，而是涉及到将人权作为一种意识形态的基础的政治哲学，这种意识形态反映了人权在历史中的地位。这篇书评可以在Osgoode Hall Law Journal上找到:https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss1/11
{"title":"Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, by Samuel Moyn","authors":"Mariam Jannat Sheikh","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3597","url":null,"abstract":"Human rights have come to represent some of the highest ideals of humanity. In Samuel Moyn’s Not Enough: Human Rights in an Unequal World, the Professor of History and Law at Yale University traces the history of the origins of human rights and details a comprehensive narrative of their evolution through various sources. Despite their status as a legal ideology, human rights have often been colloquially invoked to describe broader social entitlements. For this reason, Moyn’s work goes far beyond situating rights as legal instruments, and engages with the political philosophies that underpin human rights as an ideology that function as a reflection of their place in history. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss1/11","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47314357","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}
{"title":"Potential Aboriginal Rights-holders: Canada and Cultural Communities versus Indigenous Peoples and Socio-political Bodies","authors":"Gordon Christie","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3579","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3579","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44506239","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}
Abstract The focus of this special issue of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal is on identifying holders of rights which are recognized and affirmed by section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. While Canadian and provincial governments and industry proponents have assumed that Indian Act bands are section 35 rights-holders, Kent McNeil’s analysis of the relevant jurisprudence reveals that this issue is to be resolved with reference to Aboriginal peoples’ own laws. As such, the assumption that a section 35 rights-holder must possess an overarching governance structure is unwarranted if the relevant Aboriginal people’s own laws are not grounded in positivism. Naiomi Metallic’s incisive critique demonstrates that the reasoning in R v Bernard was captured by precisely this type of positivist assumption when the court held that smaller Mìgmaq collectives—as opposed to the larger Mìgmaq nation—must be the rights-holder because the larger Mìgmaq nation lacked a ‘Super Chief’. Gordon Christie identifies another form of capture within the section 35 jurisprudence: Aboriginal peoples are presumed to be socio-cultural bodies and not political bodies, and Aboriginal rights are presumed to be cultural activities and not governmental powers to exercise jurisdictional authority. Both presumptions are captured by liberalism and neither is supported by the text or by a purposive interpretation of section 35(1). Sara Mainville’s article uncovers a conflict between Canadian and Indigenous law in the context of a Kelly order, which courts characterize as a practical solution to the dilemma of how to identify the rights-holder on an interlocutory motion. Mainville demonstrates that the adversarial effects of a Kelly order contravene the Anishinaabe legal principle of consensus-building. Perhaps unsurprisingly given these various conflicts between Canadian jurisprudence and Indigenous laws, Paul Chartrand argues that the identity of rights-holders should be decided through political negotiations between political actors, and not by the courts. Similarly, Jason Madden argues that the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence entails a duty on Canadian and provincial governments to negotiate with an Aboriginal people to identify the
《奥斯古德·霍尔法律杂志》这期特刊的重点是确定由1982年《宪法法》第35(1)条承认和肯定的权利的持有人。虽然加拿大和各省政府以及行业支持者都认为印第安人法案是第35条的权利持有人，但Kent McNeil对相关法理的分析表明，这一问题应参照土著人民自己的法律来解决。因此，如果相关的原住民自己的法律不是基于实证主义，那么第35条权利持有人必须拥有一个总体治理结构的假设是没有根据的。Naiomi Metallic的尖锐批评表明，R v Bernard案的推理正是被这种实证主义假设所捕获，即法院认为较小的Mìgmaq集体(与较大的Mìgmaq国家相反)必须是权利持有人，因为较大的Mìgmaq国家缺乏“超级酋长”。戈登·克里斯蒂(Gordon Christie)在第35条法理中确定了另一种形式的捕获:土著人被认为是社会文化团体，而不是政治团体，土著人的权利被认为是文化活动，而不是政府行使管辖权的权力。自由主义抓住了这两种假设，案文或对第35(1)条的有目的的解释都不支持这两种假设。Sara Mainville的文章揭示了在Kelly命令的背景下，加拿大法律与原住民法律之间的冲突，法院将其描述为如何在中间动议中识别权利持有人的困境的实际解决方案。梅因维尔证明，凯利命令的对抗性影响违反了建立共识这一不可磨灭的法律原则。考虑到加拿大法理和土著法律之间的各种冲突，Paul Chartrand认为权利持有人的身份应该通过政治参与者之间的政治谈判来决定，而不是由法院决定，这也许并不令人惊讶。同样，杰森·马登认为，加拿大最高法院的法理要求加拿大和省政府有义务与土著人民谈判，以确定他们的身份
{"title":"A Right Without a Rights-Holder Is Hollow: Introduction to OHLJ’s Special Issue on Identifying Rights-Bearing Aboriginal Peoples","authors":"Karen Drake","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3615","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3615","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The focus of this special issue of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal is on identifying holders of rights which are recognized and affirmed by section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. While Canadian and provincial governments and industry proponents have assumed that Indian Act bands are section 35 rights-holders, Kent McNeil’s analysis of the relevant jurisprudence reveals that this issue is to be resolved with reference to Aboriginal peoples’ own laws. As such, the assumption that a section 35 rights-holder must possess an overarching governance structure is unwarranted if the relevant Aboriginal people’s own laws are not grounded in positivism. Naiomi Metallic’s incisive critique demonstrates that the reasoning in R v Bernard was captured by precisely this type of positivist assumption when the court held that smaller Mìgmaq collectives—as opposed to the larger Mìgmaq nation—must be the rights-holder because the larger Mìgmaq nation lacked a ‘Super Chief’. Gordon Christie identifies another form of capture within the section 35 jurisprudence: Aboriginal peoples are presumed to be socio-cultural bodies and not political bodies, and Aboriginal rights are presumed to be cultural activities and not governmental powers to exercise jurisdictional authority. Both presumptions are captured by liberalism and neither is supported by the text or by a purposive interpretation of section 35(1). Sara Mainville’s article uncovers a conflict between Canadian and Indigenous law in the context of a Kelly order, which courts characterize as a practical solution to the dilemma of how to identify the rights-holder on an interlocutory motion. Mainville demonstrates that the adversarial effects of a Kelly order contravene the Anishinaabe legal principle of consensus-building. Perhaps unsurprisingly given these various conflicts between Canadian jurisprudence and Indigenous laws, Paul Chartrand argues that the identity of rights-holders should be decided through political negotiations between political actors, and not by the courts. Similarly, Jason Madden argues that the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence entails a duty on Canadian and provincial governments to negotiate with an Aboriginal people to identify the","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48917014","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}
{"title":"Understanding the Ongoing Dialogues on Indigenous Issues in Canadian Legal Education Through the Lens of Institutional Cultures (Case Studies at UQAM, UAlberta, and UMoncton)","authors":"Adrien Habermacher","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3581","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3581","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45162013","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}
In The Right of Publicity, Professor Jennifer E. Rothman of Loyola Law School offers an in-depth genealogy of the right of publicity, while navigating through scholarly narratives surrounding its origin. The book contests the current body of literature, which situates the origin of the right of publicity in privacy law. Instead of conceptualizing the right of publicity as another form of intellectual property right, the work traces the right of publicity law to (re-) articulate it as a personal right. Stemming from the author’s expertise in intellectual property law and the right of publicity, this book challenges readers to consider the implications of interpreting the right of publicity as a transferrable property right. The author masterfully parses through and critiques the current understandings of the right of publicity to offer an alternative model to be implemented in publicity law. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss1/10
{"title":"The Right of Publicity: Privacy Reimagined for a Public World, by Jennifer E. Rothman","authors":"A. Choi","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3596","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3596","url":null,"abstract":"In The Right of Publicity, Professor Jennifer E. Rothman of Loyola Law School offers an in-depth genealogy of the right of publicity, while navigating through scholarly narratives surrounding its origin. The book contests the current body of literature, which situates the origin of the right of publicity in privacy law. Instead of conceptualizing the right of publicity as another form of intellectual property right, the work traces the right of publicity law to (re-) articulate it as a personal right. Stemming from the author’s expertise in intellectual property law and the right of publicity, this book challenges readers to consider the implications of interpreting the right of publicity as a transferrable property right. The author masterfully parses through and critiques the current understandings of the right of publicity to offer an alternative model to be implemented in publicity law. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss1/10","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47075935","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}
In R v Bernard, 2017 NBCA 48, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts’ reasoning that a Mìgmaw man living in the traditional Mìgmaq hunting territory of St. John, New Brunswick could not exercise his Aboriginal rights to hunt because he could not prove he descended from the particular subgroup of Mìgmaq who were at St. John at the time of contact with Europeans. In deciding so, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the Mìgmaq, as a nation, are the appropriate rights holders and ought to be the body deciding who can exercise the Mìgmaw right to hunt in the province. This argument was rejected based on the evidence of an expert historian who testified that Mìgmaq could not be a “nation” because they had a decentralized form of government and lacked a “Super Chief.” The case also exhibits undertones of floodgate fears of over-hunting as a consequence of finding the Mìgmaq nation to be the right-holders. This, however, ignores the role Mìgmaq laws and protocols will play in responsibly regulating Mìgmaq hunting and avoiding overuse of resources (not to mention the Crown’s ability to address conservation issues through the Sparrow justification framework). This article tells the story of the Bernard case and provides critical commentary on it. This article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/iss1/7
在R v Bernard, 2017 NBCA 48中，新不伦瑞克省上诉法院维持了下级法院的推理，即居住在新不伦瑞克省圣约翰传统Mìgmaq狩猎区域的Mìgmaw男子不能行使其土著狩猎权利，因为他不能证明他是在与欧洲人接触时居住在圣约翰的Mìgmaq特定亚群的后裔。上诉法院在作出这样的裁决时，驳回了下述论点:Mìgmaq作为一个国家，是适当的权利持有人，应该是决定谁可以行使Mìgmaw在该省狩猎权利的机构。这一论点被一位历史学家的证据所驳斥，他作证说Mìgmaq不可能是一个“国家”，因为他们有一个分散的政府形式，缺乏一个“超级酋长”。此案还显示出，由于发现Mìgmaq国家是权利持有者，人们对过度狩猎的担忧。然而，这忽略了Mìgmaq法律和协议将在负责任地规范Mìgmaq狩猎和避免过度使用资源方面发挥的作用(更不用说王室通过麻雀辩护框架解决保护问题的能力)。这篇文章讲述了伯纳德案件的故事，并提供了批判性的评论。这篇文章可在奥斯古德霍尔法律杂志:https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/iss1/7
{"title":"Searching for “Superchief” and Other Fictional Indians: A Narrative and Case Comment on R v Bernard","authors":"Naiomi Metallic","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3591","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3591","url":null,"abstract":"In R v Bernard, 2017 NBCA 48, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal upheld the lower courts’ reasoning that a Mìgmaw man living in the traditional Mìgmaq hunting territory of St. John, New Brunswick could not exercise his Aboriginal rights to hunt because he could not prove he descended from the particular subgroup of Mìgmaq who were at St. John at the time of contact with Europeans. In deciding so, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that the Mìgmaq, as a nation, are the appropriate rights holders and ought to be the body deciding who can exercise the Mìgmaw right to hunt in the province. This argument was rejected based on the evidence of an expert historian who testified that Mìgmaq could not be a “nation” because they had a decentralized form of government and lacked a “Super Chief.” The case also exhibits undertones of floodgate fears of over-hunting as a consequence of finding the Mìgmaq nation to be the right-holders. This, however, ignores the role Mìgmaq laws and protocols will play in responsibly regulating Mìgmaq hunting and avoiding overuse of resources (not to mention the Crown’s ability to address conservation issues through the Sparrow justification framework). This article tells the story of the Bernard case and provides critical commentary on it. This article is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/iss1/7","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46025877","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}
In Strange Trips: Science, Culture, and the Regulation of Drugs, Lucas Richert sets out to “investigate the myths, meanings and boundaries of certain recreational drugs and pharmaceuticals,” a goal motivated by the call to “move beyond examining substances in silos” and “put drugs in conversation with each other.” The book’s theme is bolstered by wide-ranging and thorough research across such diverse media as medical journals, political speeches, pop culture, and news reports, with an investigative dive showcasing Richert’s expertise as a historian of pharmacology. Strange Trips’ ambitious scope—from the use of heroin as an end-of-life painkiller to the American public’s obsession with weight loss and the diet pills—sets the stage for a broad discussion as to the role and meaning of drug use and abuse in the North American context. Ultimately, Strange Trips serves as an excellent introductory text to the socio-political dimensions of drug regulation in Canada and the United States and is a readable resource for anyone interested in the politics of drug regulation. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/9
{"title":"Strange Trips: Science, Culture, and the Regulation of Drugs by Lucas Richert","authors":"Irmak Aydemir","doi":"10.60082/2817-5069.3594","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.60082/2817-5069.3594","url":null,"abstract":"In Strange Trips: Science, Culture, and the Regulation of Drugs, Lucas Richert sets out to “investigate the myths, meanings and boundaries of certain recreational drugs and pharmaceuticals,” a goal motivated by the call to “move beyond examining substances in silos” and “put drugs in conversation with each other.” The book’s theme is bolstered by wide-ranging and thorough research across such diverse media as medical journals, political speeches, pop culture, and news reports, with an investigative dive showcasing Richert’s expertise as a historian of pharmacology. Strange Trips’ ambitious scope—from the use of heroin as an end-of-life painkiller to the American public’s obsession with weight loss and the diet pills—sets the stage for a broad discussion as to the role and meaning of drug use and abuse in the North American context. Ultimately, Strange Trips serves as an excellent introductory text to the socio-political dimensions of drug regulation in Canada and the United States and is a readable resource for anyone interested in the politics of drug regulation. This book review is available in Osgoode Hall Law Journal: https://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol57/ iss2/9","PeriodicalId":45757,"journal":{"name":"OSGOODE HALL LAW JOURNAL","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-01-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42849537","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：