困境时期的治理:通过2011年《人权(议会审查)法》下的兼容性声明探讨澳大利亚对人权的承诺(Cth)

Nicholas Bulbeck
{"title":"困境时期的治理:通过2011年《人权(议会审查)法》下的兼容性声明探讨澳大利亚对人权的承诺(Cth)","authors":"Nicholas Bulbeck","doi":"10.53300/001c.73062","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Australian government has emphasised social cohesion in addressing contemporary challenges. Arguing the legal protection of human rights could support social cohesion, this article examines the most recent federal human rights initiative – the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth). While the Act’s effectiveness has recently been assessed, assessments relied on analysis of Statements of Compatibility produced before 2016. The article addresses this gap. Analysing 46 statements from the final six months of 2019 against criteria derived from the scrutiny regime, it argues statement quality was generally poor, supporting existing conclusions the Act is relatively ineffective. It argues reform is required, suggesting a National Human Rights Act should be re-examined. This could both protect human rights in Australia and support social cohesion in a challenging global environment.","PeriodicalId":33279,"journal":{"name":"Bond Law Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Governing in Troubled Times: Exploring Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights Through Statements of Compatibility under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth)\",\"authors\":\"Nicholas Bulbeck\",\"doi\":\"10.53300/001c.73062\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The Australian government has emphasised social cohesion in addressing contemporary challenges. Arguing the legal protection of human rights could support social cohesion, this article examines the most recent federal human rights initiative – the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth). While the Act’s effectiveness has recently been assessed, assessments relied on analysis of Statements of Compatibility produced before 2016. The article addresses this gap. Analysing 46 statements from the final six months of 2019 against criteria derived from the scrutiny regime, it argues statement quality was generally poor, supporting existing conclusions the Act is relatively ineffective. It argues reform is required, suggesting a National Human Rights Act should be re-examined. This could both protect human rights in Australia and support social cohesion in a challenging global environment.\",\"PeriodicalId\":33279,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Bond Law Review\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Bond Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.73062\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Bond Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53300/001c.73062","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

澳大利亚政府在应对当代挑战时强调社会凝聚力。本文认为,对人权的法律保护可以促进社会凝聚力,并探讨了最新的联邦人权倡议——《2011年人权(议会审查)法》(加拿大)。虽然最近对该法案的有效性进行了评估,但评估依赖于对2016年之前生成的兼容性声明的分析。本文解决了这一差距。根据审查制度得出的标准,分析了2019年最后六个月的46份声明,认为声明质量普遍较差,支持了该法案相对无效的现有结论。它认为改革是必要的,建议重新审查《国家人权法》。这既可以保护澳大利亚的人权,又可以在充满挑战的全球环境中支持社会凝聚力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Governing in Troubled Times: Exploring Australia’s Commitment to Human Rights Through Statements of Compatibility under the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth)
The Australian government has emphasised social cohesion in addressing contemporary challenges. Arguing the legal protection of human rights could support social cohesion, this article examines the most recent federal human rights initiative – the Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 (Cth). While the Act’s effectiveness has recently been assessed, assessments relied on analysis of Statements of Compatibility produced before 2016. The article addresses this gap. Analysing 46 statements from the final six months of 2019 against criteria derived from the scrutiny regime, it argues statement quality was generally poor, supporting existing conclusions the Act is relatively ineffective. It argues reform is required, suggesting a National Human Rights Act should be re-examined. This could both protect human rights in Australia and support social cohesion in a challenging global environment.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
‘Often Fails to Give Close Attention to Detail’: Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in Criminal Justice Offender Populations A Practitioner’s Perspective Concerning the Links between Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and the Criminal Justice System Understanding the Nature of ADHD and the Vulnerability of Those with the Condition Who Fall Foul of the Criminal Justice System Corporate Purpose and the Misleading Shareholder vs Stakeholder Dichotomy Legal Considerations in Machine-Assisted Decision-Making: Planning and Building as a Case Study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1