Search results

The following discussion briefly explores alternative concepts of self-determination. The attached table is an effort to facilitate preliminary research into the textual sources for self-determination in international law. As textual sources are only one means of determining the content of international law, it is important to examine alternate sources such as state practice in order to develop a full picture of the international legal 'right' to self-determination. It is important to note that the goal of self-determination is not necessarily the creation of a new state. Self-determination can take a range of forms, from education guarantees for linguistic minorities to full sovereignty. Ultimately, it is simply the right of a people to determine their future. This begs the question: who is the 'self', or indeed what constitutes a 'peoples'? The authors have brought together four conceptual approaches in which legal claims to self-determination may be grounded. These approaches, or schools, are as follows: 1. Colonial School; 2. Historical School; 3. Human Rights School; and 4. Political School. The basis and scope for each school is reducible to the definition of 'peoples' relied upon by each school in formulating legal claims to self-determination. Under the colonial school, self-determination is limited to 'peoples' under colonial rule (this is the traditional approach to self-determination). The historical school considers 'peoples' as any historical collectivity whether under formal colonial rule or not. The human rights school defines 'peoples' as oppressed collectivities. The political school (or anti-school) grants self-determination to 'peoples' according to the dictates of realpolitik.

On election, in 2008, the new Australian Government put a stop to the Research Quality Framework (RQF) which was gearing up for its first assessment round. Nonetheless, the Government has since announced that its place will be taken by a new research quality and evaluation system, the Excellence in Research for Australia initiative (ERA).1 ERA will depart from the RQF in certain respects and some useful comparisons can be made. But the essential issue remains the nature of assessment and in particular the combination of publication metrics and peer review. The aim of this article is to suggest how research assessment might have an effect on the intellectual approaches taken to legal scholarship in Australia. Part I notes the objectives of research assessment and situates them within the modern managerial approach to research. Part II sets out the RQF and ERA definition of research quality and considers how that definition might sit with the many different approaches to legal scholarship. Part III continues this theme, discussing in detail the selection of assessment measures and especially the design of metric measures such as research outlet rankings. Part IV finishes with some predictions regarding the advantages that might ensue to individuals and institutions from assessment.