Suchergebnisse

Indonesia's forest fires have caused a serious haze problem nationally and in the Southeast Asian region, which has caused harm to the human rights to life, health and a healthy environment, work, education, and many others. The forest fires largely stem from harmful slash-and-burn methods of land clearing, done at large scales by corporations. Judicial mechanisms have proven ineffective to deter violating corporations and bring justice to victims. From a legal standpoint, Komnas HAM's quasi-jurisdictional powers allow it to act as a non-judicial grievance mechanism for victims in the haze crisis and against violating corporations. However, issues with the non-binding nature of its reports and mediation, inability to compel violating corporations to participate in its investigation and mediation, as well as declining trust in Komnas HAM's integrity may prove to be significant barriers to the effective exercise of jurisdiction and the provision of effective remedies to victims. Komnas HAM and ELSAM's national human rights plan, issued in 2017, is a step in the right direction. However, further steps are required from a legislative standpoint to broaden Komnas HAM's mandate for it to effectively perform its functions, in the haze crisis and beyond.

This paper presents an investigation into the legal history of Australia's kangaroos. It aims to provide a detailed analysis of how the law and policy governing the killing of kangaroos has evolved over time in response to changing public perceptions. This history begins with the pre-European period and traces the impact of European colonisation, early growth of the commercial kangaroo industry, and the increased role of science and regulation upon kangaroos. The paper critiques the historical designation of kangaroos as 'pests' that need to be 'managed' and argues that such an approach is inconsistent with current scientific understanding. As this 'pest' status has fallen in importance there has been a shift in regulatory goals from damage mitigation to resource utilisation, although government planning and policy continue to cite damage mitigation alongside objectives to maintain viable populations and a sustainable and commercially viable industry. While the kangaroo industry's current focus is upon the 'sustainable use of wildlife', the history of attitudes towards kangaroos as 'pests' is so deeply and widely entrenched that it is impossible for the industry to meet welfare standards. The article concludes that the commercial kangaroo industry does not have any clearly defined policy benefit and should be reassessed to take greater account of the impact it has on ecosystems and kangaroo welfare.