Suchergebnisse

This presents, in concise form, some of the main findings of the Zambian component of a study carried out in four African countries between 1997 and 2000. A political economy approach is used to examine the interaction between segments of government, donors, the private sector, and rural communities, both historically and in recent times. It is found that the structural adjustment framework adopted in 1989 has modified the interplay of forces contending for control over natural resources, but not to the benefit of rural communities and the poor in general. Some recommendations are advanced for policy review, changes in administration, and legislative change. (Dev South Afr/DÜI)

This brief article outlines an approach to analyzing the effectiveness of public health interventions in the Third World, specifically in regard to HIV/AIDS. Its purpose is not to be the definitive last word but to float certain ideas consistent with the precepts of political economy, with a view to inviting criticism, commentary, & contributions to future publications. Adapted from the source document.

This brief article outlines an approach to analysing the effectiveness of public health interventions in the third world, specifically in regard to HIV/AIDS. Its purpose is not to be the definitive last word but to float certain ideas consistent with the precepts of political economy, with a view to inviting criticism, commentary and contributions to future publications.

This article highlights the fundamental importance of implementing both national and regional measures to protect indigenous intellectual property rights. The development of such measures provides countries with an opportunity to protect their traditional knowledge. The measures will be implemented according to each country's unique level of economic development. In particular, laws can be developed that are sensitive to, and take specific account of, the cultural, social, political and economic diversity of the enacting countries. In light of these issues, this article concludes that national and regional integration provides an excellent opportunity for furthering national and regional collaboration, harmonising policies, and synchronising interventions across borders. It finally argues that effective and instrumentally beneficial national and regional mechanisms are more likely to succeed in states with similar cultures, economies, and ecology.

With the arrival of another wave of 'boat people' to Australian waters in late 2009, issues of human rights of asylum seekers and refugees once again became a major feature of the political landscape. Claims of 'queue jumping' were made, particularly by some sections of the media, and they may seem populist, but they are also ironic, given the protracted efforts on the part of the federal government to stymie any orderly appeals process, largely through resort to 'privative clauses'. Such clauses demonstrate the many ways in which human rights of those seeking asylum in far-off lands and are potential future immigrants, who often lack much-touted needed papers, yet who are for the most part genuine refugees, are subject to the slings and arrows of political fortune (and misfortune). Approaching the courts if treated unfairly or seeking a further decision as to your fate would seem one of the fundamental premises of human rights. Yet privative clauses--or attempts to ouster the jurisdiction of the courts and to insulate decisions from appeal--have become an increasingly frequent feature of the Australian migration legislation. With a seemingly watertight federal constitutional power set in stone since 1901, to deal with migration and aliens, and without the tempered contemporary update of a federal Bill of Rights, the Australian federal government has been able to narrow the grounds of judicial review in those contexts. We argue that the concerted efforts to deny such fundamental rights of appeal to those most in need of the full armoury of the protection of the law in a modern, affluent democracy, constitutes both a breach of their human rights and a breach of core constitutional principles such as separation of powers. Those principles may not be formally articulated in the text of the Australian Constitution, but in our view they are implicit in the constitutional arrangements, and hence we can conclude with the arguments of former Justice of the High Court of Australia, Michael Kirby, who asked--to whom does sovereignty truly belong? Adapted from the source document.

With political changes afoot in both Australia and the United States, it is timely to review military regimes and remind ourselves how greatly they matter. Section 51(vi) of the Constitution authorises the Commonwealth Parliament to legislate with respect to: 'The naval and military defence ofthe Commonwealth and of the several States and the control of the forces to execute and maintain the laws of the Commonwealth…' One of the concerns in relation to s 51(vi) has been whether this provision supports the establishment of military tribunals and, further, whether these tribunals canbe regarded as exercising judicial power of the Commonwealth and thus be regarded as properly constituted courts for the purposes of Ch III of the Australian Constitution. The High Court's 2004 decision in Re Colonel Aird; Ex parte Alpert has established that military tribunals and, more generally, the military discipline system will be regarded as constitutionallyvalid and a properly constituted court for the purposes of Ch III provided that it is applied to conduct which can be regarded as 'service connected' or invoked for the purposes of enforcing and maintaining discipline among the defence forces. This article examines the decision in Aird's Case and the associated 'service connection' test as a basis for supporting the constitutional validity of the military tribunal system. The concluding section of the article develops some further observations on the newly created Australian Military Court.

Then newly elected Labor Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, made a historic statement of 'Sorry' for past injustices to Australian Indigenous peoples at the opening of the 2008 federal parliament. In the long-standing absence of a constitutional 'foundational principle' to shape positive federal initiatives in this context, there has been speculation that the emphatic Sorry Statement may presage formal constitutional recognition. The debate is long overdue in a nation that only overturned the legal fiction of terra nullius and recognised native title to lan with the High Court's decision in Mabo in 1992. This article explores the implications of the Sorry Statement in the context of reparations for the generations removed from their families under assimilation policies (known since the Bringing Them Home Inquiry as the Stolen Generations). We draw out the utility of recent human rights statutes--such as the Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT)--as a mechanism for facilitating justice, including compensation for past wrongs. Our primary concern here is whether existing legal processes in Australia hold further capacity to provide reparation for Australian Indigenous peoples or whether their potential in that regard is already exhausted. We compare common law and statutory developments in other international jurisdictions, such as Canada, as an indication of what can be achieved by the law to facilitate better legal, economic and social outcomes for Indigenous peoples. The year 2008 also saw Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper express his apology to residential school victims in the Canadian Parliament, providing thematic and symbolic echoes across these two former colonies, which, despite remaining under the British monarchy, both forge their own path into the future, while confronting their own unique colonial past. We suggest that the momentum provided by the recent public apology and statement of 'Sorry' by the newly elected Australian Prime Minister must not be lost. This symbolic utterance as a first act of the 2008 parliamentary year stood in stark contrast to the long-standing recalcitrance of the former Prime Minister John Howard on the matter of a formal apology. Rather than a return to a law enforcement-inspired 'three strikes and you're out' approach, Australia stands poised for an overdue constitutional and human rights-inspired 'three 'sorries' and you're in'. Adapted from the source document.