Australian Capital Territory Economic, Social and Cultural Rights Research Project Report
This Report presents the findings and recommendations of a research project established to examine whether the ACT Human Rights Act 2004 (HRA) should be amended to include explicit guarantees of economic, social and cultural rights (ESCR) and, if so, what impact this was likely to have on governance in the ACT. The project was funded under the Australian Research Council Linkage Project Scheme; the academic project partners were the Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) in the College of Asia and the Pacific of The Australian National University and the Australian Human Rights Centre, Faculty of Law, The University of New South Wales, while the Partner Organisation was the ACT Department of Justice and Community Safety.
Australia in the UN Human Rights Council through the eyes of Andrew Byrnes and Andrea Durbach
ABSTRACT A recurring theme in both Andrew Byrnes and Andrea (Andy) Durbach’s research and activism is the uncertain status of the international human rights system in Australian law, and they have worked in many different capacities to encourage Australian lawmakers to take international standards seriously. Overall, Australia seems to assume that the international human rights system is designed to bring pressure on other countries to improve their protection of human rights, notably those outside the fold of Western democracies, and that the system has little to offer Australia itself. In this paper, guided by the critical insights of Andrew and Andy’s work, I review Australia’s response to the third cycle of the UN Human Rights Council’s Universal Periodic Review in 2021. It provides a case study of the techniques Australia has developed to deflect human rights scrutiny.
Law as Palimpsest: Conceptualizing Contingency in Judicial Opinions (forthcoming 2009)
Metaphors create conceptualizations, and for decades legal academics have employed metaphors to shape understandings of legal problems. But no metaphor in current use successfully conceptualizes the contingency of judicial opinions and the complexity of the relationship between opinions and precedent. This Article seeks to fill this void by introducing a new metaphor, the palimpsest, into the realm of legal analysis. A palimpsest is a writing surface that can be cleared away for reuse, like a personal blackboard. What distinguishes a palimpsest from other writing surfaces is that its removed contents do not disappear, but remain, obscured yet recoverable: A writing on a palimpsest never goes away. This Article argues that thinking of judicial opinions as being part of a shared, ever-evolving palimpsest underscores the fact that they are ultimately contingent and serves as a reminder of the multiple levels of interconnectedness between them and the cases they cite. Precedents—like the underlayers of a palimpsest—never go away, and they inform and shape the application of opinions in ways far more significant than simply serving as points of reference. A palimpsestic approach to understanding judicial decisionmaking also helps to explain why even the oldest, most reviled cases remain part of our national psyche—like underlayers of a palimpsest, they can never truly disappear, and their continued presence forces us to grapple with their existence. Finally, considering judicial opinions as part of a shared palimpsest reminds us that even the most troubling opinion is ultimately contingent, its application subject to reexamination and revision by future courts and future generations. Just as such an opinion replaces its precedents, it too will one day be replaced, like each of a palimpsest’s layers. 2 Law as Palimpsest [Vol. __:__ Law as Palimpsest: Conceptualizing Contingency in Judicial Opinions