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.
Positive Rights and State Constitutions: The Limits of Federal Rationality Review
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................. 1132 I. STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE PRACTICE ............................................................. 1144 A. A Mandatory Obligation: The New York Example .................................................. 1144 B. A Typology of Current State Court Decisions .......................................................... 1145 IT. RECONSIDERING FEDERAL RATIONALITY REVIEW IN STATE CONSTITUTIONAL WELFARE CASES ................................................................................ 1153 A. Rationality Review and Positive Rights .................................................................. 1155 B. Rationality Review and Democratic Legitimacy .................................................... 1157 C. Rationality Review and Judicial Finality ............................................................. xi61 D. Rationality Review and Federalism ......................................................................... i166 E. Rationality Review Revisited .................................................................................... 1169 III. TOWARD A NEW STANDARD OF REVIEW ......................................................................... 1169 A. The Need for Judicial Review .................................................................................. 1170 B. Institutional Competence and Welfare Litigation ................................................... 1175 I. State Courts as Fact Gatherers ......................................................................... 1175 2. State Courts as Policymakers ......................................................................... " 179 3. State Courts as Rights Enforcers ..................................................................... 1182 C. A Jurisprudence of Consequences .............................................................................. 1183 D. Why Education and Not Welfare? ........................................................................... i86 E. Implications for Welfare Litigation ........................................................................... i9i IV. CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................ 1194
Women's health in prison: urgent need for improvement in gender equity and social justice.
The needs of women held in detention have received little attention and con-tinue to be neglected by health systems and prison authorities. One reason for this, too readily accepted until now, is that women prisoners are a clear minor-ity group within prisons all over the world. It is only recently that attention has been drawn to the fact that a minor-ity status does not justify the widespread ignorance of women’s basic rights and the considerable gender insensitivity still dominating criminal justice systems.In Europe alone, there are about 100 000 women and girls in prison.