published_or_final_version / Public Administration / Master / Master of Public Administration

The issue of divergence in human rights protection (adjudication) between the law of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and European Community/Union (EC/EU) law has been in the centre of academic attention for decades. The position that there are instances of divergence and there is a risk of divergence between the two legal orders has gained authority in academic discourse despite the fact that its premises were subject to challenges on numerous occasions. The claim that human rights protection in EC law is divergent from that under the ECHR appears to suffer from certain shortcomings. First, it is not clear how the divergence claim addresses the question of incommensurability that unavoidably emerges in a comparison of judgments originating from different jurisdictions. Second, the divergence claim has largely eluded to address the quality of flexibility possessed by ECHR and EC human rights law. Both legal orders operate mechanisms of flexibility that enable a treatment of differing human rights solutions other than rejection. In reaction to these problems the present thesis advances the arguments of flexibility and similarity. The flexibility argument holds that the issue of divergence is largely neutralised by the ability of ECHR law (and to a lesser extent of EC law) to react to the problem of divergence flexibly. This entails that the human rights solutions of Community courts could often be accommodated within the flexible framework of ECHR law. The similarity argument provides that the style of human rights protection in ECHR and EC law is similar. The comparison of styles is based on a general system of analysis that aims to avoid the problem of incommensurability. The two arguments are not independent - the success of each argument depends on the availability of the other. The limits of flexibility are found in the requirement of similarity and the impreciseness of the similarity argument is corrected by the potentials inherent in the flexibility argument. On this basis, the relationship between ECHR and EC law could be described as a flexible status of non-divergence.

<p>The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) ia a multilateral international treaty introduced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that came into effect on 1 June 1995. At a basic level it attempted to establish minimum standards for the regulation of intellectual property rights within those countries that are members of the WTO and signatories to it. This thesis served a dual purpose. The first leg was to embark on an investigation into TRIPS, criticallt analyzing the provisions of the Agreement. The important aim here was to analyze and discover whether TRIPS is sensitive to weaker countries. The second leg was to probe within the the legislative framework of South Africa and determine whether South Africa as a &quot / developing copuntry&quot / , has complied with the demands as expressed by TRIPS. This investigation was done with specific reference to South African patent law.</p>

This thesis is the first major study of the UK Supreme Court’s use of jurisprudence from foreign domestic courts in human rights cases. It contributes to the debate on judicial comparitivism by asking when, how and why the Supreme Court uses foreign jurisprudence, as well as whether the Court should be making greater use of it. The research findings are drawn from quantitative and qualitative analysis of judgments handed down by the Supreme Court during its first four years (2009-2013). These are supported by evidence obtained through interviews with ten Justices of the Supreme Court, one Lord Justice of Appeal and the eight Supreme Court Judicial Assistants. In the absence of legislative guidance, the use of foreign jurisprudence is neither consistent nor systematic. Different Justices use foreign jurisprudence to different degrees and for different reasons. The main use of foreign jurisprudence is as a heuristic device: it provides the Justices with a different analytical lens through which to reflect on their own reasoning about a problem. Some Justices also use foreign jurisprudence when interpreting a common legislative scheme and to support their conclusions. As a result, the Justices use foreign jurisprudence differently according to the audience to whom their reasons are addressed. Thus foreign jurisprudence can assist the Supreme Court to enter into dialogue with the Strasbourg Court. However, this thesis does not support theories of transjudicial dialogue with other domestic courts; the evidence does not indicate that the Supreme Court considers itself to be part of global conversation. Further, the use of foreign jurisprudence is limited by practical barriers including, but not restricted to, time pressures, the availability of comparative resources and the greater use of plurality style judgments. These barriers are worth addressing if the Supreme Court is to fully utilise the heuristic value of foreign jurisprudence.

Doctor of Philosophy / The hypothesis of this work is that international human rights law and not international humanitarian law is the legal framework that applies to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations in collapsed States where the peacekeepers do not become a party to an armed conflict. In order to test this hypothesis the work begins by examining what is meant by peacekeeping and charts the evolution of peacekeeping from its origins as a passive ad hoc activity to the modern highly complex operations capable of providing the foundations for the recreation of civil society. Chapter two of the work builds on the first chapter by analysing the UN’s theoretical approach to peacekeeping through its major reports. This chapter provides insight into the development of peacekeeping as a theoretical construct and then into a central tool in the UN’s attempt to implement the Charter. Chapters three and four analyse peacekeeping as practiced by the UN in operations conducted under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter. This analysis leads to the conclusion that as a matter of practice the UN and the State parties that have provided the troops to perform peacekeeping under UN control have acted in accordance with international human rights law and that as a result there is evidence of State practice to support an argument that as a matter of customary international law international human rights law applies as the framework for peacekeeping in collapsed States. With a clear grounding in the practice and theory of peacekeeping the work then examines the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law as the legal framework for peacekeeping operations. Suggestions are made with regard to the triggers for international humanitarian law to apply and the conclusion is drawn that the vast majority of UN operations between 1949 and 2003 were conducted beneath the threshold for the application of international humanitarian law. The final chapter of the work analyses the practical application of a human rights framework to peacekeeping and concludes that it provides a flexible and adaptive tool for the restoration of peace and the reconstruction of civil society. As a result of the analysis of UN peacekeeping theory, practice and the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the work concludes that international human rights law provides the framework for UN peacekeeping in collapsed States and that international humanitarian law will only apply where peacekeepers cross the threshold into armed conflict.

The increasing frequency and/or severity of climate-related disasters has pushed “environmental refugees” onto center stage, capturing headlines the world over. Although the urgency implied by the “refugee” terminology is apt, the legal reality is that few “environmental refugees” can enjoy the protections of refugee law—a system of law that was created in the post-World War II era to respond to the ongoing needs of Jews displaced during the War and whose stringent requirements reflect the particular historical moment of its creation. Despite evolutions in other areas, refugee law does not typically provide recourse for environmental harms. By contrast, human rights law, at both the international and domestic levels, has continued to evolve to recognize environmental and social environmental rights; for example, the General Assembly of the United Nations in 2010 recognized a human right to water. Issues related to water scarcity or water (mis)management may already be causing affected individuals to leave their homes, and concerns about water availability in the near future necessitate the development of legal tools for protecting these populations. This paper draws on human rights law, as it exists in the international system and as applied in Colombia, to create a framework that may provide greater protection for so-called “water refugees,” given the increasing salience of displacements related to water, the lack of movement in refugee law regarding environmental displacements, and the promise of social and economic rights discourse. / text

<p>Many critics have questioned whether the protection of the IPRs would benefit developing countries. It was argued in this paper that developing countires have the interest in protecting IPRs as well. However, it was showed that the benefit of this protection can be realized only if there is a fair rule of the game to all players in the multilateral trading system. The general objective of this research was to examine the current status of IPRs protection and the levels of TRIPS compliance by Rwanda in the area of copyright.</p>

<p>The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS) ia a multilateral international treaty introduced by the World Trade Organization (WTO) that came into effect on 1 June 1995. At a basic level it attempted to establish minimum standards for the regulation of intellectual property rights within those countries that are members of the WTO and signatories to it. This thesis served a dual purpose. The first leg was to embark on an investigation into TRIPS, criticallt analyzing the provisions of the Agreement. The important aim here was to analyze and discover whether TRIPS is sensitive to weaker countries. The second leg was to probe within the the legislative framework of South Africa and determine whether South Africa as a &quot / developing copuntry&quot / , has complied with the demands as expressed by TRIPS. This investigation was done with specific reference to South African patent law.</p>

<p>Many critics have questioned whether the protection of the IPRs would benefit developing countries. It was argued in this paper that developing countires have the interest in protecting IPRs as well. However, it was showed that the benefit of this protection can be realized only if there is a fair rule of the game to all players in the multilateral trading system. The general objective of this research was to examine the current status of IPRs protection and the levels of TRIPS compliance by Rwanda in the area of copyright.</p>

Doctor of Philosophy / The hypothesis of this work is that international human rights law and not international humanitarian law is the legal framework that applies to United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations in collapsed States where the peacekeepers do not become a party to an armed conflict. In order to test this hypothesis the work begins by examining what is meant by peacekeeping and charts the evolution of peacekeeping from its origins as a passive ad hoc activity to the modern highly complex operations capable of providing the foundations for the recreation of civil society. Chapter two of the work builds on the first chapter by analysing the UN’s theoretical approach to peacekeeping through its major reports. This chapter provides insight into the development of peacekeeping as a theoretical construct and then into a central tool in the UN’s attempt to implement the Charter. Chapters three and four analyse peacekeeping as practiced by the UN in operations conducted under Chapters VI and VII of the UN Charter. This analysis leads to the conclusion that as a matter of practice the UN and the State parties that have provided the troops to perform peacekeeping under UN control have acted in accordance with international human rights law and that as a result there is evidence of State practice to support an argument that as a matter of customary international law international human rights law applies as the framework for peacekeeping in collapsed States. With a clear grounding in the practice and theory of peacekeeping the work then examines the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law as the legal framework for peacekeeping operations. Suggestions are made with regard to the triggers for international humanitarian law to apply and the conclusion is drawn that the vast majority of UN operations between 1949 and 2003 were conducted beneath the threshold for the application of international humanitarian law. The final chapter of the work analyses the practical application of a human rights framework to peacekeeping and concludes that it provides a flexible and adaptive tool for the restoration of peace and the reconstruction of civil society. As a result of the analysis of UN peacekeeping theory, practice and the competing claims of international humanitarian law and international human rights law, the work concludes that international human rights law provides the framework for UN peacekeeping in collapsed States and that international humanitarian law will only apply where peacekeepers cross the threshold into armed conflict.