On March 7

On this day in ...
... 1951 (60 years ago today), Virginia Margaret Bell (right) was born in Australia. A law graduate of the University of Sydney who was admitted as a solicitor in 1977 and to the bar in 1984, she practiced in the private practitioner and as a public defender, then became a judge in the New South Wales Court of Appeal. In 2009, she was appointed a Justice of the Australia High Court. (photo credit) Bell "is the first lesbian to serve on the High Court, and the second openly LGBT person after Michael Kirby, whom she replaced upon his retirement."

(Prior March 7 posts are here, here, here, and here.)

On February 9

On this day in ...
... 1916 (95 years ago today), Britain began conscripting men between 18 and 41 years of age to fight in the conflict that it had entered nearly 2 years earlier. A million persons already had volunteered, but more were needed due to heavy losses. (The July 1916 Battle of the Somme would claim 20,000 British lives on the 1st day alone.) By the time World War I ended, more than "4.5 million Britons served in arms (in addition to over three million troops from the British Empire)." Many in the latter group arrived only after significant resistance in their home countries, as described, e.g., here (photo credit) and here.

(Prior February 9 posts are here, here, and here.)

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

[T]he act of state doctrine, 'whatever it might be – has no application where it is alleged that Commonwealth officials have acted beyond the bounds of their authority under Commonwealth law.' His Honour noted that, consistent with the principle enunciated in Marbury v. Madison, the limits of executive action raised a justiciable question which courts exercising federal jurisdiction were obliged to scrutinize as a basic element of the rule of law.

-- Dr. Stephen Tully, in an ASIL Insight entitled "Australian Court Permits Damages Claim for Torture by former Guantánamo Bay Detainee to Proceed." Tully was quoting the opinion of Judge Nye Perram in a recent ruling by the Federal Court of Australia. The court permitted to go forward a torture lawsuit brought by former a Guantánamo detainee against Australian law enforcement and intelligence agents. Judge Perram had invoked Marbury (1803), the landmark judgment by John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States, in concluding that doctrines such as act of state did not preclude further judicial review of the claims brought by ex-detainee Mamdouh Habib. In his Insight, Tully underscored the contrast between this judgment and U.S. rulings that have preclude further review in analogous post-9/11 lawsuits. Tully allowed, however, that chances for ultimate success in Habib's suit remain "slim."

Gender off the agenda in Australian election aftermath

(We are delighted to welcome back IntLawGrrls guest/alumna Susan Harris Rimmer with a special post on the recent Australian election)

There is a website that contains all the information the rest of the world needs to know about the recent Australian election on 21 August: doesaustraliahaveagovernmentyet.com? It is a black screen with one large white word - no. Yes, we are still cheeky and irreverent. No, we no longer have a dominant two party system, and the change this is causing is painful, but hopefully good for Parliament in the long term. Yes, policy issues played out in a weird bubble during the campaign, as if the rest of the world and climate change and the financial crisis and the causes of boat arrivals of asylum-seekers simply did not exist. Most of the messages from the two major parties were negative and targeted at a few marginal seats. But we did get our youngest ever MP (at 20 years old), our first Indigenous MP, and our first Muslim MP.
The fact Australia had the chance to elect its first female Prime Minister seems not to have had much impact on the way the polls played out. At least overtly. Julia Gillard (credit for photo below right) did not sweep to power on a feminist voting landslide, that much is for sure. Research before the poll suggested that 64% of women participants would choose to vote for Gillard because they are strongly influenced by Gillard’s views and priorities first and foremost, her leadership style, second and her achievements, third, before the considerations that she is the first woman PM in Australia and that she will do more for women’s issues if elected.
Except they didn't. At least they didn't in the 20 odd marginal seats that counted. And the way that Julia Gillard took power from Kevin Rudd -- in a very sudden and clinical fashion -- was certainly a factor in the election, as was the deep unpopularity of two governments at the State level, New South Wales and Queensland, which are also led by women, Anna Bligh (credit for photo below left) and Kristina Keneally (credit for photo below right) .
Ostensibly, the election couldn't have been more stark on women's issues at the level of representation. In one corner was a feminist and the first female PM, who was famously denigrated for being 'deliberately barren' by a fellow Parliamentarian (as best described by Kathy Lette in the UK Daily Mail). Gillard is tough and competent and resolutely cool under fire. She stated early and often that the campaign wasn't about gender, then promptly did a cover shoot for the Australian Women's Weekly.
In the other corner was Tony Abbott, an uber-masculine, fitness junkie ex-novitiate with such a negative background on women's issues that activists were able to create a full advertisement by simply cutting together his previous comments. But Abbott ran a disciplined campaign with clear messages, announced a very generous paid maternity leave scheme, and gathered his wife and daughters about him at every opportunity. Abbott also managed to curb his normal enthusiasm for gaffes about women, except for saying 'no means no' to a repeated request for Gillard to debate her on economic issues. (And he kept his clothes on - Tony Abbott is famous for getting about a in very small swimming costume, known colloquially in Australia as 'budgie smugglers'. Think Putin, but cheekier).
But in meaningful terms, there was no emphasis on any women's policy issues in the campaign whatsoever, neither at the domestic or international level (see the election platform calls from the women's sector). Admittedly there was almost no social policy or foreign policy either. The BBC always saves its best dry wit for its Australian reportage and their Sydney correspondent Nick Bryant gave the best analysis I've seen, despairing that the campaign was parochial, scrappy and lacked vision.
So here we are, many days after the election with no end in sight, and the players now are five independents in the House of Representatives, four representing rural and regional electorates. One is a very colourful character, Bob Katter - his 'Force from the North' rural rap is a big hit on YouTube. It is unlikely that women's issues are going to get much play in what is likely to be a difficult negotiation leading to a fragile minority government. It is also likely Australia might head back to the polls.
Overall? An election campaign full of sound of fury, signifying nothing? It often felt that way. Is the fact that Julia's gender did not turn the election one way or another to be celebrated? What will be the long-term impact of this election on the participation of women in public policy decision-making?
For thoughtful commentary on the role of gender in the Australian election, these opinions columns by Marian Sawer and Julia Baird are well worth a read.

(credit for map of Australia top left)

On August 9

On this day in ...
... 1909, Margaret Battye (left) was born in Subiaco, Australia, into a family of librarians. One of 4 women to receive her law degree from the University of Western Australia in the early 1930s, she was admitted to the bar in 1933. She and another graduate, Mary Hartney, then established the 1st firm of women lawyers in that state. Battye won her 1st case -- and became the 1st woman to represent a client before the bar of that state. Thirty years before any such law would be passed, Battye drafted legislation aimed at ending discrimination against women in Australia. The year was 1949; that same year she died from a thyroid illness, at age 40.

(Prior August 9 posts are here, here, and here.)

Guest Blogger: Rebecca Young

It's IntLawGrrls' great pleasure to welcome Rebecca Young (left) as today's guest blogger.
Rebecca is currently an Associate Legal Adviser within the Presidency of the International Criminal Court. She has previously interned with South Africa’s Legal Resources Centre.
She completed her Honours Bachelor of Laws at the University of Adelaide in 2006, and was awarded the RBS Scots-Australian Council Postgraduate Council Scholarship to complete her Masters of International Law at the University of Edinburgh in 2009. At Edinburgh she was awarded both the T.B. Smith Prize for the most distinguished LL.M. Scholar and the W.A. Wilson Prize for the best dissertation in international law.
In her guest post below, Rebecca outlines her article, just published in the International Criminal Law Review, on victim groups and genocide (It's an issue on which IntLawGrrl Beth Van Schaack's also written, here, as well as yours truly, here.) Rebecca's work in international criminal law and international human rights law also has appeared in the Australian International Law Journal and the Edinburgh Student Law Review.
Rebecca reports that her passion for international law was inspired by her participation, while still an undergraduate, in the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition, about which another onetime participant, IntLawGrrl Kathleen A. Doty, also has posted.

Heartfelt welcome!

Slovakia's new leader

Slovakia's the newest country to be led by a woman, following yesterday's swearing-in of Iveta Radičová (left) as Prime Minister. Radičová's the 1st woman to hold that position in Slovakia, which joined the United Nations in 1993 following an amicable split with the Czech Republic.

Radičová, born 53 years ago in Bratislava, served as Minister for Labor, Social Affairs and Family from 2005 to 2006. She leads a 4-party center-right coalition, which takes over from the previous center-left government.

She seizes the mantle of newest woman leader from Julia Gillard, who, as posted, became Australia's PM last month.

Gender equality & the G-20bis

This year's official photo from the G-20 summit, held this past weekend in Toronto, Canada, looks pretty much like last year's from London, England: there's German Chancellor Angela Merkel in orange, Argentinian President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner in white, and standing 2 rows behind her, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, till tomorrow the President of the Philippines. Et alia. Another G-20 country now also has a woman leader, but Julia Gillard, Prime Minister only since Friday, sent Australia's Treasurer, Wayne Swan (top middle).

...and counting....

(Occasional sobering thoughts.) It's been fully 14 weeks since we last took account of the conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on the Afghanistan-Pakistan border.
The headline news this past week, of course, has been President Barack Obama's firing of U.S. Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal from command of forces in Afghanistan. The Oval Office dismissal came days after the online publication of spoken, and gestured, criticisms by McChrystal and his staff, the crudeness of which reads as a juvenile and downright dumb effort by military brass to out-Rolling Stone the Rolling Stone. (Perhaps if they'd seen the Gaga cover that would cloak the McChrystal story, they'd have known the futility of any such effort.)
Also seizing headlines was Obama's in-an-instant replacement of McChrystal with Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the U.S.-led coalition in Iraq from 2007 to 2008.
But neither seems the real story.
More likely, the real story is Obama's insistence that no change in war-waging policy would accompany the change in war-waging generals:

We are going to break the Taliban's momentum. We are going to build Afghan capacity. We are going to relentlessly apply pressure on al-Qaida and its leadership, strengthening the ability of both Afghanistan and Pakistan to do the same.

Whether that's in fact the last word on policy remains to be seen.
On her 1st day in office Friday, Julia Gillard, the new Prime Minister of Australia, assured Obama in a phone conversation that "supports the war in Afghanistan and he can rely on her to continue the commitment of troops." (credit for 2009 photo of Gillard, then Deputy Prime Minister, visiting Australian troops in Iraq shortly before their withdrawal from that country)
Yet in the country contributing the most troops after the United States to the NATO effort in Afghanistan, the news of the week was the 300th British servicemember death there. Not surprisingly, yesterday the new Prime Minister, David Cameron, sounded a rather more measured tone after meeting with Obama on the 1st day of this week's G-20 summit in Toronto. Cameron said:

Making progress this year, putting everything we have into getting it right this year is vitally important.

Criticism of the tactics of the AfPak war also persist, as was evident in the attention paid the public defense of targeted-killing-by-drones, delivered in March by State Department Legal Adviser Harold Hongju Koh. Four persons were killed in a drone raid yesterday, another 13 last week; "Pakistani officials have told the BBC that the US have carried out at least 70 such raids since January."
Also of concern, the continued spike in civilian deaths, a trend that Obama's promised to work to reverse:

Figures from the Pentagon show 90 civilians were killed by American or NATO forces in the first four months of this year, compared with 51 in the same period last year ...

As for Iraq?
Far less news. About a hundred persons killed by car bombs in May, on the "bloodiest day this year." More recently, reports of scattered violence "as," to quote The New York Times, "as the country’s political stalemate dragged on."
With these developments in mind, we revisit the casualty count since our last "...and counting..." post 6 weeks ago:
► The U.S. Department of Defense reports that coalition military casualties in Afghanistan stand at 1,141 Americans, 308 Britons, and 425 other coalition servicemembers. That's an increase of 117, 43, and 32 casualties, respectively, in the last 14 weeks. The total coalition casualty count in the Afghanistan conflict is 1,874 service women and men.
► Respecting the conflict in Iraq, Iraq Body Count reports that between 96,813 and 105,563 Iraqi women, children, and men have died in the conflict in Iraq since the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003, representing an increase of between 1,089 and 1,136 deaths in the last 14 weeks.
According to the U.S. Defense Department, 4,408 American servicemembers have been killed in Iraq, representing 23 servicemember deaths in the last 14 weeks. (As posted, U.S. troops are the only foreign forces remaining in Iraq.)

Newest woman head of government

About 3 hours ago Julia Gillard was sworn in as Prime Minister of Australia, the 1st woman to hold that position. "Gillard was greeted with a kiss by her partner Tim Mathieson as she entered the room for the swearing-in." She took the oath from the country's 1st woman Governor-General, Quentin Bryce.
Gillard (left) had been Deputy Prime Minister since 2007 (prior IntLawGrrls post). On September 29, 1961, she was born into a working-class family in Wales. The family immigrated when she was 4. Gillard earned her law degree from the University of Melbourne, and practiced law before becoming Chief of Staff to the opposition leader in Parliament in 1995. Three years later, she herself was elected, and has served in Parliament ever since. (credit for photo by Rebecca Hallas)
Gillard's selection Wednesday as the new Prime Minister brought tears to the eyes of her predecessor, Kevin Rudd, who lost a struggle to retain leadership of the Labor Party to which both belong. The Sydney Morning Herald reported that "Mr Rudd had decided to fight to the death after refusing to step aside last night for Ms Gillard."
A partial list of women heads of government or state to which Gillard now belongs:

Laura Chinchilla of Costa Rica, Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf of Liberia, Doris Leuthard of Switzerland, Pratibha Patil of India, Cristina Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina and Kyrgyzstan's interim government leader Roza Otunbayeva.

Can you name others?

On June 23

On this day in ...
... 1961, having been concluded in 1959, the Antarctic Treaty entered into force, as proclaimed this same day by U.S. President John F. Kennedy. Days later, the 1st consultative meeting of the 12 states parties to the treaty (prior posts) was set for the following month in Canberra, Australia. (credit for treaty system logo at right)

(Prior June 23 posts are here, here, and here.)

Coming soon to the ICJ: Australia v. Japan over whaling

In a joint release, Australia's foreign and environmental ministers announced yesterday that early next week, "Australia will initiate legal action in the International Court of Justice in The Hague against Japanese 'scientific' whaling in the Southern Ocean."
The twin goals, they said, are:
► in the shorter term, "to bring to an end Japan's program of so-called 'scientific' whaling" (prior IntLawGrrls posts here and here), and
► in the longer term, "to do what it takes to end whaling globally."
The decision comes after the failure to date of diplomatic efforts, not only with Japan on a bilateral plane, but also, on a multistate level, with member states of the International Whaling Commission (logo above left). Yesterday's release was notably pointed in its criticism of some in the latter group:

Recent statements by whaling countries in the Commission have provided Australia
with little cause for hope that our serious commitment to conservation of the world's whales will be reflected in any potential IWC compromise agreement.

How will the decision affect bilateral relations? The Australians said:

Both Australia and Japan have agreed that, whatever our differences on whaling, this issue should not be allowed to jeopardise the strength and the growth of our bilateral relationship.

While a Japanese minister said upon hearing yesterday's announcement:

I do not wish to harm Japan-Australia relations over all, but I hope to assert that what’s wrong is wrong.

He did not mean to refer to his own country's practices.

On May 1

On this day in ...
... 1946, approximately 600 Aborigines working at "pastoral stations," or ranches, in northwest Australia walked off the job to protest working conditions, beginning the Pilbara strike, "an unheard of act of autonomy in an era where the Aborigines were systematically deprived of land, power, freedom and respect." Although its organizers were jailed, the effort endured for years, as strikers earned income from other work and were aided by "unionists, women's organisations, churches and others." The mineral-rich region (in red on map at right) remains in the news: recently Australia's Deputy Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, visited Pilbara to announce that "the Federal Government will not support legislation to force mining companies to employ Aboriginal contractors."

(Prior May 1 posts are here, here, and here)

Law moves in mysterious ways . . .

The disturbing trend of "pushing back" asylum seekers hit new lows last week when Australia announced that it would suspend asylum applications from Afghanis and Sri Lankans, claiming that both countries have stabilized sufficiently that even refugees can be returned. And on Tuesday, Arizona passed a bill that criminalizes the presence of those without lawful immigration status, risking racial profiling among other rights violations. It seems the fences are getting higher across the developed world, and human rights are pushed to the side as anti-immigrant politics take the fore.
Of course, these policies have raised the ire of immigrants' rights advocates, but we've also seen strong criticism, leveraging the language and power of international law, from unusual quarters. In Italy, where, as I blogged last week, asylum seekers arriving by boat are returned to Libya without even an interview, the Vatican issued a powerful critique of this practice. Paraphrasing without citing the UN Convention Against Torture, Archbishop Agostino Marchetto noted that

No one can be transferred, expelled or extradited towards a state where there is a serious risk that the person will be condemned to death, tortured or subjected to other forms of degrading or inhumane treatment,

and that conditions in some Libyan detention centers are inhumane and degrading.
In the case of Arizona, a more traditional but no less powerful vision of international law was offered up. The Mexican Embassy issued a strongly-worded statement condemning the bill criminalizing undocumented status, noting not only its potential for violating the civil rights of Mexican nationals, but also its potential to upset diplomatic relations between the United States and Mexico. Moreover, the Embassy's spokesperson reiterated the Mexican consulate's commitment to ensuring that the rights of its nationals are respected in the United States.
And in the case of Australia, while a legal response may be forthcoming from the Australian Human Rights Commission, the Tamil Referendum Council of Australia made perhaps the most creative use of international law in responding to the blanket denial of asylum to Sri Lankans. The Council relied on a letter from Human Rights Watch finding that Australia's actions violate the UN Refugee Convention and Protocol to argue that an independent Tamil homeland in northern Sri Lanka is the best way to prevent an influx of refugees and consequent violations of international obligations. In other words, if Australia doesn't want these refugees on its doorstep, it should help to resolve the root causes of flight in Sri Lanka.
Though self-serving to different degrees, the adoption of the language of international law in advocating for the rights of immigrants and refugees is also a reflection of the increasing power of human rights law and indicative of the new life that can be breathed into long-standing principles of foreign affairs and consular protection. And while lawsuits have and will be brought to remedy these rights violations, the use of international law by a variety of actors may start to shift the court of public opinion, which may be more important in enforcing the rights of immigrants.

Write On! Untold war crime trial stories

(Write On! is an occasional item about notable calls for papers.) From our Opinio Juris colleague Kevin Jon Heller, news that papers are being sought for what promises to be a fascinating event:
The conference, entitled Untold Stories: Hidden Histories of War Crimes Trials, will be held October 15-16, 2010, at the University of Melbourne Law School in Australia. Sponsoring the conference is the law school's Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law (logo below left). Organizers are Kevin, who's a Senior Lecturer at the law school, along with Dr. Gerry Simpson, Centre Director and a law professor both at Melbourne and the London School of Economics; Dr. Tim McCormack, Melbourne law professor and the Centre's Foundation Director, whom the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has named its Special Adviser on International Humanitarian Law; and Dr. Jennifer Balint (right), an expert on genocide and state crime at Melbourne's School of Social and Political Sciences. Confirmed speakers for this effort to examine less well-known aspects of war crimes trials, with an eye to publication of a conference volume, include our colleagues Mark Drumbl (Washington & Lee) and Larry May (Vanderbilt).
Organizers explain:

As international criminal law matures, there has been a return to history. Intriguing research agendas have focused on the origins of international criminal law in the repression of piracy or slave-trading and on the institutional innovations found at Versailles and The Hague. Meanwhile, familiar landmarks are being revisited in order to clarify ongoing doctrinal debates (aggression at Nuremberg, conspiracy at Tokyo, and so on). Alongside all of this is increased interest in less familiar war crimes trials, both international and domestic.
The idea behind this symposium is to uncover and explore some of the less well-known – perhaps even obscure – war crimes trials. As an example, Kevin Heller, one of the organizers, will be presenting a paper on the twelve Nuremberg Military Tribunals held under Control Council Law No. 10. There will also likely be papers on the war crimes trials held in Bangladesh after the secession, on the recent genocide trial in Ethiopia, and on the post-war trials under Australian jurisdiction in the Far East.

An abstract of 300 to 500 words, plus a short CV, should be submitted no later than the deadline of May 30, 2010, to Professor Simpson c/o Centre Administrator Cathy Hutton at c.hutton@unimelb.edu.au. Questions should be directed to Kevin at kheller@unimelb.edu.au.

'Nuff said

(Taking context-optional note of thought-provoking quotes)

'The Internet needs to be free.'

-- Our colleague Jeffrey L. Bleich (right) (prior post), currently the United States' Ambassador to Australia, reiterating State Department policy on an Australian Broadcasting Co. television show. (photo credit) As detailed in a broadcast yesterday (video and transcript here), at issue is the Australian government's plan for a mandatory internet filter aimed at weeding out objected-to content, such as "child pornography, sexual violence and detailed instructions in crime or drug use."

On January 26

On this day in ...
... 1788, a sea captain claimed what's now known as Sydney, New South Wales, thus establishing British imperialism in Australia. (image credit) Since at least 1808, the date has been commemorated as Australia Day. But according to this website,

while it is a day that weaves together the past and present of a great land and its people, its celebration is a sore point for some of Australia's Aboriginal community who consider they were invaded by the British on that day in 1788.

(Prior January 26 posts are here and here.)

A strategy of gender fundamentalism in Afghanistan?

(It's our great pleasure to welcome IntLawGrrls alumna Penelope Andrews, who contributes this guest post on a critical issue also addressed in today's post just below it)

As President Barack Obama prepares to give a speech this Tuesday on his administration's strategy going forward in Afghanistan, it's time to ask what role the cause of women in Afghanistan should play in reaching this decision. It's not evident that any of President Obama's advisors are giving any weight to the cause of women as a relevant factor in determining future strategy in Afghanistan.

Eight years is a long time for the prosecution of a major international war. It is therefore appropriate to ask:

What has been achieved in the cause for women and their status in Afghanistan's life?

Undeniably, there have been a few notable gains, such as the increasing number of girls who now attend school, and the presence of some female parliamentarians. But for the most part the fundamental gains required for Afghan women to achieve full citizenship have not transpired. Women continue to remain hostage to President Hamid Karzai’s equivocation and compromises -- as well as to the authoritarian traditions of warlords who support, and are supported by, President Karzai.

Afghan women are caught up in violence from all sides:

► from U.S. and NATO forces who drop bombs on them or raid their homes and detain indefinitely family members;

► to an unrelenting reign of terror from the Taliban groups who persist in their strategy of denying women basic rights and who act to undo the few gains and rights that Afghan women have in the interim obtained or may gain;
► to violence committed by warlords inflicting harsh punishments on women and seeking to confine them to traditional roles.

When it comes to women, the war has been another disaster, and has obscured both the continuing denial of their civil and political rights and the deleterious impact of that denial. Women's hopes, raised during the early days of the invasion, have turned into a poignant despair. With the warlords and the Taliban controlling about ninety percent of Afghanistan, it's not surprising to hear, as one notable Afghan women activist put it, that the invasion has led to “no positive change” regarding the situation of women. (credit for Office of U.N. High Commissioner of Refugees photo of Afghan women)

Given these conditions, a key issue is to provide for the basic rights of women. Given past experience, there is no reason to believe that sending more troops will secure this goal. Can this aim be achieved through negotiations and reduction of violence? That is where the focus should be, not on adding more troops to wage war. Moreover, securing the rights of women is probably the best way to aid Afghanistan's indigenous democracy.

To be sure, the Taliban in the past has been chronically against women's rights, but could the United Nations broker an agreement whereby the war would be ended in exchange for a guarantee by the Taliban and the Karzai government to respect and promote women's rights?What exactly would this entail? First, the international community, through the United Nations, should adopt a policy akin to a zero tolerance approach to the pursuit of gender equality and the eradication of violence against women, a gender fundamentalism if you will. This means that women’s equality, along with the campaign to provide democracy, would be the raison d’être for international engagement.

This must be the commitment of the international community. The role and status of women would become an important measure of the achievement of democracy in Afghanistan, perhaps a harbinger of democracy.

(A longer version of this post appears at this month's issue of Asian Currents, the e-bulletin of the Asian Studies Association of Australia, the country where Penny's taken up a Chair in Law at La Trobe University)

FemInt workshop-in-progress

(IntLawGrrls is pleased to welcome back alumna Susan Harris Rimmer, who contributes this guest post)

As previously posted, The Australian National University is currently hosting a workshop on Feminist Internationalisms in Canberra, Australia. The workshop is intended to reflect on twenty years of feminist scholarship in the fields of international law and international relations, in Australia, New Zealand, and the Pacific.

IntLawGrrls everywhere can follow the proceedings:

Live

Click on the conference Twitter account here and receive tweets live from the conference floor.

Podcasts

The following podcasts from the workshop also are available: "You May Never Understand: Prospects for Feminist Futures in International Relations," the keynote address by Dr. J. Ann Tickner (below right), Professor of International Relations at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles, is here, and the Q&A that followed is here.

Here's a taste of what Ann had to say:

While feminist research has been successful in making women visible, it has gone much deeper. Getting beyond women and IR, and even beyond gender and IR, it has successfully demonstrated -- not maybe as much as we would like to the discipline as a whole -- that IR theory is thoroughly gendered, both in the questions it chooses to ask, as well as how it goes about answering them.
One of the most creative moves feminism has made is to challenge disciplinary boundaries and bring in new issues and voices.
Rich empirical case studies –- using methodologies not normally employed by IR scholars -- have shed light on those on the margins (both women and men) whose lives are deeply impacted by global politics and economics. Feminists have sccessfully demonstrated how the lives of sex workers, domestic servants, home-based workers and those who work at unremunerated caring and reproductive labour, are intertwined with global politics and the global economy. They have also suggested that the security of states is sometimes dependent on rendering insecure the lives of certain, often marginalized, people, and how the global capitalist economy could not function without unremunerated labour, the majority of which is performed by women. IR feminists have also pointed to the inadequacies of social scientific methodologies for answering many of the questions they want to ask.

All workshop papers will appear in a special issue of the Australian Feminist Law Journal in July 2010.

One small step for Australia: Movement towards a Human Rights Act

(My thanks to IntLawGrrls for this opportunity to guest post on developments in human rights law in Australia, on which international lawyers whom I convened, in conjunction with Professor Robert McCorquodale, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, prepared a submission)

After an extensive Australia-wide human rights consultation, a respected government-constituted Committee has recommended, in its National Human Rights Consultation Report, that the time has come for an Australian Human Rights Act.

The key question demanded of the consultation committee was whether Australia should (and in some ways whether it is ready to) adopt human rights legislation. A constitutional bill of rights equivalent to the US Bill of Rights was regrettably off the table from the start, as such a proposal fell outside the consultation’s terms of reference. Despite this, even if an ordinary piece of legislation is adopted on human rights, it would represent a dramatic change in human rights protection in Australia.
At one time a world leader in its commitment to human rights, Australia has fallen behind comparative countries in its systems of human rights protection.

It is not widely known that Australia is now the only western liberal democracy without a “Bill of Rights” (broadly defined). The lack of national protection, and a human rights-shy High Court, have permitted successive Australian governments to introduce laws, such as for indefinite detention, immigration restrictions and indigenous discrimination, despite widespread criticism that they violate international law.
The National Human Rights Consultation Committee, led by Father Frank Brennan, a highly regarded Jesuit priest, received 35,000 submissions and hosted 66 roundtables in 52 different locations throughout Australia. It was a grassroots effort of consultation spanning the entire geographical continent, reaching out to many mainstream, as well as isolated, communities. In this vein, the Committee’s first recommendation is that efforts be taken to build a human rights culture in Australia through education as a number one priority.
The model Human Rights Act recommended by the consultation committee would, inter alia:
► Promote a “dialogue” about human rights between parliament, the executive and the courts, while retaining ultimate power in parliament (modelled very much on the UK’s 1998 Human Rights Act, which is ironically under review by the current Labour government, and which the Tories have indicated they would repeal if they came to power, although I think this will prove to be mostly rhetoric);
► Require federal public authorities to act compatibly with rights and give proper consideration to human rights in decision making (the proposal did not settle on what to do about state public authorities and left open various options).
► Require a Joint Committee on Human Rights to review all legislation for compliance with human rights.
► Grant a power of interpretation to the courts to interpret law compatibly with human rights. This recommendation would not empower the courts to invalidate legislation; however, under the Australian Constitution the High Court does have, and has used, the power to declare laws invalid due to conflict with the Constitution. (credit for photo of wig worn by Australia's 1st Chief Justice)
► Provide an effective remedy, including damages, to people who have suffered a breach of civil and political rights (although not their economic, social and cultural rights,even though the latter also would be listed in the Act).
► Contain a list of what could be described as “citizen responsibilities,” such as a duty to vote (which is already compulsory in Australia), to serve on a jury when required, to show respect for diversity and equality, including special respect for indigenous Australians, and to hold governments to account for acting unlawfully. It was left unclear what legal effect these responsibilities would have on one’s rights.
No doubt any proposed model was bound to leave many technical questions to be answered, not least those arising from the federal nature of Australia’s constitutional system, or the compromises taken and the merging of foreign models into a single Act. One other problem that still lingers, too, is that the Human Rights Act will be just an ordinary statute and, therefore, liable to repeal by subsequent governments who find it unworkable, or potentially inadvertently by implied repeal. The Australian constitutional system has not yet established a system of “constitutional statutes” as in the UK. The House of Lords (now the UK Supreme Court) has found that some UK statutes are of particular “constitutional significance” that they are held not to be subject to the doctrine of “implied repeal” (per Thorburn v Sunderland City Council (2002) All ER 156). This is largely driven by the fact that the UK does not have a written constitution, and makes this ”class of statutes” harder for Parliament to override – they must do so expressly.
The Australian government has promised to respond to the report in the coming months. Despite the challenges ahead, if a Human Rights Act is pursued by the Labor government of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and adopted by Parliament, it would represent a dramatic and welcome change in the Australian constitutional landscape and an important victory for human rights.