Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
State Responsibility (state + responsibility)
Selected AbstractsResponsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights LawTHE MODERN LAW REVIEW, Issue 4 2007Robert McCorquodale States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so. [source] A policy analysis of the Expert Patient in the United Kingdom: self-care as an expression of pastoral power?HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE IN THE COMMUNITY, Issue 3 2001Patricia M. Wilson BEd (Hons) NursEd RGN NDN Abstract The rise in chronic illness and comorbidity in Western society has resulted in an increasing emphasis on self-care initiatives. In the United Kingdom this is exemplified by the Expert Patient policy. This paper discusses the Expert Patient initiative as an example of the State's third way approach to public health. The extent to which this policy challenges conventional power relationships between professional and patient, and fosters equal partnership is examined. In particular, how expert is defined and whether a professional understanding of the term is reconcilable with a patient's expertise is debated. The paper argues that the Expert Patient initiative is unlikely to reconstruct chronic illness and may further complicate the State's responsibility in meeting the needs of those with chronic illness. Issues of power within self-care are explored to illuminate the policy, and this paper argues that the Expert Patient initiative is an example of Foucault's notion of pastoral power. Although the Expert Patient policy focuses on the rights and responsibilities of those with chronic illness, this paper concludes that there is no corresponding strategy to challenge professionals' assumptions toward those with chronic illness. [source] State Obligation, Sovereignty, and Theories of International LawPOLITICS & POLICY, Issue 3 2001Marc G. Pufong Much of what constitutes the business of international relations is undertaken by states in response to their perceived self-interest, and the commitments of states create duties and obligations. This paper assesses critical values that permeate substantive understanding of state duties and obligations. It explores how states traditionally gain community standing and how their choices bind them to existing community norms, even though some are often contested. Assuming a state to be a bona-fide and recognized member of the international community, its self-interested activities, praise-worthy or controversial, create obligation, i.e., a moral and legal duty recognized and actionable by law. In practice, what actually constitutes obligation may not be the same in all situations, or be fulfilled similarly by the same parties, or confer the same rights. It is difficult to establish a uniform reference with which to grapple with state obligation across all situations. This difficulty, however, does not enlighten debates on state responsibilities with regard to the binding force of international law where human rights abuses and other moral/legal violations are concerned. The argument is presented that since community membership, statehood, and state capacity provide the prima-facie basis for state obligation, attempts by rogue states to raise and frame secondary issues of sovereignty and autonomy in order to fence-out noncompliance are invalid States, therefore, are obligated and duty bound by community norms despite subsequent defenses that are raised in an effort to expunge transgressions. [source] The Organization of Public Service ProvisionJOURNAL OF PUBLIC ECONOMIC THEORY, Issue 3 2004William Jack This paper addresses the question of how the responsibility for the delivery of social services, including health, education, and welfare programs, should be divided between state and central governments. We combine a random voting model and the incomplete contracts paradigm to formalize the trade-off between central and state responsibility for service delivery, and find that authority should rest with the party for whom the marginal impact of the service on re-election chances is greater. This in turn means that, other things equal, states with lower than average health, education, or welfare status should be given responsibility for service delivery, while authority in states with above average indicators should reside with the central government. Also, we show that there is no presumption that states that are given authority for service delivery should necessarily be granted expanded tax authority. [source] Responsibility Beyond Borders: State Responsibility for Extraterritorial Violations by Corporations of International Human Rights LawTHE MODERN LAW REVIEW, Issue 4 2007Robert McCorquodale States routinely provide support and assistance to their corporate nationals in their global trade and investment ventures. While states may not intend to allow corporate nationals to violate human rights in their extraterritorial operations, by their actions or omissions, states may facilitate, or otherwise contribute to, a situation in which such violations by a corporation occur. This article investigates the extent to which the extraterritorial activities of transnational corporations (TNCs) that violate international human rights law can give rise to home state responsibility. The analysis shows that home states of TNCs have obligations under international law in certain situations to regulate the extraterritorial activities of corporate nationals or the latter's foreign subsidiaries and can incur international responsibility where they fail to do so. [source] The Council for the Australian Federation: A New Structure of Australian FederalismAUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION, Issue 2 2008Anne Tiernan In October 2006, state premiers and territory chief ministers gathered in Melbourne for the first meeting of the Council for the Australian Federation (CAF). This little-heralded event marked the beginning of the first formalised structure for state and territory only collaboration since Federation. This article describes the genesis and creation of this new structural response to ongoing state concerns about the trend to an increasingly centralised pattern of Commonwealth-state relations. It identifies the intended functions of the Council, which include: acting as a mechanism for coordinating approaches to negotiations with the Commonwealth; operating as a clearing house for policy ideas in Australia and internationally; harmonising regulatory frameworks; and developing improvements to service delivery in areas of state responsibility. Informed by interviews with key players involved with its establishment and documentary sources, this article assesses CAF's performance during its first 18 months of operation. It explores the hopes and aspirations of key CAF stakeholders, and some of the issues that have confronted the fledgling organisation. Personnel changes among the cohort of state and territory leaders, and the election of a federal Labor government in November 2007 have altered the dynamics of CAF. The article argues that CAF's emergence is an attempt by sub-national governments to develop new capacity and leverage to address the asymmetries that characterise contemporary Australian federalism. However, there are questions about CAF's future, particularly about state and territory governments' capacity to pursue collaborative agendas given the pace and scope of Kevin Rudd's ,new federalism' reforms and the demands it is placing on their policy and administrative systems. [source] Making and Breaking Family Life: Adoption, the State, and Human RightsJOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY, Issue 1 2008Sonia Harris-Short This article explores the extent to which the state's duties and responsibilities in the context of adoption are framed and reinforced by a rights-based discourse. It argues that the human rights paradigm plays an invaluable role in the pre-adoption process by identifying and imposing ever more exacting obligations on the state - obligations which are currently not being fully met by the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The application of a rights-based discourse to the post-adoption context proves, however, to be considerably more problematic. Indeed, it is argued that rather than extend and strengthen the state's responsibilities towards the child and the adopted family, liberal rights-based doctrine tends towards a more traditional model of adoption in which a minimalist state and the privacy, autonomy, and self-sufficiency of the new adoptive family are further entrenched. It is thus concluded that a human rights analysis provides no secure basis for challenging the Adoption and Children Act's rather limited provisions on post-adoption support. [source] | |||||||||||||