Law Commons^™

Natural Hazards, Human Actors, Serious Harm: Refugee Protection Through Understanding The Social Construction Of Disasters, Matthew Scott

Matthew Scott

The occurrence of a natural hazard event is a necessary, but not sufficient condition for the unfolding of a ‘natural’ disaster. Disasters result when individuals and communities are exposed and vulnerable to natural hazards, such as droughts, floods and earthquakes. In their turn, exposure and vulnerability are social facts that are often closely correlated with discrimination, for example against women, children, older people, persons with disabilities, as well as for reasons of race, religion, nationality or political opinion. Adopting the perspective that sees disasters as socially constructed in this way, the scope of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status …

Diversity And The Federal Workforce, Alev Dudek

Alev Dudek

U.S. Police Officers Kill Primarily Because They Are Attacked, Not To Disrupt Crime, Alev Dudek

Alev Dudek

Social Security, Discrimination And Justification Under The European Convention On Human Rights, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This article considers the current state of the law concerning justification of potentially discriminatory treatment in the area of social security under the European Convention on Human Rights. Over time the UK courts have become familiar with the Convention and have improved their interpretation of human rights law and, in particular, non-discrimination under Article 14 of the Convention. The final step in this process is the consideration of proportionality in relation to the justification of potentially discriminatory provisions. There have been a number of recent important decisions on this issue from the Supreme Court including the Recovery of Medical Costs …

The European Convention On Human Rights, The Un Convention On The Rights Of The Child And The ‘Benefit Cap’ - R (Sg) V Secretary Of State For Work And Pensions [2015] Uksc 16, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This note looks at the recent decision of the UK Supreme Court in the 'benefit cap' case. The Court narrowly rejected the appeal concerning whether the benefit cap was in breach of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights but some judges would have held that the cap was in breach of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Education And The Equal Status Acts - Stokes -V- Christian Brothers High School Clonmel, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This case involved a challenge under the Equal Status Act (ESA) to the admissions rules of a Clonmel secondary school which, it was argued, indirectly discriminated against children from the Traveller community. At first instance (before the Equality Tribunal) and on appeal to the Circuit Court it had been held that this rule did have a disproportionate impact on Travellers but the Court and Tribunal differed as to whether this was objectively justified or not. On further appeal to the High Court, McCarthy J. held that there was no disproportionate impact as, adopting a dictionary definition of the term ‘particular’, …

The Right To Freedom From Discrimination: Child Poverty Action Group V Attorney General, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This case comment examines recent jurisprudence concerning the right to freedom from discrimination under the New Zealand Human Rights Act (HRA) and Bill of Rights Act (NZBORA). In particular, it examines the ruling of the Court of Appeal in Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) v Attorney General, and also considers relevant aspects of the decisions in Ministry of Heath v Atkinson and Attorney General v IDEA Services. These three decisions have marked an important step forward in the interpretation of the human rights provisions by the New Zealand courts. Following an introduction to the issues raised in the CPAG case …

Pension ‘Splitting’, Property Rights, Equality And The Canadian Charter Of Rights - Runchey V. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 Fca 16, Mel Cousins

Mel Cousins

This note discusses the decision of the Federal Court of Appeal in Runchey v. Canada (Attorney General). The case concerned an equality challenge concerning provisions of the Canada Pension Plan (the Plan) under s. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. This was dismissed by the Court. However, the main focus of this note is to point out that it is arguable that the main issue raised in the case (i.e. the loss of pension rights by one spouse without any gain to the other) is not a s. 15 equality issue but rather an unjust deprivation …