NUI Galway to Host Conference Entitled 'Spending Socially- Achieving Social Value Through Public Procurement'

SSNUI Galway will host a conference entitled ‘Spending Socially- Achieving Social Value Through Public Procurement’ on Monday, June 15, 2015 from 10:00 AM to 4:00 PM.  This event will bring together, for the first time in Ireland, a unique range of experts in the fields of public procurement and the social economy. The aim is to explore the potential uses of social clauses in public contracts and to encourage a discussion on the social benefits that can be achieved through targeted government spending. This will support capacity building with respect to tendering processes, in particular for those interested in promoting social enterprises that focus on creating employment opportunities for marginalized groups.

Derek Nolan TD, will open the event and speakers will include members from the Office for Government Procurement, the Strategic Investment Board, (NI), the NOW Project, (NI), and the ‘Ready for Business’ Organisation, (Scotland), and many more experts.

The conference will explore the procurement landscape in Ireland with a view to understanding how social enterprises could be supported to offer their services and bid for tenders.  The Conference report will be presented to Minister Brendan Howlin, TD, Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform on later in June.

To find out more and register online please see here.

NUI Galway to Host Conference Entitled 'Spending Socially- Achieving Social Value Through Public Procurement'

Conference on Older Persons and the Law at NUI Galway

IMG_7364warnerThe Mental Health Rights Group and the LL.M in International and Comparative Disability Law at the Centre for Disability Law and Policy, School of Law, NUI Galway in conjunction with the Employment Law Association will hold a one day conference entitled ‘Law and the Older Person’ on Saturday 24th of January 2015 in Galway.

The conference is timely focusing on the rights of older persons nationally and internationally.  The conference addresses the need for comprehensive information and critical analysis of legal and policy reform in Ireland. This Conference will address this need and discuss a number of key legal and policy issues of relevance to older persons. The morning session will focus on the important area of advocacy and will address the proposed Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013 from both legal and medical perspectives. The afternoon session will focus on aspects of legal practice and the older client, on ageing and discrimination and on the Fair Deal Scheme.

The Conference brings together many leading commentators from the fields of law, medicine and practice. It provides an opportunity for discussion, and debate and will be of particular relevance to older persons, to carers, advocates, health care practitioners, lawyers, researchers, and independent sector service providers and policy activists.  For a full conference programme and to register online see here.

Conference on Older Persons and the Law at NUI Galway

Preventing impunity for serious human rights abuses: The Zimbabwe Torture Docket Case

SA CourtWe are delighted to welcome this guest post from Amina Adanan who holds the EJ Phelan Fellow in International Law and is a Ph.D candidate at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway.

On 30 October last, the Constitutional Court of South Africa issued its decision in National Commissioner of the South African Police Service v Southern African Human Rights Litigation Centre and Another (Zimbabwe Torture Docket Case). The judgment affirms that the South African Police Service (SAPS) has a duty to investigate crimes against humanity committed outside of South Africa, subject to certain restrictions.

The case concerns the application of universal jurisdiction in South Africa. Universal jurisdiction is the prosecution of a serious human rights abuse, where the crime is committed abroad, by foreigners, against foreigners. It is a type of extraterritorial jurisdiction that applies to piracy (on the High Seas), the Slave Trade, genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and torture. Serious human rights abuses are often orchestrated by the state apparatus, thus a prosecution in the territorial state may be unlikely. As such, universal jurisdiction is vital to ensure that abuses are prosecuted. The Implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Act No. 27 of 2002 (ICC Act) allows South African Courts to exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.

Background to the case

In March 2007, the Zimbabwean Police, acting under the direction of ZANU PF (the then one party government) raided the headquarters of the main opposition party, the MDC. Some MDC supporters were detained and tortured by the Zimbabwean Police. The torture was committed as part of a wide-scale and systematic operation executed against the MDC and its supporters in the run up to the 2008 elections. The acts were committed in Zimbabwe, by Zimbabweans, against Zimbabweans.

Following the incident, the South African Litigation Centre (SALC), a prominent public interest NGO, investigated the matter. SALC gathered evidence and compiled a docket, which included medical reports of victims, along with interviews and affidavits from witnesses and victims. In March 2008, the docket was forwarded to the National Prosecuting Authority (NPA) for investigation. In June 2009, SALC received confirmation that SAPS would not investigate the alleged offences. Under the Constitution, it is the duty of the Police to investigate crime.

SALC and the Zimbabwe Exiles’ Forum (ZEF) then applied to the High Court in Pretoria, seeking an order to have the decision reviewed. The application was made against the National Director of Public Prosecutions (NDPP), the Head of the Priority Crimes Litigation Unit of the NPA and the National Commissioner of SAPS. After the High Court found in favour of the applicants, the National Commissioner of SAPS and the NDPP appealed the High Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa. In November 2013, the Supreme Court of Appeal found in favour of SALC and ZEF. Saidat Nakitto has provided an excellent analysis of the Supreme Court of Appeal decision.

The National Commissioner of SAPS then appealed the matter to the Constitutional Court of South Africa. Seven amicus curiae joined the proceedings, among them notable academics in human rights law and NGOs around the world, illustrating the importance of the case in the field of human rights.

The findings of the Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court looked to whether SAPS had an obligation to carry out pre- trial investigations into international crimes committed extraterritorially, and if so, what circumstances trigger this duty.

The obligation on SAPS to investigate international crimes committed abroad

First, the Constitutional Court noted the ‘special place’ of international law in South African law; reiterating, that the Constitution and national legislation must be interpreted in light of international law.

The Court then turned to look at Complementarity in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Article 17 of the Rome Statute (and its preamble) affirm that the ICC can only hear a case, where a state with jurisdiction over the offence is unable or unwilling to investigate or prosecute the crime. The ICC is complementary to national courts, when it comes to the prosecution of international crimes (genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity). The ICC can exercise jurisdiction over international crimes that are committed on the territory of a state party, or by a national of a state party, or when a situation is referred to the Court from the UN Security Council. The Constitutional Court noted that a question arises as to states parties’s obligations to prosecute international crimes committed in the territory of a non-state party to the Rome Statute. Here the Court noted:

If an investigation is not instituted by non- signatory countries in which the crimes have been committed, the perpetrators can only be brought to justice through the application of universal jurisdiction, namely the investigation and prosecution of these alleged crimes by states parties under the Rome Statute.

Zimbabwe is not a state party to the Rome Statute and the National Commissioner of SAPS did not dispute the unlikelihood of the torture being investigated in Zimbabwe.

The Court then turned to look at South Africa’s jurisdiction in respect of the crime of torture. The Court noted that torture is a crime to which jus cogens status attaches and from which no derogation is permitted. South Africa had incorporated the UN Convention Against Torture into domestic law. Jurisdiction over torture on the scale of a crime against humanity had been incorporated into domestic law in South Africa by the ICC Act itself. After examining the sources of international and national law, including regional instruments, the Constitutional Court concluded that South Africa is required (where appropriate) to exercise universal jurisdiction over crimes against humanity.

The ‘connecting factors’ in South Africa’s exercise of universal jurisdiction under the ICC Act

The Court recognised that there were certain ‘connecting factors’, at least one of which must be present for an international crime to be prosecuted in South Africa. Section 4 (3) of the ICC Act, states that South African Courts have jurisdiction over international crimes committed outside of South Africa:

[A]ny person who commits a crime contemplated in subsection (1) outside the territory of the Republic, is deemed to have committed that crime in the territory of the Republic if –

(a) that person is a South African citizen; or

(b) that person is not a South African citizen but is ordinarily resident in the Republic; or

(c) that person, after the commission of the crime, is present in the territory of the Republic; or

(d) that person has committed the said crime against a South African citizen or against a person who is ordinarily resident in the Republic.

In this instance, section 4(3)(c) was relied on. SAPS argued that because the accused persons were not present in South Africa, they were not under a duty to commence an investigation. (Notwithstanding that some of the accused Zimbabwean officials visited South Africa after the crimes were committed, and were not apprehended). The ICC Act itself is silent on whether the accused need be present in South Africa for the pre-trial investigation.

After noting the work of the Institut de Droit International and the content of the amicus curiae brief submitted by John Duggard and others, the Court stated that there was no international rule that the accused must be present for the pre- trial investigation. If not, investigations into crimes against humanity would be unlikely take place. The Constitutional Court did not dispute that the presence of the accused is required at a more advanced stage of proceedings.

Limitations on the exercise of universal jurisdiction by South Africa: subsidiarity and practicability

Looking first at subsidiarity, the Court found that an investigation may only commence where another state with jurisdiction over the crime (the territorial or state of nationality of the alleged perpetrator) is unable or unwilling to do so. The reason being, ‘the principle of non- intervention in the affairs of another country must be observed’. Here, the Court borrows from the language of the principle of complementarity. The Court noted that it was unlikely that the crimes would be investigated by the Zimbabwean Police, given that six cabinet ministers were linked to the offence.

On the issue of practicability, the Court said that the South African authorities must consider if it is reasonable to carry out the investigation, in each particular case. A number of factors must be considered: (1) The likelihood of a prosecution; (2) If the accused persons are likely to enter South Africa, of their own accord, or via an extradition request; (3) The geographical location of the crime; (4) The likelihood of the accused being arrested; (5) The gathering of evidence; and (6) The nature and extent of resources required.

The Constitutional Court unanimously rejected the appeal and costs were awarded against the appellant. The Court highlighted that constitutional obligations must be carried out without delay, notwithstanding the considerable time that had lapsed since the torture had occurred. SAPS will now investigate the crime.

Points of note

There are a number of significant points that arise in this judgment. Firstly, the Rome Statute itself does not demand that states parties exercise universal jurisdiction. As stated above, the ICC has jurisdiction to hear cases relating to international crimes committed on the territory of a state party, or carried out by nationals of the states parties. States parties are obligated to incorporate these forms of jurisdiction into domestic law, at a minimum. Section 4(3) of the ICC Act does not include universal jurisdiction in express terms. The Constitutional Court interpreted section 4(3) as implying the exercise of universal jurisdiction by the South African authorities.

Second, the Constitutional Court was right to distinguish between the presence of the accused for the pre-trial investigation and the presence of the accused for the trial, as it did. State practice shows that many pre- trial investigations related to the exercise of universal jurisdiction begin without the presence of the accused in the forum state. The investigation in Spain, into crimes committed by General Augusto Pinochet during his reign in Chile, are perhaps the most famous example of this. In Belgium, investigations commenced into alleged international crimes committed by former US President George H. W. Bush, and former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, without the presence of the accused.

Third, in the grand design that is modern universal jurisdiction, where the trend of states is to reduce the scope of universal jurisdiction, this judgment is refreshing. Moreover, it is an example of a non- European state taking steps to apply universal jurisdiction (which is usually exercised by European States). Since 2003, in Belgium, the national legislation on extraterritorial jurisdiction is restricted to the active and passive personality principles, or to accused persons or victims who are resident in the state. In Spain, the question of whether recent amendments the national legislation on universal jurisdiction conflict with Spain’s obligations in international law, is currently being explored by the Spanish Constitutional Court. One of the reasons for this trend is because the exercise of universal jurisdiction interferes with the forum state’s international relations. In the Zimbabwe Torture Docket Case, the Constitutional Court of South Africa did not give much attention to SAPS’s concern that the investigation would hamper South African- Zimbabwean relations. The Constitutional Court noted that inter-state tension is unavoidable in the application of universal jurisdiction.

Finally, it can also be said that this judgment is an example of how the principle of complementarity is supposed to work. As the Court noted, the primary responsibility of the prosecution of international crimes rests with the states parties. It may be the case that this judgment comes from a state with a particularly strong will when it comes to human rights. South Africa was the first African State to incorporate the Rome Statute into domestic law. This is an important judgment not only for South Africa, but for other states that exercise universal jurisdiction. It is a positive move towards preventing impunity for serious human rights abuses. Whether the judgment will appeal to other states will remain to be seen.

Case materials are available on the website of the South African Litigation Centre.

Preventing impunity for serious human rights abuses: The Zimbabwe Torture Docket Case

Civil Society Perspectives on Business and Human Rights

Screen Shot 2014-11-05 at 11.11.59We are delighted to welcome the latest in a series of cross-posts by Dr Shane Darcy from the Business and Human Rights in Ireland Blog. The Business and Human Rights in Ireland Blog is dedicated to tracking and analysing developments relating to business and human rights in Ireland. It aims to address legal and policy issues, as well as highlighting human rights concerns raised by the activities of Irish companies or multinational corporations based in Ireland. The blog is run by Dr Shane Darcy who is a lecturer at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland Galway.

The theme for this year’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade NGO human rights Forum is ‘Business and Human Rights: Implementing the United Nations Guiding Principles’. The event, which takes places this Friday, 7 November 2014, is seen by the Department as part of its consultative process towards the development of a national action plan for the implementation of the UN Guiding Principles:

The objective is to present the opportunity for business and civil society to set out their views on business and human rights, both in the broad sense and also with a view to helping to develop a national plan.

In the lead-up to the Forum, a series of guest posts have been running on the Business and Human Rights in Ireland blog, bringing together a variety of international and national civil society perspectives on the topic of national plans for business and human rights. In this post, I try to highlight some of the key points made by the contributors, which may be of interest to those attending Friday’s event.

Starting off the series, Shawan Jabarin, the Director General of Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights organisation, underscores the role that business is playing in perpetuating the Israeli occupation of Palestine. He makes an interesting historical comparision with Ireland, and considers it:

both ironic and disappointing is that today one of Ireland’s largest corporations, Cement Roadstone Holdings, is profiting from the construction of settlements and walls in occupied Palestinian territory, both of which are violations of international law.

Al Haq, who will be represented at the Forum (as will Cement Roadstone Holdings), have expressed their hope that Ireland might use this opportunity to “raise the bar” in the area of business and human rights.

David Joyce from the Irish Congress of Trade Unions reflects in his piece on the contribution that the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights can make towards the attainment of the decent work agenda. He sees their importance in the clarification they bring regarding the different roles and responsibilities of business and Governments. He rightly observes that “businesses should not decide what their responsibilities to society are”. David also highlights the weakness of the OECD National Contact Point in Ireland and sees an opportunity in this process for its strengthening.

Karol Balfe, a policy adviser for Christian Aid Ireland focuses on the case of Colombia, in particular on issues relating to trade and human rights. She highlights the opposition of many unions and farmers to the EU Free Trade Agreement with Colombia and Peru, which is to be the subject of a forthcoming Dáil debate. Although there are some human rights aspects to the Agreement, she points to the absence of proper monitoring or compliance mechanisms. She calls on the Irish government, in line with the Guiding Principles, to “develop and set out clear and specific human rights guidelines for Irish companies doing business in Colombia in order to ensure they do not violate human rights”.

Selina Donnelly, Policy Officer for Trócaire, also contributed a post, drawing on the detailed policy position paper on business and human rights that the organisation has just published. Extraterritorial enforcement of human rights is particularly important, she writes, “given the increasing globalisation of business, and growth of corporate influence”. She highlights the significant risks that Irish businesses may become directly responsible or complicit in human rights violations, especially in countries with poor human rights records or weak regulatory environments. She outlines Trócaire’s recommendations regarding remedies, due diligence and the need for a gender focus.

On the subject of national action plans for business and human rights, Claire Methven O’Brien, Strategic Adviser to the Danish Institute for Human Rights, makes the compelling case as to why such plans can help advance the business and human rights agenda. She highlights five key reasons as to why States should adopt national implementation plans: stocktaking, increasing the visibility of particular rights issues, exposure of poor human rights practice, facilitating dialogue between Governments, business and civil society, and, finally, permitting home-grown responses to concerns over business impacts on human rights.

In the most recent contributions, Nicholas McGeehan, Middle East Researcher for Human Rights Watchexplains that the adoption of the Guiding Principles has “undoubtedly” helped NGOs address corporate violations of human rights, by providing a framework in which to put pressure on companies. He focuses on forced labour in the Gulf, particularly prominent in the context of the World Cup in Qatar in 2022, and provides some basic advice for construction companies that might be operating there. Hannah Grene, an independent researcher in human rights and development, also looks at issues of extraterritorial respect for human rights. She draws on Ireland’s poor record in relation to bribery overseas and advocates for significant changes to the way in which the OECD national contact point operates here.

 

* * *

 

This post gives just a flavour of some of the business and human rights issues that civil society will be seeking to be addressed at the annual DFAT NGO human rights Forum this Friday. A recent post on the blog also included a summary of recommendations made by the Irish Centre for Human Rights in 2012 on the subject of business and human rights. Other NGOs in Ireland have also made submissions to the Department in the recent past relating to business and human rights, including Amnesty International, and no doubt they will also make their voices heard at the Forum.

Civil Society Perspectives on Business and Human Rights

Two Funded Doctoral Scholarships Offered by the School of Law at NUI Galway: Human Rights and Constitutional Law

NUIGThe School of Law at NUI Galway is currently accepting applications for two Doctoral Scholarships. Applications are sought from students who intend to pursue doctoral-level research on topics related to either: (a) European Human Rights, and/or (b) Constitutional Law

Applications are particularly encouraged from but not confined to those interested in any of the following areas: the domestic application of international human rights law; the role of the Ombudsman in the area of human rights; public interest litigation and public interest law; processes of constitutional reform; or the right to equality.

The successful students will be supervised by Professor Donncha O’Connell, Head of the School of Law. These Scholarships will commence before the end of 2014 and are available for a period of four years, subject to satisfactory performance.

Scholarships comprise an annual stipend of €16,000 inclusive of University tuition fees (accordingly a student receives a tax-free scholarship of approximately €11,755 per annum).

The holder of a Scholarship is expected to reside in Galway, Ireland and, under the guidance of Professor O’Connell, will engage in a reasonable amount of research and research support, teaching and administrative tasks in the School of Law, NUI Galway, in addition to pursuing his or her own doctoral research.

Those interested in applying should submit the following:

  • A covering letter
  • A curriculum vitae
  • Two letters of reference from academics familiar with the work of the

    applicant

  • A statement of the proposed doctoral research topic (1,000 words).

    These materials must be sent to donncha.oconnell@nuigalway.ie by 5pm on 30th September , 2014.

    Award of a scholarship will be conditional on admission by the University.
    For further information on the School of Law, NUI Galway: http://www.nuigalway.ie/law/ 

Two Funded Doctoral Scholarships Offered by the School of Law at NUI Galway: Human Rights and Constitutional Law

The Irish Centre for Human Rights at the School of Law at NUI Galway is pleased to announce the details of its summer schools for 2014

0614_irish_centre_for_human_rights-1

The International Criminal Court Summer School 2014
16-20 June 2014, NUI Galway, Ireland

The annual International Criminal Court summer school at the Irish Centre for Human Rights is the premiere summer school specializing on the International Criminal Court. The summer school allows participants the opportunity to attend a series of intensive lectures over five days. The lectures are given by leading academics on the subject and by legal professionals working at the International Criminal Court. The summer school is attended by legal professionals, academics, postgraduate students and NGOs. Participants are provided with a detailed working knowledge of the establishment of the Court, its structures and operations, and the applicable law. Participants are also given the opportunity to network with the speakers throughout the week. Lectures also speak to related issues in international criminal law, including: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, the crime of aggression, universal jurisdiction, immunities, and the role of victims. We are delighted to announce that this year we will have a lecture on Africa and the ICC.
This year’s list of speakers is:

  • Professor William Schabas- Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway and School of Law, Middlesex University
  • Dr. Fabricio Guariglia- Appeals Division of the Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court
  • Dr. Mohamed M. El Zeidy- Pre-Trial Chamber II at the International Criminal Court
  • Dr. Rod Rastan- Office of the Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court
  • Professor Ray Murphy- Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway
  • Dr. Noelle Higgins- Irish Centre for Human Rights, School of Law, NUI Galway
  • Dr. Shane Darcy, Irish Centre for Human Rights, NUI Galway
  • Dr. Nadia Bernaz- School of Law, Middlesex University
  • Mr. John McManus- Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Section, Canadian Department of Justice
  • Professor Megan A. Fairlie- Florida International University
  • Dr. Mohamed Badar- Northumbria University School of Law, United Kingdom
  • Professor Donald M. Ferencz- School of Law, Middlesex University
  • Dr. Kwadwo Appiagyei Atua- University of Ghana and University of Lincoln.

For more information on the Summer School and to register please visit our website at http://www.conference.ie/Conferences/index.asp?Conference=351 or email iccsummerschool@gmail.com.

9th Summer School in Cinema, Human Rights and Advocacy
26 June – 5 July 2014, NUI Galway, Ireland

This Summer School programme has for the last 8 years attracted young talented filmmakers and professionals from across the world who wish to engage in an exciting training course where ideas and projects are shared, developed and challenged by fellow participants and internationally acclaimed experts of film, television, photography and human rights. This year’s programme will also feature Films That Matters, a two days film event held in collaboration with Amnesty International and Galway One World Centre on 4th and 5th July 2014.

Cinema and Human Rights and Advocacy (CHRA) is a training initiative offered by the Huston School of Film & Digital Media and the Irish Centre for Human Rights, part of the National University of Ireland, Galway and supported by the Open Society Foundations. This, the 9th Summer School in Cinema, Human Rights and Advocacy will run at the Huston School of Film & Digital Media in Galway from 26th June to 5th July 2014.

The Summer School is led by Nick Danziger an internationally renowned practitioner in the field of human rights documentary making. The 10-day programme consists of eight teaching sessions, workshops and film screenings that combine human rights expertise and media studies. Sessions develop issues relating to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a History of Human Rights Cinema, Freedom of Expression and Censorship, the Use of Video in Human Rights Documentation and Advocacy, Producing Social

Documentaries, the Role of Media in Period of Conflict and Production and Distribution of Human Rights Films. Each module is illustrated by film or documentary screenings. Elements of the summer school include information on the fundamentals of human rights, how to raise awareness of human rights on camera, developing a project proposal and how these ideas should be pitched.

Deadline for application is 25th April 2014.
For more information please visit www.chra.ie or email to info@chra.ie.
You can also follow our FB page at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Summer-School-in-Cinema-Human-Rights-and-Advocacy/128962737217375

The Irish Centre for Human Rights at the School of Law at NUI Galway is pleased to announce the details of its summer schools for 2014

New Ombudsman to Deliver First Public Lecture in NUI Galway

TyndallMDHHowlinThe newly-appointed Ombudsman and Information Commissioner, Peter Tyndall, will deliver his first public lecture since taking up office in NUI Galway on Wednesday 19th February. The lecture, which will take place at 8pm in the Aula Maxima (lower), will be hosted by the School of Law to mark the first ten years of its LL.M in Public Law. It will be chaired by the former Supreme Court judge, Mrs. Justice Catherine McGuinness, Chairperson of Udarás na hOllscoile and Adjunct Professor of Law at NUIG, who has been assocated with the LL.M in Public Law since its inception. The title of Mr. Tyndall’s lecture will be: “The Ombudsman and Information Commissioner: Delivering Fairness and Transparency”. Members of the public are welcome to attend this event. Peter Tyndall was Public Services Ombudsman for Wales since 2008 dealing with complaints concerning public organisations responsible for delivering services devolved to the Welsh Government including Health, Social Care, Housing and Local Government. He worked to modernise that office to provide prompt and effective resolution of complaints and to drive improvement in public services. Prior to becoming Ombudsman for Wales, Mr. Tyndall was the Chief Executive of the Arts Council of Wales. He was previously Head of Education and Culture for the Welsh Local Government Association and before that worked in a variety of senior positions in housing and social care.

Mr. Tyndall recently served a two year term as Chairman of the British and Irish Ombudsman Association. He is a member of the World and European Boards of the International Ombudsman Institute. He has spoken and published extensively on ombudsman issues. Originally from Dublin, Mr. Tyndall has lived and worked in Wales for more than 30 years. He has an MSc in Strategic Management from Cardiff University and is married with three daughters. He received his warrant of appointment as Ombudsman and Information Commissioner from President Higgins on 2nd December 2013. Mr Tyndall succeeded Ms Emily O’Reilly and will also serve as Commissioner for Environmental Information, and as an ex-officio member of the Standards in Public Office Commission, the Office of the Commission for Public Service Appointments, the Referendum Commission and the Constituency Commission.

New Ombudsman to Deliver First Public Lecture in NUI Galway

Taxing Times for Human Rights, but not for Multinational Corporations

apple-logoWe are delighted to welcome the latest in a series of cross-posts by Dr Shane Darcy from the Business and Human Rights in Ireland Blog.  The Business and Human Rights in Ireland Blog is dedicated to tracking and analysing developments relating to business and human rights in Ireland. It aims to address legal and policy issues, as well as highlighting human rights concerns raised by the activities of Irish companies or multinational corporations based in Ireland. The blog is run by Dr Shane Darcy who is a lecturer at the Irish Centre for Human Rights, National University of Ireland Galway.

Ireland is one of many countries that is being put through the mill of so-called austerity measures. Cuts all across public services, including in health and education, as well increased unemployment and personal debt are having a severe impact on society. David Stuckler and Sanjay Basu have convincingly argued in their recent book that “austerity kills”. The devastating effects of austerity can actually be measured in lives, specifically the observable increase in suicide in countries such as Greece Continue reading “Taxing Times for Human Rights, but not for Multinational Corporations”

Taxing Times for Human Rights, but not for Multinational Corporations

Irish Society of Comparative Law Annual Conference 24-25 May 2013 at NUI Galway

The School of Law, NUI Galway’s LLM in Public Law programme will host the 5th Annual Irish Society of Comparative Law Conference on Friday 24th and Saturday 25th of May 2013.  Over 50 legal academics and practitioners will present papers at the ISCL Annual Conference on the overarching theme of comparative public law.  The Programme for the conference is available here.  There will be two Keynote Addresses at the 2013 Conference.  Professor Brice Dickson from Queens University Belfast will present a paper entitled ‘The Irish Supreme Court in Comparative Perspective’ with a response from former Supreme Court Judge the Hon Mrs Catherine McGuinness, who is an Adjunct Professor of Law at NUI Galway.  The second Keynote Address will be by Professor Susan Farran of the University of Northumbria who will present a paper entitled ‘The Age of Empire. Again: Critical Thoughts on Legal Imperialism’. Continue reading “Irish Society of Comparative Law Annual Conference 24-25 May 2013 at NUI Galway”

Irish Society of Comparative Law Annual Conference 24-25 May 2013 at NUI Galway

NUI Galway Conference on Mediation in Cases of International Family Conflict and Child Abduction: 18th May 2013

The School of Law and the UNESCO Child and Family Research Centre, NUI Galway in association with the Irish Centre for International Family Mediation will host a conference on 18 May 2013 entitled “A Conference on Mediation in Cases of International Family Conflict and Child Abduction”.  Leading Irish and international speakers and experts in the field and 
representatives of the EU Network of International Family Mediators will address the conference.  There will be Continuing Professional Development points to those who are eligible.  A conference fee of €75 is payable, which includes tea/coffee and lunch.   For more information on the conference, the conference programme and registration information see here.

 

 

NUI Galway Conference on Mediation in Cases of International Family Conflict and Child Abduction: 18th May 2013