{"title":"The Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework as a ‘specialized international access and benefit-sharing instrument’ under the Nagoya Protocol","authors":"M. Rourke, Mark Eccleston-Turner","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72i3.881","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i3.881","url":null,"abstract":"The World Health Organization (WHO) is starting to come to terms with the public health implications of the United Nations’ Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and its supplementary Nagoya Protocol about genetic resource access and benefit-sharing (ABS). Since 2017 there have been calls to recognize the WHO’s Pandemic Influenza Preparedness (PIP) Framework as a specialized international ABS instrument under the Nagoya Protocol. This article will examine whether the PIP Framework meets the criteria of a specialized international ABS instrument as laid out in a 2018 study commissioned by the Subsidiary Body on Implementation to the CBD (CBD/SBI/2/INF/17). Our analysis concludes that while the PIP Framework meets the specialization criteria, it fails to meet the supportiveness criteria and does not provide legal certainty for pandemic influenza virus ABS. Furthermore, we demonstrate that recognition of the PIP Framework as a specialized instrument would not mean that the CBD and Nagoya Protocol no longer apply to influenza viruses with human pandemic potential as has been asserted, rendering the relationship between the three international agreements unclear. As the WHO grapples with how to regulate access to other (non-influenza) human pathogens and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits associated with their use, a full appreciation of what ABS means when applied to pathogens is essential.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-12-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49115078","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Editorial to the Supplementary Special Issue on COVID-19 Law: breadth, depth and future implications","authors":"Mark L. Flear","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72is1.967","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72is1.967","url":null,"abstract":"Editorial introduction by the Chief Editor to this special supplement on COVID-19 law.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44063685","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Disability and COVID-19: improving legal and policy responses through grassroots disability ethics","authors":"Ivanka Antova","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72is1.903","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72is1.903","url":null,"abstract":"The emergency legal and policy responses to COVID-19 attempt to avoid discrimination against disabled people. But they do not address deeper ableist and disableist narratives and practices embedded in emergency health policy. Adopting a disability ethics approach to the guidelines that emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic shows that they rest on dubious ethical grounds. However, emergency legal and policy responses to COVID-19 can be improved by adopting an approach based on disability ethics principles that emerge from grassroots level.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45927658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The law of bare life","authors":"I. Ward","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72is1.904","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72is1.904","url":null,"abstract":"2020 proved to be a remarkable year. Not the least remarkable was the realisation that, in a moment of perceived crisis, the instinctive response of the UK Government was to sweep away various so-called rights and liberties which might, in a calmer moment, have been presumed fundamental, and to rule by means of executive fiat. The purpose of this article is to interrogate both the premise and the consequence. Because, on closer inspection, there is nothing at all remarkable about how the Government reacted, for the same reason that there was little that was unprecedented about the experience of COVID-19. History is full of pandemics and epidemics, and government invariably acts in the same way. The first part of this article will revisit a particular theory of governance, again proved by history; that which brings together ‘bio-politics’ and the jurisprudence of the ‘exception’. The second part of the article will then revisit a prescient moment in British history; another disease, another panicked government, another lockdown. In the third, we will reflect further on the experience of COVID-19 and wonder what might be surmised from our foray into the past.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46276765","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Towards a Welsh health law: devolution, divergence and values","authors":"J. Harrington, Barbara Hughes-Moore, Erin Thomas","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72is1.940","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72is1.940","url":null,"abstract":"COVID-19 and Brexit have given political impetus to re-examine Wales’s place within the United Kingdom’s devolution settlement. Health has been a key site for divergence in law and policy as between the administrations in Cardiff and London. In light of these contests, and the longer-running trends in devolution, this article considers whether a distinct ‘Welsh’ health law has now emerged. We examine the constitutional context and the range of sources for this new legal field. We argue that a set of values can be identified through an attentive reading of the legislative output of the Welsh Parliament, through reflection on the policy development of health in Wales, through the devolution process. While accepting that these are varied and heterogeneous, these values are as much an expression of universal ethical goals as they are of any delineable Welsh essence. No mere summation of positive law, these values allow one to define a distinctive realm of Welsh health law, have the potential to act as an interpretative lens for analysing law and policy flowing from Westminster, and could potentially act as a value structure for further Welsh legislation.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44729259","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Coronavirus legislative responses in the UK: regression to panic and disdain of constitutionalism","authors":"R. Moosavian, C. Walker, Andrew Blick","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72is1.905","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72is1.905","url":null,"abstract":"The United Kingdom has considerable prowess in handling emergencies, not just in counterterrorism but also in a wide range of other real or imagined disasters, including public health risks. Core legislation has been installed, including the all-encompassing Civil Contingencies Act (CCA) 2004 and the more specialist Public Health (Control of Disease) Act (PHA) 1984. Despite these finely honed models, the UK state regressed to panic mode when faced with the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather than turning to the laws already in place, Parliament fast-tracked the Coronavirus Act 2020, with scant debate of its shabbily drafted contents. In addition, the UK Government has relied heavily, with minimal scrutiny, on regulations under the PHA 1984. The article analyses the competing legal codes and how they have been deployed to deal with COVID-19. It then draws out the strengths and weaknesses of the choices in terms of the key themes of: the choice of sectoral versus general emergency legislation; levels of oversight and accountability; effectiveness; and the protection of individual rights. Following this survey, it will be suggested that the selection of legal instruments and the design of their contents has been ill-judged. In short, the emergency code which is the most suitably engineered for the purpose, the CCA 2004, has been the least used for reasons which should not be tolerated.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-11-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42310234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Diminished responsibility determinations in England and Wales and New South Wales: whose role is it anyway?","authors":"Thomas Crofts, N. Wake","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72i2.874","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i2.874","url":null,"abstract":"A decade has passed since changes to the Homicide Act 1957, section 2 (under section 52 of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) were implemented. The issues that have arisen since implementation have resulted in significant role confusion in the operation of the partial defence, with the real risk of inconsistent outcomes in practice. The article argues that medicalisation of the partial defence in England and Wales has impacted the role of parties in reaching plea agreements pre-trial, rendered the delineation between legal and medical questions regarding the recognised medical condition requisite unclear and produced significant role confusion between medical experts and jurors in assessing the partial defence. The position stands in stark contrast to the approach under the Crimes Act 1900 (New South Wales) section 23A, where the legislation explicitly outlines the respective role of the medical experts and jurors and prohibits experts from commenting on whether murder ought to be reduced to manslaughter in such cases.","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49105270","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Criminal law pedagogy","authors":"Daniel Pascoe","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72i2.729","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i2.729","url":null,"abstract":"Book Review: The Teaching of Criminal Law: The Pedagogical Imperatives, Kris Gledhill and Ben Livings (eds) (Routledge 2017) ","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45547990","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What’s happening with the reformed diminished responsibility plea?","authors":"R. Mackay","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v72i2.873","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v72i2.873","url":null,"abstract":"The reformed section 2 of the Homicide Act 1957 is markedly different from the original provision. Despite this, the ‘official line’ has been that the changes to the plea were merely ones of ‘clarification’ and ‘modernisation’. This article analyses the requirements of the new section 2 in the context of the results of an empirical study into the operation of the new plea carried out by myself and Professor Barry Mitchell. In doing so, it attempts to evaluate the changes which have taken place through an analysis of a sample of 90 cases involving the new plea. The results of the study are discussed in order to assess the validity of the ‘official line’. Is it correct, or have the new elements in section 2 resulted in unintended consequences?","PeriodicalId":83211,"journal":{"name":"The Northern Ireland legal quarterly","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44543978","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}