澳大利亚人权背景下的损害

Q1 Arts and Humanities
Ciarán Murphy
{"title":"澳大利亚人权背景下的损害","authors":"Ciarán Murphy","doi":"10.1080/1323238X.2021.1997093","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT The article engages with the relationship between statutory rights and damages in Australia. It begins by examining the architecture of the rights statutes in Victoria, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory to then determine the justification that Australian legislatures had for precluding damages. Two potential rationales for the non-provision of damages are canvassed: pragmatic-political concerns about government liability and principled concerns about the co-existence of damages and the Commonwealth dialogue model. The article demonstrates that these concerns are not borne out in practice and that the current remedial architecture is inadequate to achieve the statutes’ purposes. It argues that damages play a fundamental role in protecting statutory rights and analyses the suitability of two damages models to the Australian context.","PeriodicalId":37430,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Human Rights","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Damages in the Australian human rights context\",\"authors\":\"Ciarán Murphy\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1323238X.2021.1997093\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT The article engages with the relationship between statutory rights and damages in Australia. It begins by examining the architecture of the rights statutes in Victoria, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory to then determine the justification that Australian legislatures had for precluding damages. Two potential rationales for the non-provision of damages are canvassed: pragmatic-political concerns about government liability and principled concerns about the co-existence of damages and the Commonwealth dialogue model. The article demonstrates that these concerns are not borne out in practice and that the current remedial architecture is inadequate to achieve the statutes’ purposes. It argues that damages play a fundamental role in protecting statutory rights and analyses the suitability of two damages models to the Australian context.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37430,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Human Rights\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Human Rights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2021.1997093\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Human Rights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1323238X.2021.1997093","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文论述了澳大利亚法定权利与损害赔偿之间的关系。它首先审查了维多利亚州、昆士兰州和澳大利亚首都领地的权利法规架构,然后确定澳大利亚立法机构排除损害赔偿的理由。探讨了不提供损害赔偿的两个潜在理由:对政府责任的务实政治关切,以及对损害赔偿与英联邦对话模式共存的原则关切。这篇文章表明,这些担忧在实践中没有得到证实,目前的补救架构不足以实现法规的目的。它认为损害赔偿在保护法定权利方面发挥着根本作用,并分析了两种损害赔偿模式对澳大利亚背景的适用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Damages in the Australian human rights context
ABSTRACT The article engages with the relationship between statutory rights and damages in Australia. It begins by examining the architecture of the rights statutes in Victoria, Queensland, and the Australian Capital Territory to then determine the justification that Australian legislatures had for precluding damages. Two potential rationales for the non-provision of damages are canvassed: pragmatic-political concerns about government liability and principled concerns about the co-existence of damages and the Commonwealth dialogue model. The article demonstrates that these concerns are not borne out in practice and that the current remedial architecture is inadequate to achieve the statutes’ purposes. It argues that damages play a fundamental role in protecting statutory rights and analyses the suitability of two damages models to the Australian context.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Journal of Human Rights
Australian Journal of Human Rights Arts and Humanities-History
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
43
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Human Rights (AJHR) is Australia’s first peer reviewed journal devoted exclusively to human rights development in Australia, the Asia-Pacific region and internationally. The journal aims to raise awareness of human rights issues in Australia and the Asia-Pacific region by providing a forum for scholarship and discussion. The AJHR examines legal aspects of human rights, along with associated philosophical, historical, economic and political considerations, across a range of issues, including aboriginal ownership of land, racial discrimination and vilification, human rights in the criminal justice system, children’s rights, homelessness, immigration, asylum and detention, corporate accountability, disability standards and free speech.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信