The moral and practical problem of how poor people will continue to gain affordable access to medicines is one of the most pressing issues currently confronting humanity. This is not just because of the large numbers of people, in both developed and developing nations who we now have good evidence are dying prematurely for lack of such access (particularly in groups such as children and the elderly). It is also an urgent issue because the regulatory incentives for pharmaceutical research and development (R&D), which particularly include domestic patent regimes and intellectual property provisions in international trade agreements do not favour an output focus directly related to impact on the global burden of disease.

This paper sets out to analyse three different academic proposals for addressing this situation in relation to new, rather than 'essential' medicines. It focuses particularly on (1) research and development prize funds, (2) a health impact fund (HIF) system and (3) a multilateral treaty on health technology cost-effectiveness evaluation and competitive tender. It compares the extent to which each responds to the 'market fundamentalist' philosophy (that we maintain forms a loose theoretical background for the patent-driven approach to pharmaceutical R&D) and begins to analyse their respective strengths and weaknesses.

The Australian Government, together with the governments of the Australian states and territories, is undertaking reform of the law of personal property securities. PPS law in Australia is currently very complex, and varies according to: the location and nature of the collateral; the nature of the security interest; and the legal personality of the debtor. The objectives of PPS reform are to increase legal certainty by increasing consistency and reducing complexity, which should lead to reduced costs. At present, the application of PPS law to a transaction generally depends on the legal form of that transaction. The new PPS system will be based on a functional approach, looking to the substance of a transaction. The intention is that, subject to countervailing policy considerations, all security interests will be treated the same as far as is possible, with all PPS interests registered in one place, and subject to one Act. If security interests in ships are treated as not being an exception to this approach, then those interests would be registrable on the new PPS register only, and not on the shipping register.

The following another draft Chapter in a forthcoming text on Human Rights and the Environment by Anton and Shelton, to be published by Cambridge Univ. Press in 2009. The chapter walks students through possible avenues for environmental protection within the U.N. human rights system.

The recent assertion of maritime jurisdiction by Australian courts over a Japanese whaling company for acts contrary to Australian law in the Antarctic Southern Ocean is alarming. Private litigation, based on an internationally disputed claim to sovereignty over Antarctic territory and a further contested claim to an EEZ appurtenant to that territory, ought not to serve as a proxy for cooperative (and hopefully effective) international management of the Antarctic environment. The big danger is that if other states follow Australia's lead in claiming sovereign rights and exercising attendant jurisdiction the chances of natural resource over-exploitation and environmental harm in the Antarctic is increased. It will, I believe, in the long run exacerbate the likelihood of a scramble for important, scarce and economically viable resources.

The following is an introductory chapter from a forthcoming teaching text on Human Rights and the Environment by Donald K. Anton & Dinah Shelton. Feedback is welcome.

While so-called stakeholder groups (those with Consultative Status) are usually provided reasonable access in the norm development process in international institutions - at least right up until end when state representatives exclude all others - I argue that we have not really thought enough about other modalities to further open up participation, especially to individuals and groups that do not meet (or want to comply with) requirements for consultative status. I propose that one way to open up the public space in international lawmaking is to use the standard administrative law tool of notice and comment. Under this proposal international institutions would be required to publicize, at early junctures, when normative development is being contemplated and invite public comment from the global citizenry.

Within the marketised context of higher education, research is valued less for its contribution to scholarship than for its income-generating capacity and value to end users. Commodification has significant ramifications for academic freedom as can be seen by the example of research consultancies. Academic freedom is also being affected by the direct interference of neoliberal governments in research policy. While terror censorship is a dramatic manifestation of interference, critical research is also affected by the everyday practices of the contemporary academy. All these factors contribute to the production of de-politicised knowledge.

A major change in Australian citizenship law occurred on 4 April 2002. On that day, the governor-general of Australia assented to the passage of the Australian Citizenship Amendment Act 2002 (Cth). Before that date, Australian citizens who took up a new citizenship (like Rupert Murdoch taking up US citizenship) automatically lost their Australian citizenship. Central to the former provision, and the 2002 changes, is a view of loyalty and allegiance to the nation-state. This chapter examines how those concepts of loyalty and allegiance are central to discussions on citizenship, and how they are reflected in Australian citizenship law. Moreover, it argues that the change on dual citizenship in Australia has constitutional ramifications; for example, section 44 of the Constitution prevents dual citizens from running for parliament. The chapter concludes with the proposal that the Constitution needs amendment to reflect modern notions of commitment over outdated notions of sole allegiance to one country.

Over 185 international law and environmental law academics and lawyers, from over 40 countries, joined together to challenge the legality of the decision by the French Government to resume nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll in French Polynesia in 1995. The academics and lawyers joined in a letter and legal memorandum that outline international environmental obligations requiring to an effective environmental impact assessment that will be violated if the testing resumes as currently planned. A copy of the letter is reproduced below.

The reasons behind the letter and memo were primarily three-fold. First, the lawyers believed it important that public attention be focused important international environmental obligations that France will be breaching if the tests are carried out as currently planned. No state likes to be known as an international outlaw and the lawyers hoped that the "shaming" effect of the publicity about law-breaking would have some influence on the decision to resume testing. Due to French claims that protests against the testing were being essentially orchestrated by Australia and New Zealand it was important that the challenge to legality come from an independent group of experts from as many countries as possible. Second, because President Chirac had repeatedly stated that the decision to reverse testing was "irrevocable" almost from the outset, the lawyers hoped to provide a "face-saving" and graceful way based on law for the President to reverse his decision. Finally, the lawyers hoped that the arguments raised in the letter and legal memo would influence Australia or New Zealand to reopen the 1973-74 World Court Nuclear Test Cases by providing legal support as to the substance of the matter.

The letter and memo were formally transmitted to French President Jacques Chirac by the Australian Government via formal diplomatic channels. While the Australian Government expressly stopped short of endorsing the totality of the contents of the documents, in a letter to the author Foreign Minister Senator Gareth Evans states that "the Government concurs generally with the legal opinion put forward in the memorandum concerning France's responsibilities". Foreign Minister Evans states that "France clearly has a duty under international law to prevent transboundary environmental harm, coupled with an obligation to conduct environmental impact assessments when planning to undertake activities which might cause significant environmental harm". The Foreign Minister states that "as yet insufficient research has been done to make a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed tests. It is by no means clear that France has fulfilled its international obligations in this regard. We cannot be satisfied on that point until further information is available concerning the environmental impact of the testing at the atoll". "This information would also improve our understanding of whether significant transboundary environmental harm may be caused and whether France would be in breach of its obligations to prevent such harm," Senator Evans emphasises.