Here you can provide any news article, essay or image that supports the existing wording of Article 15, or supports a change of the wording. The goal is to provide content that can be used to draft the best possible wording for Article 15.
Please provide a simple explanation for why you feel any writing, image, video or film should be included.
Thank you.
CITES protects wildlife internationally
https://cites.org/eng
Here is a New York Times article on “surveillance society” February 2, 2021 worthy of consideration as we collect suggestions, and the Drafting Committee votes upon them, for the wording of Article 15.
I have read so many articles or reviews about the blogger lovers but this paragraph is genuinely a pleasant paragraph, keep it up. Nichol Randall Birkett
The idea here is to add things of interest and inspiration to support the idea of IBOR
I’m interested in exploring the distinction between negative and positive liberty interests in the context of the draft IBOR.
By “negative liberty interest,” I mean a limitation on the power of government. For example, decisional privacy is a negative liberty interest. If a law violates the right to decisional privacy, for example by dictating whether married couples may use birth control, then under many constitutional systems the law is invalid. The role of the judiciary in this situation is to determine whether the law serves a legitimate public purpose, and if not to enjoin its enforcement.
In contrast, a positive liberty interest is a right to be provided something by the government. For example, in many jurisdictions education is a protected positive liberty interest. Positive liberty interests are just as fundamental as negative liberty interests. As Emer de Vattel states in Bk. I, s. 17 of the Law of Nations: “If a nation is obliged to preserve itself, it is no less obliged carefully to preserve all its members. The nation owes this to itself, since the loss even of one of its members weakens it . . . . It owes this also to the members . . . in consequence of the very act of association[.]”
Although fundamental, positive liberty interests are difficult to enforce judicially. Deciding what government must do is more complicated than setting limits on what it may do. Deciding what government should do to address a problem requires a careful balancing of policies, values, and budgetary priorities. Making these kinds of decisions is a legislative function, not a judicial one.
Accordingly, the IBOR should be drafted in such a way that it allows the legislative authority of each member state to determine the proper scope of positive liberty interests. That does not mean that judicial authorities have no role to play in enforcing positive liberty interests. In my view, courts should be empowered to step in to enforce positive liberty interests in the following circumstances:
(1) When there is an effective failure by a member state’s legislature to do anything to assure a respective interest.
(2) When there is a change in law that deprives individuals of some benefit to which they were previously entitled, in which case the judicial question should be limited to deciding whether substantial evidence justified the change.
(3) When there is differential treatment of similarly situated persons with respect to a respective interest, in which case the question is whether the difference in treatment is based on a real and substantial difference between groups of people, or whether the distinction is rooted in stereotypes or prejudice.
(4) When an individual is deprived of a positive liberty interest through the decision of a public official or body that is administrative in nature, and not of a general or legislative nature, in which case review is warranted to determine whether procedures established by law were followed, whether the individual had notice and a chance to be heard, and whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.
(5) When the executive authority of a member state fails or refuses to implement laws intended to ensure a particular positive liberty interest.
In forthcoming blogs, I plan to address each of these examples. In doing so, I will summarize published decisions that interest me from courts in multiple jurisdictions. I hope this will provide insight into how to frame positive liberty interests effectively in the IBOR.
Erik has made an important comment. There are differences between positive and negative rights. The important thing is that both are enforceable. If you look at my comment on Health Care, you can see how both can be enforceable with the legislature being somewhat more deferential in letting legislatures define the scope of economic and social rights. Judges should not act a super-legislatures, but they must insure that these rights are fully realized.
This Article is for humans and our Earth Community which is special and worth preserving. Eleanor Lives! is working on a plan for humanity to evolve into a human family within our Earth community. Humans are uniquely positioned to protect, or to harm, life on Earth. We should take our role seriously.
IMG studies have shown that the world’s economy prospers from going green.
https://blogs.imf.org/2020/10/07/finding-the-right-policy-mix-to-safeguard-our-climate/