To Answer a Question

Quite a few people have asked me how I'm going to reconcile my convictions and beliefs while taking a part in representing my country in defending its Human Rights record. This is a really interesting thing, and I've been thinking about it a lot. It was also a trick question in the interview of shortlisted candidates for the internship! To begin with, it's an internship offered through the Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, and candidates are chosen based on their committment to advocacy and activism in Human Rights, both in Australia and overseas. So, implicitly, there will likely be some conflict between the viewpoints of the intern, and the stance they will be requested to represent during the Commission. I figure the solution to dealing with this will be multi faceted - a combination of putting aside my preconceived ideas, talking to people and finding out the rationale behind what they think, framing Australia's situation (and HR record) in a global context, and coming to a deeper understanding of the huge complexities involved with governing human rights on an international level. It will be very interesting. I'll let you know how I go...!

Also, it's possible that I won't be alone in this struggle. I got an email this week from a guy from Adelaide Uni called Stuart. He and I are the 2 (i think) interns to the Australian delegation. He told me that this year he plans to write an Honours thesis for Law on the case of Plaintiff S157. This is a really important case in administrative law, where the High Court absolutely canned s474 of the Migration Act. s474 is what's called a 'privative clause' - a section which aims to cut out any court's ability to review decisions. It's very complicated, but basically the High Court made a very controversial decision, which a lot of people saw as bending the law until it said what they wanted it to say. Aaah the sweetness of judicial creativity...! So Stuart will PROBABLY either be highly critical of the High Court's approach to the decision, or very much in favour of it. It'll be interesting to see which! Basically I think you HAVE to be passionate about the question, to want to write a thesis in Admin law...! Phew.

Above is a photo of all the Castan Centre interns for 2005-06. Linda (far left) and Sophie (far right) are completing internships at Human Rights First in New York, and Shahaan (front right) is at the Asian Commission for Human Rights in Hong Kong. To read more about the gals you can click on this link to the Castan Centre page: http://www.law.monash.edu.au/castancentre/internships/global-intern-program.html

Happy reading!

Shiny new blog

Hi there.

Here's my first post on this shiny new blog. I feel like a bit of a nuff-nuff posting before the internship has even begun, but there's plenty of stuff to say! I've just been on the phone to a disinterested-sounding guy who works at a youth hostel in Geneva, getting some info from him about potential accommodation. It's not a good sign when available rooms are so scant you're considering sharing a room with 6 other snoring random strangers for 7 weeks! But hopefully something else will pop up. We shall see.

Significantly more exciting than my accommodation-hunting woes is the mystery surrounding the 2006 UN Commission on Human Rights. It is being suggested by many people that this will be the last UNCHR (as we have known it since its inception 62 sessions ago), as some key players are tending towards disengagement from that particular structure of policing / 'enforcement' of the UN's Human Rights mandates. Watching the negotiations from within the Australian delegation will be very, very interesting. From what I understand, those countries which are wanting to shut down the current system are talking about putting in its place a different system, but it seems difficult to believe that such a system would have teeth. Disengagement is, after all, disengagement. At a recent conference at Monash University entitled 'Seeking Asylum in Australia' I heard Bob Birrell suggest that Australia should just back off from (ie unsign!) instruments like the Refugees Convention, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and other Conventions that impose (in his view) onerous and unreasonable obligations on Australia. His argument was- from memory - that in the place of these instruments, there would spring up a robust, dynamic and healthy culture of Human Rights protection within Australia! Which I found interesting. His position seemed to be that it is black-letter prescription of obligations which poses the problem, rather than unwillingness to assume responsibility for them. Needless to say, his position was feistily challeneged...! But I expect that this point of view will be the norm among the Australian delegation, and others, so it will be really interesting to speak to those people about their expectations and ideas. I anticipate being fascinated, surprised, and challenged at every turn!