DOCSLIB.ORG

JUEZ KENNETH KEITH – Nueva Zelanda (Miembro De La Corte Desde El 6 De Febrero De 2006)

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
JUEZ KENNETH KEITH – Nueva Zelanda (Miembro De La Corte Desde El 6 De Febrero De 2006) JUEZ KENNETH KEITH – Nueva Zelanda (Miembro de la Corte desde el 6 de febrero de 2006) Nacido en Auckland, Nueva Zelandia, el 19 de noviembre de 1937. Caballero Comendador de la Orden del Imperio Británico (1988) para servicios en la educación jurídica y la reforma de la ley. Estudió Derecho (1956-1965) en la Universidad de Auckland, en la Universidad Victoria de Wellington y en la Facultad de Derecho de Harvard, calificando para los grados de Bachiller en Derecho y Maestría en Derecho; Grado Honorario de Doctorado en Derecho, de la Universidad de Auckland de 2001, y la Universidad Victoria de Wellington de 2004. Abogado y Procurador de la Corte Superior de Nueva Zelandia (1961); Cónsul de la reina. (1994). Miembro del cuerpo docente, de la Universidad Victoria de Wellington (1962-1964, 1966- 1991), Decano (1977-1981), ahora Profesor Emérito; también Profesor Visitante en el Salón de la Escuela de Derecho de Osgoode, Toronto (1981-1982). Miembro de la División Legal, Departamento de Relaciones Exteriores de Nueva Zelandia (1960-1962); Miembro de la Oficina de Asuntos Jurídicos (División de Codificación) de las Naciones Unidas (1968-1970), principalmente para la realización de investigaciones de la Comisión de Derecho Internacional y de trabajo con el Sexto Comité de la Asamblea General, incluido el Comité sobre relaciones amistosas; estudiante pasante en esa División (1965); Miembro de la Comisión Legislativa de Nueva Zelandia (1986-1996, Presidente 1991-1996). Juez del Tribunal de Apelación de Nueva Zelandia (1996-2003), y de la recién establecida Corte Suprema de Nueva Zelandia (2004-2005), que incluye el trabajo las cuestiones de Derecho Internacional, relativas, por ejemplo, los viajes por mar (las Reglas de La Haya) y por vía aérea (el de Chicago y los Convenios de Varsovia), la circulación de personas (inmigración, los refugiados, la extradición y el secuestro de niños), la circulación de mercancías (Acuerdo de Valoración GATT), la libertad de alta mar, la pesca, la inmunidad del Estado extranjero, y muchas cuestiones de derechos humanos, incluida la libertad de expresión, la libertad de religión, la igualdad, los derechos de los niños y los derechos en el respeto de las facultades de la policía y el procedimiento penal. Varios se divulgan en los Informes de Derecho Internacional. Juez de Apelación en Samoa (1982 -), las Islas Cook (1982 -) y Niue (1995 -), Magistrado de la Corte Suprema de Fiji (2003 -); Miembro del Comité Judicial del Consejo Privado de Londres (1998-2003). Miembro del equipo jurídico de Nueva Zelandia en las Pruebas Nucleares ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia de 1973, 1974 y 1995; jefe de la delegación de Nueva Zelandia a dos de las sesiones de la Conferencia Diplomática que elaboró los Protocolos Adicionales de 1977 a los Convenios de Ginebra; miembro del Grupo Nacional de la Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de Nueva Zelandia (1985 -); miembro del panel de árbitros del Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (1994 -); Presidente (2002-2006) y miembro (1991-2006) de la Comisión Exploratoria Humanitaria Internacional en el marco del primer Protocolo adicional a los Convenios de Ginebra para la Protección de las Víctimas de Guerra; miembro de los Tribunales Arbitrales Internacionales en el Rainbow Warrior (1990) (Nueva Zelandia contra Francia) y casos meridionales de Bluefin Tuna (2000) (Australia y Nueva Zelandia contra Japón); y Presidente de un tribunal del NAFTA (UPS contra Canadá). Las conferencias nombradas incluyen Memorial Cook (Asociación de Banqueros de Nueva Zelandia), Memorial Sir John Marshall (Sociedad de Abogados del Distrito de Wellington), Memorial de Invitado FW (Universidad de Otago), Memorial Brainerd Currie (Universidad de Duke), Harkness Henry (Universidad de Waikato), Memorial Frank Stuart Dethbridge (Asociación de Derecho Marítimo de Australia y Nueva Zelandia) y a Sir David Williams (Universidad de Cambridge). Miembro de la Junta de Editores de la Revista de Derecho Público (Melbourne), Revista de Derecho de Nueva Zelandia (Auckland), Diario de la Asociación de Derecho Marítimo de Australia y Nueva Zelandia (Brisbane) y Diario de Derecho Público e Internacional de Nueva Zelandia (Wellington). Presidente del Instituto de Asuntos Internacionales de Nueva Zelandia (2000-2007); Consejero de Honor y Consultor de Derecho Humanitario Internacional, Cruz Roja de Nueva Zelandia; Presidente del Comité de Nueva Zelandia en la Difusión del Derecho Humanitario Internacional; Miembro del Comité de Reforma de Derecho Público y Administrativo (1972-1986), el Comité sobre Información Oficial (1978-1980), la Comisión Real sobre el Sistema Electoral (1985-1986), el Comité Consultivo de Legislación (1986- 1996); y miembro (2003 -) y asociado (1997-2003) del Instituto de Derecho Internacional. Miembro del Instituto de Derecho Americano; Miembro Honorario de la Sociedad de Juristas (Inglaterra); Decano Honorario del Templo Inner; Compañero, Fundación de Investigación Legal (Nueva Zelandia); Miembro de la Sociedad Americana de Derecho Internacional; Miembro del Instituto Británico de Derecho Internacional y Comparado; Miembro de la Sociedad de Derecho Internacional Australiana y de Nueva Zelandia; Miembro del Instituto Internacional de Estudios Estratégicos. Publicaciones sobre Derecho Internacional incluyen Práctica de los Tratados de Nueva Zelandia: el Ejecutivo y Legislativo (1964) 1 NZULR 272; Derecho Internacional y Ley Municipal de Nueva Zelandia, en J. F. Northey (ed.), Ensayos en Derecho A. G. Davis (1965); Una Perspectiva de Nueva Zelanda en Globalización, en Alston y Chiam (eds.), Treatymaking y Australia - Globalización versus Soberanía? (1995) 283; Aplicación de la Ley Internacional de Derechos Humanos en Nueva Zelandia (1997) 32 Texas ILJ 401 (también publicado en el Coloquio Judicial en Georgetown, el Desarrollo de la Jurisprudencia de los Derechos Humanos Jurisprudencia, Guyana 1996, Vol. 7 (1998)); Funciones de los Tribunales en Nueva Zelandia para dar efecto a los Derechos Humanos internacionales - con cierta historia. Seminario de Conmemoración del 50º Aniversario de la Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (1999) 29 VUWLR 27 y (1998) 4 NZACL Anuario 27; El impacto del Derecho Internacional sobre el Derecho de Nueva Zelanda (Cátedra Harkness Henry) (1999) 6 Waikato LR. El Alcance de la Competencia Consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (1971); Los Casos de los Ensayos nucleares, después de diez años (1983) 14 VUWLR 345; la Competencia Consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia: Algunas Reflexiones Comparativas (1996) 17 Aust YBIL 39; Corte Permanente de Arbitraje de La Haya, en C. Saunders y T. McCormick (eds.), Sir Ninian Stephen: Un Homenaje (2007). La función del Derecho en las Naciones Unidas (1967) 4 VUWLR 116; La Comisión de Derecho Internacional del Trabajo y la configuración del Derecho Internacional, en Procedimientos del Coloquio de las Naciones Unidas sobre el Desarrollo Progresivo y la Codificación del Derecho Internacional (1998); la Piratería y otros peligros: ¿Puede la ley hacerle frente? (2002) 16 Diario de la Asociación de Derecho Marítimo de Australia y Nueva Zelandia (Dirección Conmemorativa de Frank Stuart Dethbridge); Soberanía a comienzos del Siglo 21: Fundamental o pasado de moda? (2004) 63 Camb LJ 581 (Cátedra Sir David Williams); Protección de los Derechos Humanos en una Época de Terror: el Papel de la Legislación Nacional e Internacional, (2005) 13 Waikato LR 22; la Comunidad Mundial y su Ley, (2006) 22 NZULR 2. Sucesión a los tratados bilaterales de los Estados de secesión (1967) 61 AJIL 521; Perspectivas de Defensa (1972) - editor e introducción; Problemas Fronterizos de la Tierra y el Mar en el sudeste de Asia, en Hedley Bull (ed.), Asia y el Pacífico Occidental: Hacia un Nuevo Orden Internacional (1975) 87; Derechos y Responsabilidades: la protección de las víctimas de conflictos armados (Conferencia Conmemorativa de Brainerd Currie, Universidad Duke 1997) (1999) 48 Duke LJ 1081; Libertad de Información y el Derecho Internacional, en Jack Beatson e Yvonne Cripps (eds.), Libertad de Expresión y Libertad de Información: Ensayos en Honor de Sir David Williams (2000); las Dificultades del "Vuelo Interno" y la "Reubicación Interna" como Marcos de Análisis (2001) 15° Boletín Jurídico de Inmigración de Georgetown 433. Otras publicaciones concernientes a Derecho Constitucional, Derecho Administrativo, la revisión y la reforma de la ley y la educación jurídica. Entre ellos figuran Implicaciones Internacionales de las Relaciones Raciales en Nueva Zelandia (1972); Relaciones Raciales y el Derecho en Nueva Zelandia (1973) 6 de Derechos Humanos Diario 329; El impacto de las ideas de América en la política educativa de Nueva Zelandia, práctica y teoría: el caso de la ley (1988) 18 VUWLR 327 (también con David Philips y otros (eds.). El impacto de las Ideas de América en la Política de Educación de Nueva Zelandia, Práctica y Pensamiento (1989)); Los Abogados y el Estado de Derecho: Abogados en el Proceso de Reforma Legislativa, en la 10ma Conferencia de Derecho del Commonwealth, Nicosia, Chipre: Documentos de la Conferencia (1993); Gobierno, Soberanía y Globalización: 5ª Conferencia Bienal sobre el Consejo de Sindicatos de Nueva Zelandia (1998) 28 VUWLR 477, (1997) 3 NZACL Anuario 477, (1998) 4 Revisión Jurídica de Polinesia 477; Ensayo Introductorio: Derecho Público en Nueva Zelandia (2003) 1 NZJPIL 3; Evolución del Derecho Administrativo en Nueva Zelandia a través de la Ley de Inmigración, G. Huscroft y M. Taggart (eds.) , Dentro y fuera del Derecho Administrativo de Canadá: Ensayos en honor de David Mullan (2006). *Traducido de la versión original en Inglés de la Corte Internacional de Justicia .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A RETROSPECTIVE on the WOODHOUSE REPORT: the VISION, the PERFORMANCE and the FUTURE Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC*
    401 A RETROSPECTIVE ON THE WOODHOUSE REPORT: THE VISION, THE PERFORMANCE AND THE FUTURE Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer QC* The following is a revised version of the second Woodhouse Memorial Lecture given at both the Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Auckland in September 2018. It traces the history and policy iterations of New Zealand's accident compensation scheme that flowed from the 1967 Woodhouse Report (the Report), a Royal Commission report chaired by Sir Owen Woodhouse. It discusses the features of the Report and the determination it showed to get rid of the common law action for damages for personal injury. It analyses the degree to which the Report was not followed in the journey it took through the political decision-making system. There is a critical analysis of the delivery of benefits, the administration of the scheme and its financing. The performance in accident prevention and rehabilitation is briefly covered. The method of settling disputes in the scheme has seen an unwelcome return to legalism. The lecture concludes with a strong plea to remove the anomalies created by the accident compensation scheme between the vicitims of accident who receive earnings related-benefit and those who are dealt with under the Social Security Act 2018 under which they receive flat rate benefits. The lecture concludes with some lessons for policymakers. I INTRODUCTION This lecture is part of a Festschrift for Professor Gordon Anderson who has given sterling service to the Victoria University of Wellington. He has specialised in employment law and the regulation of labour and work.
    [Show full text]
  • Grantees Booklet 2010 Inside.Indd
    2010 Fulbright New Zealand Grantees Booklet The Fulbright Programme The Fulbright programme of international educational exchange was an initiative of American Senator J. William Fulbright from Arkansas, who in the aftermath of World War II believed that mutual understanding between different countries and cultures was crucial to ensure a peaceful future for the world. The Fulbright Act, an ingenious piece of legislation passed by the United States Congress in 1946, directed proceeds from the sale of surplus war property, foreign loan repayments and reparations to fund the “promotion of international good will through the exchange of students in the fields of education, culture, and science.” In Senator Fulbright’s own words, the Fulbright programme aims “to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby to increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.” New Zealand was the fifth country to sign up to the Fulbright programme by bilateral treaty with the United States of America, in 1948. Since then Fulbright New Zealand has sent more than 1,400 New Zealand graduate students, artists, academics and professionals to the US and welcomed more than 1,100 Americans on exchanges here. Fulbright New Zealand is jointly funded by the US and New Zealand governments with additional funding from award sponsors, private philanthropists and alumni donors. It is governed by a twelve member Board of Directors comprised of six New Zealanders and six Americans. The Fulbright programme has been described as one of the largest and most significant movements of scholars across the face of the earth and now operates in over 155 countries, funding around 8,000 exchanges per year for participants to study, research, teach or present their work in another country.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer Event Flyer
    100 Years of the Peace Palace: Prospects for the International Adjudication and Arbitration A presentation by His Excellency Judge Sir Kenneth Keith Date: Tuesday, 27 August 2013 Time: 5.30-6.30pm Venue: Lecture Theatre Two, Rutherford House Victoria University Pipitea Campus (23 Lambton Quay, Wellington) Invitation Entry to Rutherford House is via Bunny Street or Lambton Quay. See grid c/d-10 on the Pipitea campus map. RSVP not required. In this address Judge Sir Kenneth Keith, one of the 15 members of the International Court of Justice which since 1946 has sat in the Great Hall of Justice in the Peace Palace will attempt to draw lessons for the future. He will consider the experience of that Court, its predecessor, the Permanent Court of International Justice (1922-1946), the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1899- ) for which the building was constructed, and the many other Courts and Tribunals which have been established over the last century and earlier, but especially in recent decades. What are their strengths and limits? What improvements might be considered? Should greater attention be given to other methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes? How are these matters to be seen in the context of the dreadful events which followed only a year after the opening of the Palace dedicated to Peace through Law? Sir Kenneth Keith is the first New Zealander to be elected as a Judge of the International court of Justice. He was elected by the UN General Assembly and Security Council in 2005 to serve a nine-year term. He served earlier as a judge of the New Zealand Court of Appeal and Supreme Court (1996-2006) and a judge of appeal in Samoa, the Cook Islands, Niue and Fiji; a member of arbitration tribunals; a law commissioner in New Zealand; Professor and Dean of Law at Victoria University of Wellington (now Professor Emeritus); and a member of the legal offices of the United Nations and MFAT.
    [Show full text]
  • Law Reform and the Trans Tasman Log Jam, Twentie
    LAW COMMISSION OF NEW ZEALAND TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY CONFERENCE WHAT IS DISTINCTIVE ABOUT NEW ZEALAND LAW AND THE NEW ZEALAND WAY OF DOING LAW? WELLINGTON, NEW ZEALAND, FRIDAY 25 AUGUST 2006 LAW REFORM AND THE TRANS TASMAN LOG JAM The Hon Justice Michael Kirby AC CMG* AN ENORMOUS PRESUMPTION Law is full of presumptions. Some of them are innocent enough, although often they involve quite fantastic notions to which judges and lawyers solemnly give effect. One such presumption paid us a visit in the High Court of Australia recently. It happened in Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd1. The case involved a person from Western Australia, married to an employee of a corporation formed in Victoria, injured in a university facility in China. We all solemnly sat there * Justice of the High Court of Australia (1996-) and one-time Chairman of the Australian Law Reform Commission (1975-84). 1 (2005) 223 CLR 331. 2. struggling with the suggestion that inherited English law required us to presume that the applicable law of China was the same as the applicable law of Australia - whatever that might be. Justice McHugh and I dissented, not being willing to presume so much2. However, the majority were untroubled. They found no offence to reason in the notion that the good people of Wuhan (although undoubtedly oblivious to the fact) were living under the blessings of the same law as Australia, indeed of a particular Australian State, yet to be ascertained. I do not much like presumptions. It is a distaste that I have inherited from Justice Lionel Murphy3.
    [Show full text]
  • Nagel Ingredients for Success
    INGREDIENTS CONDUCIVE TO SUCCESSFUL (AND LASTING) ELECTORAL REFORM Jack Nagel1 Paper prepared for the Workshop on Electoral Systems, Electoral Reform, and Implications for Democratic Performance Program on American Democracy in Comparative Perspective Stanford University March 14-15, 2014 Distilling from New Zealand's experience from 1984 to 2011, this paper extracts eleven ingredients that I believe were necessary to the success of electoral reform there and that may be equally essential, or at least conducive, to reform in other established democracies, including the United States. Such a long list may seem unwieldy, but the objective here is not scientific parsimony, but pragmatic appreciation of what it takes to succeed in a difficult undertaking. 2 The paper is divided into four parts. The first simply lists the eleven ingredients without elaboration. The second explains how all eleven were crucial to the reform process in New Zealand. The third points to their presence or absence when serious reform attempts failed in Britain and Canada. Part IV discusses whether each ingredient obtains or can be promoted in the U.S. The entire presentation is brief, verging on schematic. Most workshop participants will already be familiar with the history mentioned in Parts II and III, and I intend Part IV mainly as a springboard for discussion. Although some points may apply more generally, I assume a context in which the electoral status quo is a plurality-rule system and reformers advocate a more complex alternative, such as any type of proportional representation for legislative elections or instant-runoff voting (IRV) for single-winner elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Annual Report 1988-1989
    Report No 10 Annual Report 1989 NZLC R10 E 31 Report of the LAW COMMISSION for the year ended 31 March 1989 Presented to the House of Representatives pursuant to section 17 of the Law Commission Act 1985 1989 Wellington, New Zealand Price Code: 28 - C Report/Law Commission Wellington 1989 ISSN 0114-085X This report may be cited as: NZLC R10 Also published as Parliamentary Paper E 31 1 14 July 1989 Rt Hon Geoffrey Palmer Minister of Justice Parliament Buildings Wellington Dear Minister I have the honour to transmit to you the annual report of the Law Commission for the year ended 31 March 1989. This report is prepared pursuant to section 17 of the Law Commission Act 1985. Yours sincerely A O WOODHOUSE President INTRODUCTION The Law Commission was established by the Law Commission Act 1985 and came into existence on 1 February 1986. This report covers the third full year of its operation. The Commission's principal functions are to keep the whole of the law of New Zealand under review in a systematic way; to make recommendations to the Minister of Justice for the reform or development of particular aspects of the law; to advise on reviews of the law conducted by other government agencies; and to propose ways of making the law as understandable and accessible as is practicable. In making its recommendations the Commission is to take into account te ao Maori (the Maori dimension) and give consideration to the multicultural character of New Zealand society, and to have regard to the desirability of simplifying the expression and content of the law as far as practicable.
    [Show full text]
  • The Sir Owen Woodhouse Memorial Lecture Susan St John Reflections
    The Sir Owen Woodhouse Memorial Lecture Susan St John Reflections on the Woodhouse legacy for the 21st century 16th October 2019 Wellington, 22nd October 2019 Auckland Abstract: The Sir Owen Woodhouse legacy can be described as a ‘paradigm shift’ in the thinking around compensation for accidents, prevention and rehabilitation. The 1967 report provided a no-fault compensation benchmark blueprint for New Zealand, and the subsequent ACC legislation has been admired if not fully adopted by other countries. Enduringly today, the Woodhouse principles and thinking are influencing the next paradigm shift that is occurring in welfare. The widespread reform needed requires relinquishing 19th century thinking to embrace a modern inclusive wellbeing-focused welfare state fit for the changing roles of women, work, and uncertainty in the 21st century. A paradigm shift is a “…disjunctive process associated with periodic discontinuities in policy” (Hall 1993: 279). It requires the world is viewed in a different way and thus paradigm changes are painful, resisted, and often subject to reversionary changes. Nevertheless, they are the way in which progress is made. The lessons since the ACC scheme began, are that entrenched thinking dies hard and clear guiding principles can be easily lost. The Owen Woodhouse vision that moves us to a unified welfare system requires eternal vigilance, education of policy makers and the public, and a resolve not to slip back into to old habitual thinking. 1 Introduction I am hugely honored and delighted to have been asked by the Woodhouse family to deliver the third Woodhouse memorial lecture. The first memorial lecture was Sir Kenneth Keith’s, From this nettle, danger we pluck the flower, safety (Keith, 2018), and the second Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s, A retrospective on the Woodhouse report: the vision, the performance and the future(Palmer, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Promoting Safety Through Law, National and International, and by Other Means
    229 PROMOTING SAFETY THROUGH LAW, NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL, AND BY OTHER MEANS KJ Keith* The Woodhouse family, friends of Sir Owen Woodhouse and the law faculties of the Victoria University of Wellington and the University of Auckland decided on the occasion of what would have been Sir Owen Woodhouse's 100th birthday that a fellowship and lectureship should be established in recognition of the great contributions he has made to law and policy in New Zealand and beyond. The fellows and lecturers are not to see themselves as limited to the law and are encouraged to address broader matters challenging people here and abroad. Sir Kenneth Keith gave the inaugural Sir Owen Woodhouse Memorial Lecture in Wellington on 29 August 2017 and in Auckland on 30 August 2017. The address considers in turn the dangers and perils at work, at sea and on the battlefield. It reflects on New Zealand's accident compensation scheme and suggests possible extensions to the scheme. … out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.1 I have learned a great deal from my mentors over many years. For more than 50 years, Owen Woodhouse was a major one and indeed continues to be. He emphasised the importance of getting the question right, of establishing the facts, of seeking out the relevant values, policies and principles, of understanding the need to balance competing values, policies and principles and of the ongoing assessment of the impact of the law that results. Clear thinking, clear writing and getting the first sentence right were also critical. So too was the international and comparative material.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iron Rule of Political Contest 33 4 the Everyday Paradox 47 Conclusion to Part One 59
    With Respect Parliamentarians, officials, and judges too Mark Prebble Institute of Policy Studies First printed in 2010 Institute of Policy Studies School of Government Victoria University of Wellington PO Box 600 Wellington © Institute of Policy Studies ISBN 978–1–877347–38–2 IPS 167 This book is copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, no part may be reproduced without the permission of the Institute of Policy Studies. Copy editors: Belinda Hill and Victor Lipski Indexer: Diane Lowther Cover design: Milne Print Cover illustration: ‘Benefits of Good Government’ (detail, inverted); tapestry by Mark Prebble based on the painting by Ambrogio Lorenzetti Printed by Milne Print To information and information technology staff in government agencies who ensure government websites have accessible and accurate information. Their efforts contribute to honesty and openness in the New Zealand government Contents Preface vii Contributors xi 1 Introduction 1 Part One: Principle, Contest and Clash: The basics Introduction to Part One 9 2 Constitutional Principles Come from History 11 3 The Iron Rule of Political Contest 33 4 The Everyday Paradox 47 Conclusion to Part One 59 Part Two: Parliament is Sovereign: Or so they say Introduction to Part Two 63 5 Who Makes the Law? 65 6 Who Is in Charge Here? 89 7 Who Makes Things Happen? 105 8 Who Controls Parliament? 119 Conclusion to Part Two 127 Part Three: Parliament in Action Introduction to Part Three 131 9 Making Governments 133 10 Making Laws 147 11 Funding Governments 159 12 Scrutinising Government 173 13 Representation 189 Conclusion to Part Three 207 v With Respect: Parliamentarians, officials, and judges too Part Four: Conclusion 14 Conclusion: Their parliament, and ours too 211 Afterword: A Summary 215 References 217 Cases cited 226 Index 227 vi Preface This book originated in a series of research papers and discussions convened by the Institute of Policy Studies in 2007.
    [Show full text]
  • Grantees Booklet 2009 V2 Inside.Indd
    2009 Fulbright New Zealand Grantees Booklet The Fulbright Programme The Fulbright programme of international educational exchange was an initiative of American Senator J. William Fulbright from Arkansas, who in the aftermath of World War II believed that mutual understanding between different countries and cultures was crucial to ensure a peaceful future for the world. The Fulbright Act, an ingenious piece of legislation passed by the United States Congress in 1946, directed proceeds from the sale of surplus war property, foreign loan repayments and reparations to fund the “promotion of international good will through the exchange of students in the fields of education, culture, and science.” In Senator Fulbright’s own words, the Fulbright programme aims “to bring a little more knowledge, a little more reason and a little more compassion into world affairs and thereby to increase the chance that nations will learn at last to live in peace and friendship.” New Zealand was the fifth country to sign up to the Fulbright programme by bilateral treaty with the United States of America, in 1948. Since then Fulbright New Zealand has sent more than 1,400 New Zealand graduate students, artists, academics and professionals to the US and welcomed more than 1,100 Americans on exchanges here. Fulbright New Zealand is jointly funded by the US and New Zealand governments with additional funding from award sponsors, private philanthropists and alumni donors. It is governed by a twelve member Board of Directors comprised of six New Zealanders and six Americans. The Fulbright programme has been described as one of the largest and most significant movements of scholars across the face of the earth and now operates in over 150 countries, funding around 7,500 exchanges per year for participants to study, research and teach in another country.
    [Show full text]
  • Copyright by Rhonda Leann Evans Case 2004
    Copyright by Rhonda Leann Evans Case 2004 The Dissertation Committee for Rhonda Leeann Evans Case Certifies that this is the approved version of the following dissertation: The Politics and Law of Anglo-American Antidiscrimination Regimes, 1945-1995 Committee: John C. Higley, Supervisor Gary P. Freeman H.W. Perry Sanford Levinson Jeffrey K. Tulis The Politics and Law of Anglo-American Antidiscrimination Regimes, 1945-1995 by Rhonda Leann Evans Case, B.A, J.D. Dissertation Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of The University of Texas at Austin in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy The University of Texas at Austin December, 2004 To my Mom and Reed, and in memory of my Father Acknowledgements This dissertation is the product of considerable personal sacrifice not only on my part but, more importantly, on the part of the people I love most. I, therefore, humbly dedicate it to my mother and my husband, for their abiding love and support, and to my father, who sadly did not live to see the project’s completion. I also thank Marcella Evans, who made it easier for me to be so far away from home during such trying times. In addition, I benefited from the support of a tremendous circle of friends who were always there when I needed them: Tracy McFarland, Brenna Troncoso, Rosie and Scott Truelove, Anna O. Law, Holly Hutyera, Pam Wilkins Connelly, John Hudson, Jason Pierce, Emily Werlein, Greg Brown, and Lori Dometrovich. While in Australia and New Zealand, I benefited from the kindnesses of far too many people to list here, but I extend a special thanks to Imogen, Baghurst, Kerri Weeks, Sonia Palmieri, Robyn Lui, Ling Lee, and Peter Barger.
    [Show full text]
  • General Assembly Security Council
    United Nations A/60/188–S/2005/448 General Assembly Distr.: General 27 July 2005 Security Council English Original: French General Assembly Security Council Sixtieth session Sixtieth year Item 112 (c) of the provisional agenda* Elections to fill vacancies in principal organs: election of five members of the International Court of Justice Curricula vitae of candidates nominated by national groups Note by the Secretary-General** Contents Page I. Introduction .................................................................... 2 II. Curricula vitae .................................................................. 2 Abdelfattah Amor ............................................................... 2 Mohamed Bennouna ............................................................. 3 Thomas Buergenthal ............................................................. 6 Julio D. González Campos ........................................................ 14 Kenneth Keith .................................................................. 22 Seidou Adamou Mazou ........................................................... 28 Bernardo Sepulveda Amor ........................................................ 31 Leonid Skotnikov ............................................................... 40 05-44408 (E) 280905 300905 *0544408* A/60/188 S/2005/448 I. Introduction The Secretary-General has the honour to submit to the General Assembly and to the Security Council the curricula vitae of the candidates nominated by national groups for the elections to fill five vacancies
    [Show full text]