title: Effective investigations under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the right to Life or an onerous burden on a state?

authors: Chevalier-Watts, Juliet

subjects: human right

abstract: Articles 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when read together, require a proper and adequate official investigation into deaths resulting from the actions of state agents, both from the use of lethal force, and also in situations arising from the negligence of agents that leads to a death. The article considers the extent of the obligation to carry out an effective investigation since its explicit recognition by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of McCann and Others v. United Kingdom. The article assesses the jurisprudence of the duty to investigate in order to determine whether the obligation is now placing too onerous a burden on member states in order to comply with their duties under the Convention, or whether the duty does indeed secure the right to life, as is intended. To assess the original proposition, the article considers the jurisprudence of the duty to investigate in relation to the following applications: early forays into the application of the duty; fatalities arising from non-lethal force; the influential quartet of cases arising out of the Northern Ireland troubles; recent judgments concerning cases arising out of the conflict in Chechnya; and finally through to a critical review of the effectiveness of the European Court.

text: Effective investigations under article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Securing the right to Life or an onerous burden on a state? Articles 1 and 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights, when read together, require a proper and adequate official investigation into deaths resulting from the actions of state agents, both from the use of lethal force, and also in situations arising from the negligence of agents that leads to a death. The article considers the extent of the obligation to carry out an effective investigation since its explicit recognition by the European Court of Human Rights in the case of McCann and Others v. United Kingdom. The article assesses the jurisprudence of the duty to investigate in order to determine whether the obligation is now placing too onerous a burden on member states in order to comply with their duties under the Convention, or whether the duty does indeed secure the right to life, as is intended. To assess the original proposition, the article considers the jurisprudence of the duty to investigate in relation to the following applications: early forays into the application of the duty; fatalities arising from non-lethal force; the influential quartet of cases arising out of the Northern Ireland troubles; recent judgments concerning cases arising out of the conflict in Chechnya; and finally through to a critical review of the effectiveness of the European Court.

year: 2010

title: Canberra-planning cross-linguistic disagreement: a few remarks

authors: Wyatt, Jeremy

abstract: My remarks will focus on two questions:
• What methods should we use in investigating the nature of disagreement?
• What do these methods tell us about the possibility of cross-linguistic disagreement?

text: Canberra-planning cross-linguistic disagreement: a few remarks My remarks will focus on two questions:
• What methods should we use in investigating the nature of disagreement?
• What do these methods tell us about the possibility of cross-linguistic disagreement?

year: 2022

title: New Zealand history is Maori history: Tikanga as the ethical foundation of historical scholarship In Aotearoa New Zealand

authors: Mahuika, Nepia

subjects: Arts & Humanities

abstract: IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO FIND that New Zealand history is Māori history. In 1987 when Tipene O’Regan stated that the ‘the past belongs to all New Zealanders, but first it is ours’, he was drawing attention to New Zealand history’s foundation in Māori history.1 Thinking about New Zealand history as Māori history does not mean denying the histories of European, Asian and Pasifika immigrants, but draws attention to the notion that ‘settler’ aspirations to claim ‘Aotearoa’ as home occur within a much broader narrative of indigenous occupation and struggle.2 Indeed, how can New Zealand history be the story of ‘here’ when it has ‘othered’ indigenous narratives that speak to the heart of what it is to belong in the land of the long white cloud? Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – and that presents a problem for tangata whenua self-determination. Likewise, for Pākehā, it is an issue because until New Zealand history recognizes and enables the centrality of Māori history it will always fail to articulate the collective ‘us’ that is so often assumed in the discourse of ‘full and final settlement’.3 In its current form it will never be able to ethically or adequately account for the shaping of a New Zealand identity that finds ‘composure’ in the story of how Pākehā became ‘native’ New Zealanders.4 For Māori, these issues are keenly felt, because while New Zealand history has always been about us, it has predominantly been articulated on the colonizers’ terms. In the ‘discursive constructions’ that are New Zealand histories, the indigenous have regularly been culturally appropriated, dislocated and misrepresented.5 Even when Māori have turned their back on the writing of New Zealand history it has been, and will still be, a history of being or becoming ‘native’. Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – so why does it feel like the story of Pākehā settlers?

text: New Zealand history is Maori history: Tikanga as the ethical foundation of historical scholarship In Aotearoa New Zealand IT SHOULD COME AS NO SURPRISE TO FIND that New Zealand history is Māori history. In 1987 when Tipene O’Regan stated that the ‘the past belongs to all New Zealanders, but first it is ours’, he was drawing attention to New Zealand history’s foundation in Māori history.1 Thinking about New Zealand history as Māori history does not mean denying the histories of European, Asian and Pasifika immigrants, but draws attention to the notion that ‘settler’ aspirations to claim ‘Aotearoa’ as home occur within a much broader narrative of indigenous occupation and struggle.2 Indeed, how can New Zealand history be the story of ‘here’ when it has ‘othered’ indigenous narratives that speak to the heart of what it is to belong in the land of the long white cloud? Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – and that presents a problem for tangata whenua self-determination. Likewise, for Pākehā, it is an issue because until New Zealand history recognizes and enables the centrality of Māori history it will always fail to articulate the collective ‘us’ that is so often assumed in the discourse of ‘full and final settlement’.3 In its current form it will never be able to ethically or adequately account for the shaping of a New Zealand identity that finds ‘composure’ in the story of how Pākehā became ‘native’ New Zealanders.4 For Māori, these issues are keenly felt, because while New Zealand history has always been about us, it has predominantly been articulated on the colonizers’ terms. In the ‘discursive constructions’ that are New Zealand histories, the indigenous have regularly been culturally appropriated, dislocated and misrepresented.5 Even when Māori have turned their back on the writing of New Zealand history it has been, and will still be, a history of being or becoming ‘native’. Yes, New Zealand history is Māori history – so why does it feel like the story of Pākehā settlers?

year: 2015