The Experts below are selected from a list of 425595 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Erin Odonnell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
voice power and legitimacy the role of the Legal person in river management in new zealand chile and australia
Australian journal of water resources, 2019Co-Authors: Erin Odonnell, Elizabeth MacphersonAbstract:ABSTRACTIn 2017, rivers in New Zealand, India and Colombia received Legal Rights and were granted the status of Legal persons. The increased Legal powers, often a result of groundbreaking agreement...
-
voice power and legitimacy the role of the Legal person in river management in new zealand chile and australia
Social Science Research Network, 2018Co-Authors: Erin Odonnell, Elizabeth MacphersonAbstract:In 2017, rivers in New Zealand, India and Colombia received Legal Rights and were granted the status of Legal persons. The increased Legal powers, often a result of groundbreaking agreements or settlements with Indigenous peoples, may improve environmental protection and river management, but they can also challenge the legitimacy of laws and regulations that protect the rivers. In this paper, we compare the new Legal Rights with two long-standing uses of Legal personality in river management, to explore the effects of Legal personality in terms of environmental resource management. We argue that governments must ensure that they get the right balance between giving rivers a voice (and the power to be heard), and creating collaborative governance arrangements that strengthen and maintain community support overtime.
-
creating Legal Rights for rivers lessons from australia new zealand and india
Ecology and Society, 2018Co-Authors: Erin Odonnell, Julia TalbotjonesAbstract:As pressures on water resources increase, the demand for innovative institutional arrangements, which address the overuse of water, and underprovision of ecosystem health, is rising. One new and emerging approach is the use of Legal personality to protect water systems in law through the granting of Legal Rights to rivers. This constitutes a significant development in the fields of environmental law and water resources management, yet little analysis is available of how the approach has been used and applied. We critically examine the new Legal Rights for rivers using three case studies from Australia, New Zealand, and India. We analyze how Legal Rights have been created in each case, and the complexity of enforcing these Legal Rights to protect the rivers. We conclude that Legal personality could be a useful alternative approach for river management, provided that the new Legal Rights are given sufficient force and effect.
-
at the intersection of the sacred and the Legal Rights for nature in uttarakhand india
Journal of Environmental Law, 2017Co-Authors: Erin OdonnellAbstract:In March 2017, the High Court of Uttarakhand in India ruled in the Ganges and Yamuna and the Glaciers cases that the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, the Gangotri and Yamunotri glaciers, as well as other natural objects in the state of Uttarakhand enjoy Legal Rights. In both cases, the High Court established the natural objects as Legal minors and conferred guardianship responsibilities on several individuals within the state government of Uttarakhand. These judgments create novel Legal Rights for nature and, as such, present powerful examples of the increasing relevance of Rights-centred environmental protection. The impact of this case law, however, is uncertain. As a start, the Legal Rights entrusted to nature are underpinned by such broad definitions of 'harm' that it is difficult to envision successful implementation. Further, the Ganges and Yamuna case is currently stayed pending appeal to the Supreme Court, which may decide to overturn the High Court's findings. Still, these cases are important to analyse, especially in light of how constructing nature as a Legal subject/Legal person shifts environmental law away from public law and into the sphere of private law. Also, the Ganges and Yamuna case draws explicitly on Hinduism to support the sacred status of the Ganges and Yamuna rivers, which, in the current context of the Hindu Nationalist Movement, may prove controversial.
Andrew Sagar - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:COVID-19 is a highly contagious infection with no proven treatment. Approximately 2.5% of patients need mechanical ventilation while their body fights the infection.1 Once COVID-19 patients reach the point of critical illness where ventilation is necessary, they tend to deteriorate quickly. During the pandemic, patients with other conditions may also present at the hospital needing emergency ventilation. But ventilation of a COVID-19 patient can last for 2–3 weeks. Accordingly, if all ventilators are in use, there will not be time for patients to ‘queue up’ to wait for those who arrived earlier to recover. Those who need a ventilator will die if they do not receive access to one quickly. Many nations now face the prospect that they failed to prepare appropriately for this foreseen risk of pandemic (another issue worthy of Legal analysis) and that their populations will need far more ventilators than the health service can supply. For many weeks, the UK has been anticipating a surge of COVID-19 infections that could leave patients queuing in hospitals for ICU care. Luckily, social distancing has ‘flattened the curve’ and this problem might not arise. There is still a degree of risk, however, and other countries will not be so lucky. At some point, during this pandemic or the next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these questions can be found in a wide range of ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies …
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:At some point during this pandemic or next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these hard questions can be found in ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies 10 ways in which the withholding or withdrawal of a clinically indicated ventilator might violate a patient’s Rights, along with recommendations on how to avoid doing so. While our analysis is based on UK law, its lessons are relevant for other countries with similar Legal systems. If the issues we identify are not addressed, doctors may act unlawfully. Worse, patients may die unlawfully.
-
Who Gets the Ventilator? Important Legal Rights
'Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)', 2020Co-Authors: Liddell Kathleen, Skopek Jeffrey, Palmer Stephanie, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Andrew SagarAbstract:At some point – if not during this pandemic, then perhaps the next – all countries will need to face tough questions: How should ventilators (and other resources, such as ICU beds, ICU staff, oxygen, etc.) be allocated and reallocated when they are in short supply? Attempts to answer these hard questions can be found in ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many developed rapidly amid the Covid-19 crisis. Many are based on the principle save the most lives. Unfortunately few have recognized the full range of Legal Rights that may be violated when a ventilator that is clinically indicated for a patient is (1) withheld or (2) withdrawn to help another patient. Patients’ Legal Rights matter. Currently they are not being given the attention they deserve. We set out 10 Legal recommendations in the article. These are based on UK law, but are also relevant to other countries with similar Legal system.K.L. and J.S. acknowledge the support by the Novo Nordisk Foundation for the scientifically independent Collaborative Research Program for Biomedical Innovation Law (grant NNF17SA0027784)
Shauhin A Talesh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the privatization of public Legal Rights how manufacturers construct the meaning of consumer law
Social Science Research Network, 2011Co-Authors: Shauhin A TaleshAbstract:This article demonstrates how the content and meaning of California’s consumer protection laws were shaped by automobile manufacturers, the very group these laws were designed to regulate. My analysis draws on and links two literatures that examine the relationship between law and organizations but often overlook one another: political science studies of how businesses influence public Legal institutions, and neo-institutional sociology studies of how organizations shape law within their organizational field. By integrating these literatures, I develop an “institutional-political” theory that demonstrates how organizations’ construction of law and compliance within an organizational field shapes the meaning of law among legislators and judges. This study examines case law and more than 35 years of California legislative history concerning its consumer warranty laws. Using institutional and political analysis, I show how auto manufacturers, who were initially subject to powerful consumer protection laws, weakened the impact of these laws by creating dispute resolution venues. The legislature and courts subsequently incorporated private dispute resolution venues into statutes and court decisions and made consumer Rights and remedies largely contingent on consumers first using manufacturer-sponsored venues. Organizational venue creation resulted in public Legal Rights being redefined and controlled by private organizations.
-
the privatization of public Legal Rights how manufacturers construct the meaning of consumer law
Law & Society Review, 2009Co-Authors: Shauhin A TaleshAbstract:This article demonstrates how the content and meaning of California's consumer protection laws were shaped by automobile manufacturers, the very group these laws were designed to regulate. My analysis draws on and links two literatures that examine the relationship between law and organizations but often overlook one another: political science studies of how businesses influence public Legal institutions, and neo-institutional sociology studies of how organizations shape law within their organizational field. By integrating these literatures, I develop an "institutional-political" theory that demonstrates how organizations' construction of law and compliance within an organizational field shapes the meaning of law among legislators and judges. This study examines case law and more than 35 years of California legislative history concerning its consumer warranty laws. Using institutional and political analysis, I show how auto manufacturers, who were initially subject to powerful consumer protection laws, weakened the impact of these laws by creating dispute resolution venues. The legislature and courts subsequently incorporated private dispute resolution venues into statutes and court decisions and made consumer Rights and remedies largely contingent on consumers first using manufacturer-sponsored venues. Organizational venue creation resulted in public Legal Rights being redefined and controlled by private organizations. This article demonstrates how the content and meaning of California's consumer protection laws were shaped by automobile manufacturers, the very group these laws were designed to regulate. My analysis draws on and links two literatures that examine the relationship between law and organizations but often overlook one another: political science studies of how organizations influence public Legal institutions, and neo-institutional sociology studies of how organizations shape law within their organizational field. The political science literature on interest group politics suggests that business interests often co-opt the legislative and regulatory process through tactics such as lobbying, agenda setting, and venue shopping (Kamieniecka 2006; Leech et al. 2002; Baumgartner & Jones 1993; Ayres & Braithwaite 1991; Kingdon 1984; Quirk 1981; Stigler 1971; Bernstein 1955). Political scientists, therefore, have made great strides in explaining the mechanisms by which organizations actively influence law among public Legal institutions tasked with enacting, implementing, and enforcing Legal rules. Organizational sociologists applying neo-institutional analysis focus more on the relationship of law and private organizations. A central contribution has been to explain the impact of law on "organizational fields," the community of organizations that coexist and interact in some area of institutional life and share common systems of meaning, values, and norms (Dobbin et al. 1993; Sutton et al. 1994; Edelman 1990, 1992). More recently, neo-institutional scholars of law and organizations turn the tables, by showing how, at least in the civil Rights context, courts defer to institutionalized organizational structures and practices. Judicial deference to organizational practices renders law "endogenous," i.e., the content and meaning of law is determined by the social arena that it is designed to regulate (Edelman et al. 1999; Edelman 2002, 2005, 2007; Edelman & Suchman 2007). My analysis builds on both these literatures on law and organizations by examining how private entities influence the meaning of legislation through both political and institutional mechanisms. Specifically, the research question I examine is: How and under what conditions can business organizations shape the meaning of legislation, once it is enacted? I focus in particular on the capacity of private business to influence how and where disputes over public Legal Rights are resolved. Amidst the proliferation of public-private partnerships and "responsive regulation" sanctioned and approved by legislatures and administrative agencies, business organizations across a wide variety of industries are increasingly engaged in "public" decisionmaking in private settings (Ayres 8c Braithwaite 1992; Lobel 2004). …
Kathleen Liddell - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:COVID-19 is a highly contagious infection with no proven treatment. Approximately 2.5% of patients need mechanical ventilation while their body fights the infection.1 Once COVID-19 patients reach the point of critical illness where ventilation is necessary, they tend to deteriorate quickly. During the pandemic, patients with other conditions may also present at the hospital needing emergency ventilation. But ventilation of a COVID-19 patient can last for 2–3 weeks. Accordingly, if all ventilators are in use, there will not be time for patients to ‘queue up’ to wait for those who arrived earlier to recover. Those who need a ventilator will die if they do not receive access to one quickly. Many nations now face the prospect that they failed to prepare appropriately for this foreseen risk of pandemic (another issue worthy of Legal analysis) and that their populations will need far more ventilators than the health service can supply. For many weeks, the UK has been anticipating a surge of COVID-19 infections that could leave patients queuing in hospitals for ICU care. Luckily, social distancing has ‘flattened the curve’ and this problem might not arise. There is still a degree of risk, however, and other countries will not be so lucky. At some point, during this pandemic or the next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these questions can be found in a wide range of ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies …
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:At some point during this pandemic or next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these hard questions can be found in ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies 10 ways in which the withholding or withdrawal of a clinically indicated ventilator might violate a patient’s Rights, along with recommendations on how to avoid doing so. While our analysis is based on UK law, its lessons are relevant for other countries with similar Legal systems. If the issues we identify are not addressed, doctors may act unlawfully. Worse, patients may die unlawfully.
Stevie Martin - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:COVID-19 is a highly contagious infection with no proven treatment. Approximately 2.5% of patients need mechanical ventilation while their body fights the infection.1 Once COVID-19 patients reach the point of critical illness where ventilation is necessary, they tend to deteriorate quickly. During the pandemic, patients with other conditions may also present at the hospital needing emergency ventilation. But ventilation of a COVID-19 patient can last for 2–3 weeks. Accordingly, if all ventilators are in use, there will not be time for patients to ‘queue up’ to wait for those who arrived earlier to recover. Those who need a ventilator will die if they do not receive access to one quickly. Many nations now face the prospect that they failed to prepare appropriately for this foreseen risk of pandemic (another issue worthy of Legal analysis) and that their populations will need far more ventilators than the health service can supply. For many weeks, the UK has been anticipating a surge of COVID-19 infections that could leave patients queuing in hospitals for ICU care. Luckily, social distancing has ‘flattened the curve’ and this problem might not arise. There is still a degree of risk, however, and other countries will not be so lucky. At some point, during this pandemic or the next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these questions can be found in a wide range of ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies …
-
who gets the ventilator important Legal Rights in a pandemic
Social Science Research Network, 2020Co-Authors: Kathleen Liddell, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Jeffrey M Skopek, Stephanie Palmer, Andrew SagarAbstract:At some point during this pandemic or next, all countries will need to answer hard questions about whether and when scarce ICU resources (such as ventilators, beds and staff) should be either withheld or withdrawn from certain groups of patients solely for the purpose of providing them to others. Attempts to answer these hard questions can be found in ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many of which embrace the foundational principle of ‘save the most lives’. Unfortunately, this worthwhile goal has generated many suggestions that could violate the law. This article identifies 10 ways in which the withholding or withdrawal of a clinically indicated ventilator might violate a patient’s Rights, along with recommendations on how to avoid doing so. While our analysis is based on UK law, its lessons are relevant for other countries with similar Legal systems. If the issues we identify are not addressed, doctors may act unlawfully. Worse, patients may die unlawfully.
-
Who Gets the Ventilator? Important Legal Rights
'Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD)', 2020Co-Authors: Liddell Kathleen, Skopek Jeffrey, Palmer Stephanie, Stevie Martin, Jennifer Anderson, Andrew SagarAbstract:At some point – if not during this pandemic, then perhaps the next – all countries will need to face tough questions: How should ventilators (and other resources, such as ICU beds, ICU staff, oxygen, etc.) be allocated and reallocated when they are in short supply? Attempts to answer these hard questions can be found in ICU triage protocols and ethical guidance documents, many developed rapidly amid the Covid-19 crisis. Many are based on the principle save the most lives. Unfortunately few have recognized the full range of Legal Rights that may be violated when a ventilator that is clinically indicated for a patient is (1) withheld or (2) withdrawn to help another patient. Patients’ Legal Rights matter. Currently they are not being given the attention they deserve. We set out 10 Legal recommendations in the article. These are based on UK law, but are also relevant to other countries with similar Legal system.K.L. and J.S. acknowledge the support by the Novo Nordisk Foundation for the scientifically independent Collaborative Research Program for Biomedical Innovation Law (grant NNF17SA0027784)