Provisions Of Bill Research Articles

Rights of the Child or Parental Authority in Children’s Medical Treatment Cases?

Recent cases concerned with the future medical treatment of a child with a life-limiting condition have presented, on appeal, the argument that the threshold for intervention in a parental decision about the child’s medical treatment should be significant harm rather than best interests. The basis of the claim is that parents know their child best and, consequently, should have the right or authority to make decisions about their child’s future. Although unsuccessful before the courts, these legal arguments have inspired the inclusion of provisions in Bills before Parliament aimed at enhancing parental authority in such cases. This article examines this modern reincarnation of the claim to parental authority, in the context of the medical treatment of a seriously ill child. It argues that reform of the law to re-assert parental authority would be a seriously retrograde development—a contemporary conservative reformulation of the child as object—which would significantly erode the rights of the child. Rather, it is argued that the child should be at the centre of the shared care of parents and professionals focused upon the individual child’s needs, interests and rights. This article concludes with a fictional account of an attempt to reform the law to place the interests, rights and voice of the child at the centre of determination of their future medical treatment. Keywords: children’s interests, rights and voice; parental authority; children’s medical treatment; best interests or significant harm threshold.

Ensuring Legal Certainty for Customary Law Communities in Indonesia: Analyzing the Ratification Process of the Customary Law Communities Bill

This study examines the pursuit of legal certainty for customary law communities in Indonesia through analyzing the ratification process of the Customary Law Communities Bill. Customary law communities, integral to Indonesia's cultural fabric, have long grappled with ambiguous legal recognition, leading to vulnerability and uncertainty. By scrutinizing the journey of the Customary Law Communities Bill towards enactment, this research aims to elucidate the prospects of establishing a robust legal framework safeguarding the rights and interests of these communities. Drawing from legislative documents, legal debates, and stakeholder insights, the study assesses the bill's opportunities and challenges. Additionally, the research delves into the implications of legal certainty for customary law communities, exploring its potential impact on autonomy, cultural heritage, and socio-economic development. Through case studies and empirical evidence, the study illuminates the practical ramifications of the bill's provisions across Indonesia. This study contributes to discussions on legal pluralism, indigenous rights, and community empowerment in Indonesia. By advocating for the recognition and protection of customary law communities within the legal framework, it seeks to foster inclusive governance and cultural diversity. Ultimately, it underscores the significance of ensuring legal certainty as a cornerstone of justice and equality for all communities, irrespective of their cultural or legal traditions.

Advancing Equity in the Farm Bill: Opportunities for the Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP).

The Gus Schumacher Nutrition Incentive Program (GusNIP) is a federally funded grant program that provides nutrition incentives-subsidies for purchasing fruits and vegetables (FV)-to Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) participants. GusNIP currently advances nutrition equity by improving FV access for people with low incomes, yet inequities exist within GusNIP. We sought to identify inequities in GusNIP at the community, organization, partner, and individual levels and develop recommendations for farm bill provisions to make the program more equitable. In Spring 2021, a group of nutrition incentive experts (n = 11) from across the country convened to discuss opportunities to enhance equity in GusNIP. The iterative recommendation development process included feedback from key stakeholders (n = 15) and focus group participants with GusNIP lived experience (n = 12). Eleven recommendations to advance equity in GusNIP in the farm bill emerged across six categories: (1) increase total GusNIP funding, (2) increase funding and support to lower-resourced organizations and impacted communities, (3) eliminate the match requirement, (4) support statewide expansion, (5) expand and diversify retailer participation, and (6) expand program marketing. Including these recommendations in the upcoming and future farm bills would equitably expand GusNIP for SNAP participants, program grantees, and communities across the country.

О понятии сетевого эффекта и критериях доминирующего положения в проекте «пятого антимонопольного пакета»

The article analyzes some provisions of bill No.160280-8 On the Amendment of the Federal Law On Protection of Competition (in Terms of Improvement of Antimonopoly Regulation of Digital Markets) passed on its first reading, also known as the fifth antimonopoly package. The author believes that the current version of the bill has some drawbacks that lower the potential efficiency of the suggested provisions to say the least, and in the worst-case scenario, make these provisions harmful, able to undermine the entire competition-based legal system. Some drawbacks are major ones but can be easily corrected before the bill becomes the law. Whereas other drawbacks can cease to be drawbacks in the event of specific interpretation of the proposed provisions and specification of the latter in regulations. The article analyzes the network effect concept and digital platform domination criteria stipulated in the current (2022) and previous (2018) versions of the fifth antimonopoly package. The author reviews the reasons for differences and similarities of these versions.

Voices from India’s Borderlands against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA-2019) An Explanatory study

India is the largest populous democracy in the world, however there are many others? India has conducted itself as a responsible democracy ever since it gained its freedom. The world community has concurred on this as well. It has proven capable of adjusting to a variety of difficult situations. In order to revise India's Constitution, it is necessary to change the fundamental or ultimate law of the nation. Article 368 of Part XX (the Constitution's governing provision) governs constitutional amendments in India. With the help of this mechanism, the Indian Parliament's arbitrary power is constrained and the Indian Constitution is safeguarded. There are two different categories of modifications allowed under the Indian Constitution. A majority of all Indian states must ratify, as well as a special majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). When the Indian Constitution was up for review again in October 2021, 105 amendments had been made. In 1950, the First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. The Constitution has undergone 104 amendments since that period. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha, was an attempt to update the Citizenship Act of 1955. (CAA Bill 2019). A Joint Parliamentary Committee received it, and on January 7, 2019, it issued a report outlining its conclusions and suggestions. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed on January 8, 2019, and the 16th Lok Sabha was dissolved. Amit Shah, the minister of home affairs, reintroduced the bill in the 17th Lok Sabha on December 9, and it was approved on December 10 of that same year. Despite the Rajya Sabha voting to adopt the measure on December 11th, India has been quite critical of it due to its discriminatory nature among neighbouring nations. A bill of this sort is fiercely opposed by the populace. The paper aims to explain all of the bill's provisions and presents the arguments against it.

Specialty crops and the farm bill

AbstractSpecialty crops include a myriad of diverse commodities, markets, and supply chains. In contrast to major field crops, specialty crops have historically been covered by different Farm Bill provisions and other policies, in part due to their heterogeneity. As specialty crop production and markets evolve, the applicability and efficacy of alternative policy instruments change as well. We track how Farm Bill coverage of specialty crops adjusted throughout the years in broad types of policy approaches: commodity programs, trade, nutrition, research, risk mitigation, and conservation. Looking forward, we consider how specialty crops fit with current White House priorities of economy, equity, and climate as discussions begin on a new Farm Bill.

Kentucky Legislature passes bill prohibiting death penalty for people with serious mental illness

The Kentucky State Senate has given final legislative approval to a bill that would make Kentucky the second U.S. state to bar the execution of people with serious mental illness, the Death Penalty Information Center reported March 29. On March 25, the Republican‐dominated body voted 25‐9 to pass HB 269, a bill that prohibits the death penalty for defendants diagnosed with any of four specified mental health disorders. The measure overwhelmingly passed the House on Feb. 9 by a vote of 76‐19. If the bill is signed by Governor Andy Beshear, a Democrat, Kentucky would join Ohio in exempting severely mentally ill defendants from capital punishment. Under the bill's provisions, defendants who had active symptoms and a documented diagnosis of schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder and/or delusional disorder at the time of the offense would no longer be subject to the death penalty. Defendants seeking to bar capital prosecution under the bill are required to file a motion in the trial court at least 120 days before their scheduled trial date. If the court determines that the defendant meets the statute's requirements, the case will proceed to a noncapital trial. Unlike a similar measure passed in Ohio in 2021, Kentucky's law would not apply to those already sentenced to death in the state. Since 2017, similar bills have also been introduced in Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Missouri, Texas and Virginia. The bills in Colorado and Virginia became moot when legislatures in those states abolished the death penalty.

Voices from India’s Borderlands against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA-2019) An Explanatory study

India is the largest populous democracy in the world, however there are many others. India has conducted itself as a responsible democracy ever since it gained its freedom. The world community has concurred on this as well. It has proven capable of adjusting to a variety of difficult situations. In order to revise India's Constitution, it is necessary to change the fundamental or ultimate law of the nation. Article 368 of Part XX (the Constitution's governing provision) governs constitutional amendments in India. With the help of this mechanism, the Indian Parliament's arbitrary power is constrained and the Indian Constitution is safeguarded. There are two different categories of modifications allowed under the Indian Constitution. A majority of all Indian states must ratify, as well as a special majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). When the Indian Constitution was up for review again in October 2021, 105 amendments had been made. In 1950, the First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. The Constitution has undergone 104 amendments since that period. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha, was an attempt to update the Citizenship Act of 1955. (CAA Bill 2019). A Joint Parliamentary Committee received it, and on January 7, 2019, it issued a report outlining its conclusions and suggestions. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed on January 8, 2019, and the 16th Lok Sabha was dissolved. Amit Shah, the minister of home affairs, reintroduced the bill in the 17th Lok Sabha on December 9, and it was approved on December 10 of that same year. Despite the Rajya Sabha voting to adopt the measure on December 11th, India has been quite critical of it due to its discriminatory nature among neighbouring nations. A bill of this sort is fiercely opposed by the populace. The paper aims to explain all of the bill's provisions and presents the arguments

Research on the Legal Nature of Bill of Lading (BOL) in International Cargo Transportation

The Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Maritime Laws of the People’s Republic of China, Uniform Transportation Laws and The United States Freight Act of 1999 have similar but different provisions on the nature of bill of lading. The Hague Rules use covered to stipulate that the bill of lading is the proof of carriage contract, while covered also means including. The Hamburg Rules and Maritime Laws of the People’s Republic of China use evidence to stipulate that the bill of lading is the proof of carriage contract, while the United States Freight Act 1999 considers the bill of lading as the carriage contract directly. For this problem that the nature of the bill of lading is proof of the carriage contract or the carrier of the carriage contract, this paper adopts the methods of literature research and comparative study, starting from the relevant legal provisions of bill of lading, progressively analyze the legal nature of bill of lading and draw a conclusion from the perspective of the conclusion of carriage contract, the relationship between bill of lading and carrier of carriage contract and carrier of carriage contract three dimensions. That is, the bill of lading is not the carriage contract and the rights and obligations of both parties are subject to the carriage contract in the non-public carrier contract of human transport. In the public carrier contract of human transport, the bill of lading is the carrier of the carriage contract in some cases, but only the proof of the carriage contract iLn some cases.

Voices from India’s Borderlands against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA-2019) An Explanatory study

India is the largest populous democracy in the world, however there are many others. India has conducted itself as a responsible democracy ever since it gained its freedom. The world community has concurred on this as well. It has proven capable of adjusting to a variety of difficult situations. In order to revise India's Constitution, it is necessary to change the fundamental or ultimate law of the nation. Article 368 of Part XX (the Constitution's governing provision) governs constitutional amendments in India. With the help of this mechanism, the Indian Parliament's arbitrary power is constrained and the Indian Constitution is safeguarded. There are two different categories of modifications allowed under the Indian Constitution. A majority of all Indian states must ratify, as well as a special majority in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha (the lower house of Parliament). When the Indian Constitution was up for review again in October 2021, 105 amendments had been made. In 1950, the First Amendment to the US Constitution was ratified. The Constitution has undergone 104 amendments since that period. The Citizenship Amendment Bill, introduced in Lok Sabha, was an attempt to update the Citizenship Act of 1955. (CAA Bill 2019). A Joint Parliamentary Committee received it, and on January 7, 2019, it issued a report outlining its conclusions and suggestions. The Citizenship Amendment Bill was passed on January 8, 2019, and the 16th Lok Sabha was dissolved. Amit Shah, the minister of home affairs, reintroduced the bill in the 17th Lok Sabha on December 9, and it was approved on December 10 of that same year. Despite the Rajya Sabha voting to adopt the measure on December 11th, India has been quite critical of it due to its discriminatory nature among neighbouring nations. A bill of this sort is fiercely opposed by the populace. The paper aims to explain all of the bill's provisions and presents the arguments against it.

Quebec Bill 96 - Time For a Primer on Amending the Constitution

On May 13, 2021, the Government of Quebec introduced Bill 96, “An Act Respecting French, the Official and Common Language of Quebec” in the Quebec National Assembly.1 Bill 96 is a multi-faceted, and fairly sweeping, modernization of the Charter of the French Language, commonly known as Bill 101. It is primarily an attempt to use the power of the state to ensure that French is used more in Quebec, that more Quebecers are educated in French, and that anyone who wants to learn French has access to French lessons.2 As there is some evidence that French is being used less in Quebec than it has been in recent decades, the government wants to act to make French the “common language of Quebec,” as the Bill’s title suggests. While a number of the provisions of Bill 96 may violate the rights of the English-language minority in the province, which is a matter that should be of concern to all Canadians and the Government of Canada, I want to address another issue with the constitutionality of Bill 96.
 1 Bill 96, An Act respecting French, the official and common language of Québec, 1st Sess, 42nd Leg, Québec, 2021 (first reading 13 May 2021), online: <www.m.assnat.qc.ca/en/travaux-parlementaires/projets-loi/ projet-loi-96-42-1.html> [An Act Respecting French]. 2 Kate McKenna, “Quebec seeks to change Canadian Constitution, make sweeping changes to language laws with new bill”, CBC News (14 May

Municipal Coastal Management and National Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Brazilian Marine Biome: A Critical Analysis

The Coastal Zone (CZ), declared as National Heritage by the 1988 Federal Constitution, is endowed as an area of strategic importance. Coastal economic activities are responsible for the majority portion of the national Gross Domestic Product (GDP), linked to ports, fishing, mining (i.e., oil), and tourism. Thus, the intense degradation of natural resources puts both socio-economic sustainability and local populations’ environmental quality at risk. This study presents actors and public policies relevant to Integrated Coastal Zone Management (ICZM). It seeks to resolve existing conflicts while respecting the compatibility of coastal uses sustainably, considering that the interrelationships of economic, environmental and social phenomena resulting from the overlapping of the different uses of the Brazilian coast generate different impacts. The study aims to assess municipal coastal management in line with Marine Spatial Plans (MSP), with relevance to the provisions of Bill nº 6969/2013. Such legislation “institutes the National Policy for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of the Marine Biome and associated coastal ecosystems (PNCMar)” and analyses municipal public power, between integral and participant of the integrated coastal management, together with union and state governments, responsible for elaborating, implementing, executing and monitoring their respective Coastal Management Plans. The methodology consists of collecting bibliographic and documentary data and reviewing articles, laws, bills, federal decrees and classic texts that addressed ICZM and MSP. For an integrated, sustainable coastal management, Bill nº 6969/2013 requires adjustments, with coastal municipalities remaining in management in a decentralised, participatory manner to make their local spatial planning instruments compatible.

Weighing Indigeneity: Culture and the Indigenous Child’s Best Interests under Bill C-92

Bill C-92 (or, An Act respecting First Nations, Inuit and Metis children, youth and families) came into force in January 2020, marking an important milestone in the history of Indigenous child welfare in Canada. This paper briefly reviews the history of the Indigenous child welfare system and the systemic problems and policy decisions that have led to the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care. It then attempts to predict the effect of Bill C-92 on specific areas of this system. While acknowledging that many factors (such as the meaningful recognition of Indigenous peoples’ inherent right to self-government, as well as increased funding to Indigenous communities’ child welfare programs) are important facets of a holistic solution to the Indigenous child welfare crisis, this paper focuses on the narrow area of the judiciary’s implementation of the Best Interests of the Child principle. It argues that judges have hitherto implemented this principle on the assumption that preserving an Indigenous child’s culture is at best a secondary priority, thereby exacerbating the existing crisis. The paper further argues that Bill C-92 runs against this trend in the case law and that it elevates the weight of preserving an Indigenous child’s culture so that it is a primary concern. The paper accomplishes this task by reviewing existing jurisprudence on Indigenous child welfare and comparing existing provincial statutes with the provisions of Bill C-92.

Submission to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons for its Study of Bill C-5, an Act to Amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

Brief to the Committee on Justice and Human Rights of the House of Commons, Canada, on Bill C-5, Clause 4. The brief proposes revisions to proposed amendments to the Criminal Code requiring written or recorded reasons for decision in sexual offence cases. The proposed revisions set out in the Brief would require that reasons for decision be either written or transcribed and published on a web site accessible to the public without fee. The objective of the proposed revisions to the amendments is to provide measures that will be more effective to enhance judicial accountability, the transparency of the legal process, and trust in the justice system — all purposes highlighted in the Preamble to the Bill. The brief does not address the provisions in Bill C-5 dealing with judicial education. Bill C-5 is available on the House of Commons web site.

SPECIAL PROCEDURE OF THE TRIAL WITH THE CONSENT OF THE ACCUSED TO THE CHARGE: PROBLEMS OF APPLICATION IN A NUMBER OF CASES

The article considers the problem related with the application of a special procedure for the trial in a number of cases. Its urgency is determined by the introduction in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of the draft Federal Law № 690652-7, which proposes to apply the simplified procedure provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of Russian Federation only in cases of crimes of petty and medium gravity. The Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation supports the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The article analyzes the provisions of bills introduced over the past seventeen years in the State Duma of the Federal Assembly of the Russian Federation, which proposed both narrowing down and expanding the range of application for the special procedure of trial in a number of cases, the opinion of law enforcement officers and scientists on this issue; methods used by prosecutors and public prosecutors in order to reduce the percentage of application of procedure provided for in Chapter 40 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation; the judges attitude to this position of state representatives on the side of prosecution. The author concludes that the initiative of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation only aims to reduce the number of sentences decided in a special order and has nothing to do with protecting persons accused of serious crimes. The authors conclusions are based on analysis of the results of research of criminal cases, which were prosecuted in a general procedure instead of a special one, a survey of judges and prosecutors and illustrated with specific examples. It is proposed that formulation of Part 1 of Article 314 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation should be kept so far as it relates to the range of cases in which a sentence may be judged in a special order.

Democratizing Foreign Policy: Parliamentary Oversight of Treaty Ratification in Pakistan

Abstract Treaties are agreements between States negotiated by government executives. They are primarily meant to govern the relationship between States, but may have implications for the economic, political, and fundamental rights of citizens. As treaties create binding legal obligations for States enforceable under international law, this article primarily argues that Parliamentary oversight of treaties is necessary for their democratic legitimacy. It analyses the Ratification of Foreign Agreements by Parliament Bill (the ‘Bill’) which is currently being debated in the Senate of Pakistan. Offering critical overview of the existing treaty making procedures in Pakistan, the article evaluates several aspects of the Bill including its definition of foreign agreements and the proposed treaty ratification procedures in comparison with international law of treaties and relevant laws of the UK, Australia, and Kenya. Based on the comparative examination of the Bill, the article makes proposals for changes in the Bill's substantive provisions and make further suggestions for improvement, such as guiding principles on treaty negotiations and procedure for treaty withdrawals. The article concludes by giving a comprehensive package of practical recommendations for further development of the Bill's provisions on treaty ratification in accordance with international best practices.

DIREITO À EDUCAÇÃO CIDADÃ

Ao restringir os conteúdos que são difundidos em sala de aula perdemos em cidadania? O presente texto tem por objetivo analisar o direito à educação como preparo para o exercício da cidadania e as disposições do Projeto de Lei nº 246/2019, que visa instituir o Programa Escola Sem Partido, com o intuito de tecer alguns questionamentos sobre as limitações para a compreensão das diferenças de ideias e de existências humanas e seus efeitos na formação cidadã. Primeiro, será apresentado o panorama jurídico em vigor que tutela a educação no país, ocasião em que se demonstrará a sua vinculação direta com a promoção da cidadania. Em um segundo momento, serão analisadas algumas propostas do Programa Escola Sem Partido em contraste com a lógica da educação para a cidadania e para a diversidade humana. Os resultados sugerem que referido Programa, ao restringir o acesso à informação e à discussão de determinados temas afeitos às “diversidades”, como a Educação em Gênero e Diversidade Sexual, pode limitar a formação cidadã almejada no processo de escolarização.
 Recebido em: 20/05/2019Aprovado em: 31/07/2019

Quebec’s new language dynamic

Abstract Census data are used to monitor the efficiency of Bill 101 in reorienting language shift more favourably for French. Immigration from former French colonies or Romance-language countries is shown to be the major factor driving the increase in the share of French in the assimilation of Allophones since 1991. The schooling provisions of Bill 101 are seen to play a significant supporting role in this respect, but not those promoting French as language of work. It is further shown that the corresponding trend towards a greater share for French in overall assimilation has become seriously compromised by a growing Anglicization of Francophones themselves, notably in the Montreal metropolitan area. The resulting consolidation of the superiority of English as language of assimilation in Quebec is seen to explain in large part the emergence of a new language dynamic since 2001, combining a record decline in relative weight of Quebec’s French-speaking majority with a mild but equally historic increase in weight of its English-speaking minority.

Connecticut bill seeks special rules for cops pursuing MH care

Connecticut legislators are trying once more to pass a bill that seeks special rules for police officers who seek mental health care services following job‐related trauma, CT News Junkie reported April 24. The bill easily passed through the Judiciary Committee after previously being passed by the Public Health Committee. The bill now moves to the full Senate. Similar legislation made it out of the Public Safety Committee last year but died on the Senate calendar. The bill would prohibit a law enforcement unit from firing, disciplining, or discriminating against an officer solely because the officer seeks mental health services or surrenders his or her firearm during the period when the officer seeks such services. The bill also allows a police officer who is voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital to have his or her firearm returned upon discharge, if the officer complies with the bill's provisions. Under current law that was passed in 2013 following the Sandy Hook massacre, someone who is voluntarily admitted to a psychiatric hospital — and not solely for alcohol or drug dependency treatment — is ineligible to possess a firearm for six months after discharge. This is seen as a barrier to treatment for police officers because the loss of access to their service weapon could cost them their jobs.

The introduction of patent agent privilege in Canada.

The introduction of patent agent privilege in Canada.