Abstract
This final chapter delves into the dynamics of basic constitutional human rights in the selected jurisdictions by studying the key approaches taken by each of the jurisdictions in generally dealing with human rights matters. In examining the potential regulation of future pre-implantation genetic interventions in the jurisdictions (which should take into account human rights components such as the right to life, the right to privacy (autonomy) and the right to equality and non-discrimination), the chapter introduces the concept of ‘entry points of regulatory approaches’. These entry points of regulation are symbolic of concerns regarding various branches of biomedical technologies. In the chapter, I identify two spectrums of these entry points: firstly, the practical, positivistic and private law aspects; and secondly, the philosophical human rights aspects. I posit that these classifications point to the main prevailing and concerning issues that would prompt a state to regulate those technologies. Using these entry points of regulation as lenses of comparisons allows us to navigate the role of fundamental rights in the selected jurisdictions by determining how these jurisdictions prioritize the human rights components that would be relevant in pre-implantation genetic interventions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Michaels (2006).
- 2.
Lando (2017), p. 17.
- 3.
Farokhmanesh (12 December 2016).
- 4.
Australian Associated Press (20 February 2015).
- 5.
Umeda (6 April 2015). This was an example where Thailand passed a fast-tracked new surrogacy law after being inundated with scandal in the international community for its legislative laxities in commercial surrogacy.
- 6.
VAWnet, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, ‘Reproductive Justice, Reproductive Health and Reproductive Rights: A Framework’ https://vawnet.org/sc/reproductive-justice-frameworks.
- 7.
Often referred to as an international bill of rights for women, the Convention was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in 1979, and defines discrimination against women as “…any distinction, exclusion or restriction made on the basis of sex which has the effect or purpose of impairing or nullifying the recognition, enjoyment or exercise by women, irrespective of their marital status, on a basis of equality of men and women, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, civil or any other field.”
- 8.
United Nations (1979).
- 9.
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights ‘Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights’ http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/HealthRights.aspx.
- 10.
Ibid.
- 11.
For examples, see: Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (“Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and security of person.”); Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law.”); Article 6.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Every human being has the inherent right to life. This right shall be protected by law. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”); Article 4 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his life.”)
- 12.
Simson (2014), p. 107.
- 13.
For example: in Germany, Article 2 of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany states “Every person shall have the right to life and physical integrity. Freedom of the person shall be inviolable. These rights may be interfered with only pursuant to a law.” In Hungary, the Fundamental Law of Hungary protects the right to life vis-à-vis Article II: “Human dignity shall be inviolable. Every human being shall have the right to life and human dignity; the life of the foetus shall be protected from the moment of conception.”
- 14.
Mahlmann (2012), p. 389.
- 15.
Ibid 392.
- 16.
For example, in some of the chosen jurisdictions, such as Australia, England and the United States, the right to privacy is recognized as a constitutional right (although not explicitly stated in selected Constitutions, as the case may be) and is often understood to generally mean a right to personal autonomy, to personal and family life, and to choose whether or not to participate in the engagement of some acts or experiences.
- 17.
The right to life is undoubtedly one of the most universally recognized human right in the world; and where the right to life was traditionally premised on discourse relating to the protection of human life, contemporary musings are now seeking an extension of the “right” to life, to include the instrumentalities that accompany this “right”. This includes the “right” to die (often overlapping with the right to privacy), and if national courts are inclined to rule on the permissibility of the extension of this right, then it will surely dramatically change the fabric of how the right to life has been traditionally interpreted in the future.
- 18.
Whether a parent/s choose to undergo IVF and PGD for the selection of the best possible embryo to be implanted, for reasons such as avoiding genetic mutations or disabilities, or for purposes of gender or sex selection, or to produce a savior sibling for the benefit of an older child: these reasons inform the decisions made by parent/s without intervention by states, allowing freedom of will, flexibility and voluntariness in reaching these choices.
- 19.
Wiesenthal and Wiener (1999), p. 383.
- 20.
Nozick (1974).
- 21.
See Article 5, Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine, 1997 (the Oviedo Convention).
- 22.
‘Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) — Nuffield Department of Population Health’ https://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/research/centre-for-health-law-and-emerging-technologies-helex.
- 23.
Teare et al. (2017), p. 816.
- 24.
Ibid 2.
- 25.
Kaye et al. (2015), p. 141.
- 26.
See: Article 1 (“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”) and Article 7 (“All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”), both of the UDHR; Article 26 of the International Covenant for Civil and Political Rights (“All persons are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.”); Article 2(3) and 3 of the International Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights also contain similar equality and non-discrimination provisions as the ICCPR; Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”); Article 24 of the American Convention on Human Rights (“All persons are equal before the law. Consequently, they are entitled, without discrimination, to equal protection of the law.”)
- 27.
Reiss and Straughan (1996).
- 28.
Dyson (1997), p. 46.
- 29.
Nyamu-Musembi and Cornwell (2004).
- 30.
Ibid.
- 31.
Grugel and Piper (2009), p. 80.
- 32.
Ibid.
- 33.
Ibid.
- 34.
Nyamu-Musembi and Cornwell (2004), p. 2.
- 35.
Ibid.
- 36.
Ibid.
- 37.
Ibid.
- 38.
Gauri and Gloppen (2012), p. 485.
- 39.
Ibid 485.
- 40.
Grugel and Piper (2009), p. 80.
- 41.
Ibid 81.
- 42.
Gauri and Gloppen (2012), p. 493.
- 43.
Grugel and Piper (2009), p. 85.
- 44.
Gauri and Gloppen (2012), p. 494.
- 45.
Ibid 495. Gauri and Gloppen quote Pitkin (1981), pp. 327–352.
- 46.
Ibid 494.
- 47.
Ibid 487.
- 48.
Ibid.
- 49.
Gauri and Gloppen (2012).
- 50.
Ibid 487.
- 51.
Ibid 489.
- 52.
UNESCO (2006). Please see Articles 6.1 and 6.2 which provides for the “prior, free informed consent” of any participants to medical treatment or medical research.
- 53.
Daniels et al. (2016), p. 181.
- 54.
‘Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/.
- 55.
Daniels et al. (2016), p. 181.
- 56.
Shear (28 June 2018).
- 57.
Parsa-Parsi (2017), p. 1971.
- 58.
Peters (2004), p. 4.
- 59.
Ibid 3.
- 60.
Ibid 5. The most notable metaphysical argument regarding the protection of future children who are born of reproductive interventions is the non-existence argument. The National Bioethics Advisory Council in the United States, after the birth of Dolly the sheep had this to say of a comparison between existence and non-existence: “….is problematic. Not only does it require us to compare something unknowable – non-existence- with something else, it can also lead to absurd conclusions if taken to its logical extreme. For example, it would support the argument that there is no degree of pain and suffering that cannot be inflicted on a child, provided the alternative is never to have been conceived.”
- 61.
Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine (19 January 2016).
- 62.
Rothstein (Winter 2015, Number 44).
- 63.
Canal (7 March 2017).
- 64.
Rath (2018).
- 65.
I highlight the regulatory approaches in biomedical technologies in Chap. 4. These regulatory approaches that look to combining the force and operation of the law, with alternative means of regulation in the form of guidelines and soft laws for instance, look to a comprehensive governance system of genetic interventions that would be more flexible and adaptable.
- 66.
Department of Health, UK, Health and Safety Executive, ‘Biological Agents: Managing the Risks in Laboratories and Healthcare Premises’ 82.
- 67.
Joanna Marshall, ‘Transport of Biological Materials’, University of Edinburgh, 51.
- 68.
Mahalatchimy et al. (2012), p. 136.
- 69.
Goslinga-Roy (2000), p. 113.
- 70.
Maier (1989), p. 8.
- 71.
Goold et al. (2014), p. 1.
- 72.
Dickenson (2007), p. 8.
- 73.
Ibid 13.
- 74.
Gauri and Gloppen (2012).
- 75.
Alexy (2010).
- 76.
Ibid, xix.
- 77.
Ibid.
- 78.
Ibid.
- 79.
Ibid. xx
- 80.
Gardbaum (2008), p. 749.
- 81.
Some of these countries are primarily indicated by their developmental status, but within the purview of the selected jurisdictions, countries like Malaysia, Thailand, and China as well as other countries in Muslim Middle East and the African region, also indicate a lower threshold of prioritization for a human rights agenda within their constitutional systems.
- 82.
Gardbaum (2008), p. 752.
- 83.
Ibid 753.
- 84.
Center for Reproductive Rights (Asia) (20 February 2014).
- 85.
Umeda (2015).
- 86.
Stasi (2015), p. 17.
- 87.
Dahlan and Faudzi (9 March 2016).
- 88.
Shuaib (2012), p. 85.
- 89.
Bennett (12 July 2018).
- 90.
Ibid.
- 91.
In determining the constitutionality of a particular legislation, the different levels of scrutiny are applicable: the rational basis test, the intermediate scrutiny test and the strict scrutiny test, all of which necessitates a balance between the means and the ends and analysing the least restrictive ways in which redress may be had. For example, in the rational basis test, a law may be upheld if it is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose and the burden of proof lies on the entity that claims the law is not constitutional. The applicable levels of scrutiny, or which scrutiny tests that should be used, would usually depend on the kind of rights that is concerned within a particular law.
- 92.
Whitman (2003), p. 1154.
- 93.
Ibid 1160–1171.
- 94.
‘Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html.
- 95.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 779.
- 96.
‘Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html.
- 97.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 843.
- 98.
Ibid.
- 99.
Beaney (1966), p. 253.
- 100.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 849.
- 101.
Ibid 850–851.
- 102.
The Ninth Amendment of the US Constitution reads: “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” The broad interpretation of this Ninth Amendment by Justice Goldberg was intended to protect any other additional rights that may not have been specifically protected in the Bill of Rights.
- 103.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 852.
- 104.
‘Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973)’ (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/.
- 105.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 855.
- 106.
Ibid 857.
- 107.
Ibid.
- 108.
‘Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)’ (n 54).
- 109.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 873.
- 110.
Ibid 880.
- 111.
Ibid 874.
- 112.
Lawrence v Texas [2003] Supreme Court 539 U.S. 558.
- 113.
Book of Genesis of the Bible, Chapter 18 & 19, Sodom & Gomorrah.
- 114.
Bowers v Hardwick [1986] Supreme Court 478 U.S. 186.
- 115.
Justice Kennedy opined that all citizens are guaranteed “life, liberty and property” and it was this basis upon which he based his argument on the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- 116.
Per Justice Kennedy: “…the right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in their conduct without intervention of the government”.
- 117.
Stone et al. (2013), p. 927.
- 118.
Obergefell v Hodges [2015] Supreme Court 14–556.
- 119.
Some scholars, however, prefer to refer to the nature of the UK constitution as being “uncodified”, as opposed to being “unwritten”, due to the fact that there does, in fact, exist many sources of the UK constitution that are written (such as statutes in the form of Acts of Parliament) and case law and judgments of courts.
- 120.
Conventions in the context of UK constitutional law refers to the special political mechanisms that govern the relationship between the different branches of the state. These are not in any written form, but fundamentally comprise rules of vital constitutional importance to the workings of the government.
- 121.
O’Cinneide (2012), p. 239.
- 122.
Ibid 2., citing Ch. 1 of Bogdanor (2009).
- 123.
Ibid.
- 124.
Ibid 1.
- 125.
Ibid 3.
- 126.
Ibid 2. O’Cinneide interprets this as the requirement for public authorities to exercise clear legal basis for any actions that may infringe upon individual human rights and liberty.
- 127.
Ibid 3. This value is the core underpinning of the UK’s political representation system of a parliamentary democracy.
- 128.
Ibid. The rule of law is no stranger in any contemporary constitutional framework, and similarly, in the UK, operates as the bridge between individual citizens’ freedoms and the extent of authority exercised by the government.
- 129.
Within the ideation of constitutional theory, it is also likely that this ‘Europeanization’ influence is one of the factors that have led to Brexit.
- 130.
The amendments to the 1990 HFEA Act were made pursuant to a report issued by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee titled “Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law.” In essence, the report surmised that new challenges brought about by technological changes and “recent changes in ethical and societal attitudes” necessitated the revamping of the 1990 Act. Another significant change in the HFEA Act of 2008 is the parenthood provisions, which takes into account research on admixed embryos, removing the need for a “father”, and allowing persons of same sex relationships and unmarried couples to be treated as parents of children born of surrogacy procedures.
- 131.
- 132.
[1993] AC 789.
- 133.
Humanists UK (3 February 2013).
- 134.
FPA, The Family Planning Association, A Sexual Health Charity, ‘Abortion Law, England, Scotland and Wales’, https://www.fpa.org.uk/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-rights/abortion-law.
- 135.
Ibid.
- 136.
[1979] QB 276.
- 137.
[1988] QB 135.
- 138.
[1997] FLR 828.
- 139.
Nianias (2 November 2015).
- 140.
Kelly (8 April 2016).
- 141.
Case of A, B and C v Ireland [2010] Grand Chamber 25579/05.
- 142.
BBC News (14 November 2012).
- 143.
O’Connor (28 October 2017).
- 144.
McDonald (23 October 2017).
- 145.
Bulman (24 October 2017). Accessed 16 January 2018.
- 146.
Humanists UK (9 October 2017).
- 147.
Bowcott (7 June 2018).
- 148.
McDonald et al. (26 May 2018).
- 149.
Byrne (3 January 2019).
- 150.
Pretty v the United Kingdom [2002] European Court of Human Rights 2346/02.
- 151.
Article 2 reads: “Everyone’s right to life shall be protected by law. No one shall be deprived of his life intentionally save in the execution of a sentence of a court following his conviction of a crime for which this penalty is provided by law.”
- 152.
Mahlmann (2012).
- 153.
Barak (2015).
- 154.
Dearden (18 January 2018).
- 155.
BBC News (27 November 2018b).
- 156.
Murphy (2013), p. 162.
- 157.
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1969] RPC 41.
- 158.
Tsaknis (1993), p. 19.
- 159.
Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. V Campbell Engineering Co. [1984] 65 RPC 203.
- 160.
By this contemporary interpretation, the purview of privacy would extend to much more than information of a confidential nature in a commercial setting. The ‘privacy’ shift has extended to cover a myriad of matters relating to individual autonomy and decision-making processes, bodily integrity, the healthcare and clinical setting, sexual orientation, family life and provisions, data protection, the separation of individuality in the workforce, electronic commerce and online surveillance and the internet, freedom of speech, personal data, and many other grey issues which are still being subject to interpretation.
- 161.
Article 8 of the ECHR provides for the “right to respect for private and family life”, which also extended to a person’s home and correspondence. It is often considered to be one of the convention’s most open-ended provisions that may be subject to a multitude of interpretations as to what may constitute “private and family life.”
- 162.
Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22.
- 163.
Douglas v Hello! Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 595.
- 164.
Thomson (2003).
- 165.
Ibid 3.
- 166.
Pennings (2004), p. 311.
- 167.
Spriggs and Savulescu (2002), p. 289. It is believed that the term ‘saviour siblings’ was coined by Spriggs and Savulescu; and refer to children born of carefully selected embryos that have been created through IVF and combined with other reproductive technological method such as PGD and HLA tissue typing. These saviour siblings are often necessary and ‘created’ and conceived, in most circumstances, to help cure an existing sick child who requires familial DNA or blood matches for certain types of diseases.
- 168.
Bahadur (2001), p. 785.
- 169.
Spriggs and Savulescu (2002).
- 170.
Mulvenna (2004), p. 163.
- 171.
Section 3(1) of the 1990 HFEA Act prohibits the creation of an embryo, or to keep or use it, unless it is pursuant to a licence granted by the HFEA. It is upon this scope of power exercised by the HFEA that approval was granted to the Hashmis for the use of PGD and HLA tissue typing.
- 172.
The declaration sought by CORE was that the HFEA did not have the authority pursuant to Section 3(1) of the 1990 HFEA Act to grant a licence for the creation of embryos. The central tenet of CORE is the absolute respect for the human embryo.
- 173.
R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] UKHL 28.
- 174.
Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800.
- 175.
Ibid, 822.
- 176.
Sheldon (2004), p. 137.
- 177.
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, ‘Code of Practice’ https://ifqlive.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-website/2062/2017-10-02-code-of-practice-8th-edition-full-version-11th-revision-final-clean.pdf.
- 178.
Sheldon (2004), p. 160.
- 179.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582. The Bolam test, as it became known in the body of negligence within tort law, was instrumental in the determinative standards of care involving skilled medical professionals.
- 180.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11.
- 181.
Minari et al. (2014), p. 118.
- 182.
Evans v United Kingdom, Application No. 6339/05.
- 183.
Dickson v United Kingdom, Application No. 44362/04.
- 184.
Amongst other claimed violations of the ECHR, the applicant claimed that her Article 8 right had been violated because she could not implant embryos that she had ‘created’ with her former partner as he had withdrawn his consent to the continued storage and use of the embryos by the applicant after their relationship had ended.
- 185.
The first instance decision of the High Court, and thereafter, the House of Lords in the Evans case, both upheld the existing IVF law in the UK vis-à-vis the HFEA Act, which required the consent of both parties for the IVF process to continue, including the implantation of embryos created under the IVF procedures.
- 186.
BBC News (11 September 2002).
- 187.
Section 47(1) Prisons Act 1952 (c.52).
- 188.
O’Cinneide (14 September 2011).
- 189.
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30.
- 190.
Ibid, 132.
- 191.
Article 14 reads: “the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any ground such as sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.”
- 192.
Stanton-Ife (2000), p. 133.
- 193.
Ibid 134.
- 194.
Ibid 135.
- 195.
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom (1985).
- 196.
X, Y and Z v The United Kingdom (1997).
- 197.
See: Sheffield and Horsham v the United Kingdom (Application No: 31-32/1997/815-816/1018-1019); Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom (Application No. 28957/95); Parry v the United Kingdom (Application No. 42971/05); R and F v the United Kingdom (Application No. 35748/05); and Grant v the United Kingdom (32570/03).
- 198.
Bull and another v Hall and another (2013) UKSC 73.
- 199.
Ibid, para. 16–40.
- 200.
Ibid, para. 41.
- 201.
Lewis v HSBC Bank plc UKEAT/0364/06/RN and UKEAT/0412/06/RN.
- 202.
Grant v HM Land Registry and Another [2011] EWCA Civ 769.
- 203.
Fredman et al. (2015).
- 204.
Ibid 8.
- 205.
Watts (15 October 2017).
- 206.
Clark (1905).
- 207.
Australia and Australian Government Solicitor (2016).
- 208.
Aroney (2009).
- 209.
Australia and Australian Government Solicitor (2016).
- 210.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005/Html/Text.
- 211.
Australia Act 1986 (No. 142, 1985) https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03181/Html/Text.
- 212.
Kirk (2003), p. 247.
- 213.
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (n 210).
- 214.
Kirk (2003), p. 247.
- 215.
Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41.
- 216.
Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485.
- 217.
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503.
- 218.
Kirk (2003), pp. 261–273.
- 219.
Hill (2005), p. 39.
- 220.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Australia’ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/australia.
- 221.
Dodson (1993).
- 222.
Lee (2010), p. 88.
- 223.
Ibid 89.
- 224.
Ibid.
- 225.
Ibid 109.
- 226.
Hive Legal, ‘Australia’s Life Science Sector – Snapshot, Trends and Our Work’ http://hivelegal.com.au/australias-life-science-sector-snapshot-trends-and-our-work/.
- 227.
Australian Trade and Investment Commission, ‘Biotechnology A Powerhouse for Science and Innovation’ https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Buy/Australian-industry-capabilities/Biotechnology.
- 228.
Australian Human Rights Commission, ‘Right to Life’ https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-life.
- 229.
Watson (29 December 2013).
- 230.
Barlow (6 July 2017).
- 231.
Tom Gotsis and Laura Ismay, ‘Abortion Law: A National Perspective, Briefing Paper No. 2/2017’ NSW Parliamentary Research Service https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf.
- 232.
Gotsis and Ismay (n 231).
- 233.
In other Australian states, abortion is legal up until a period of time, or such other expressly stipulated condition in the relevant State statutes. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia, abortion is legal if medically agreed upon by two doctors that it would be necessary for the benefit of the woman’s physical or mental health. In Victoria, Tasmania, Western Australia and the Northern Territory, abortion is legal up until a specified period of time, after which special considerations may apply.
- 234.
Sifris and Belton (2 June 2017).
- 235.
International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (26 April 2015).
- 236.
Crimes Amendment (Zoe’s Law) Bill 2017.
- 237.
Graham et al. (2016), p. 335.
- 238.
R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 1141.
- 239.
Dean (2007), p. 138.
- 240.
Ibid 159.
- 241.
R v Brennan and Leach [2010] QDC 329.
- 242.
Petersen (2014), p. 238.
- 243.
Kerr (2014), p. 24.
- 244.
Graham et al. (2016).
- 245.
Kerr (2014).
- 246.
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63.
- 247.
Richardson (2002), p. 392.
- 248.
Ibid 390.
- 249.
Ibid 393.
- 250.
Women’s Agenda (16 August 2017).
- 251.
Women’s Electoral Lobby, ‘Reproductive Rights’ (Women’s Electoral Lobby) http://www.wel.org.au/reproductive_rights.
- 252.
International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (26 April 2015).
- 253.
Sex Discrimination Act 1984.
- 254.
Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012.
- 255.
‘World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Australia’ (n 220).
- 256.
Cody and Nawaz (9 November 2017).
- 257.
Kerr et al. (2014), p. 31. See Articles 12.1 and 16(1)(e) of CEDAW accordingly.
- 258.
- 259.
Ibid 31.
- 260.
Ibid 32.
- 261.
West (1988), p. 1.
- 262.
Kerr et al. (2014), p. 32.
- 263.
Ibid 33.
- 264.
Cody and Nawaz (9 November 2017).
- 265.
Jabour (10 November 2015).
- 266.
Australia has had a long and troubled past with its people from the indigenous communities, such as the aboriginal and Torres Straits Islanders. Studies conducted by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies have revealed a comprehensive history of discrimination, ill treatment, unemployment, marginalization and also genocide, not only throughout the period of British colonization of Australia, but also continuing in present day on a smaller, although no less, discriminatory scale.
- 267.
Jabour (2015).
- 268.
Cunningham (16 February 2017).
- 269.
Baharuddin (2008), p. 1.
- 270.
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ‘ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Phnom Penh Statement On The Adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD)’ http://www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/6_AHRD_Booklet.pdf.
- 271.
Levett (13 January 2007).
- 272.
Dasgupta (15 February 2018).
- 273.
Newland (July 2015, Issue No. 13).
- 274.
Gomez (3 July 2017).
- 275.
Wright (12 September 2016).
- 276.
- 277.
See also the case of Public Prosecutor v Azmi Bin Sharom (Criminal Ref. No. 06-5-12/2014(W)) (6 October 2015 ) http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/judgment/file/PRESS_SUMMARY_PP_V_AZMI_SHAROM.pdf.
- 278.
- 279.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Malaysia’ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/malaysia.
- 280.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Thailand’ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/thailand.
- 281.
Lee (2004), p. 226.
- 282.
Bari and Shuaib (2009).
- 283.
The five-point philosophy of the Rukunegara is as follows: Belief in God, Loyalty to King and Country, Upholding the Constitution, Rule of Law and Good Behaviour and Morality. See further: http://www.perdana.org.my/spotlight2/item/rukun-negara-the-national-principle-of-malaysia.
- 284.
Yatim (1995), p. 27.
- 285.
Saliba (June 2011).
- 286.
‘Civil law’ in this context does not denote the civil law codified system of governance that is prevalent in most European states. Instead, ‘civil law’ in the context of Malaysia refers to laws applicable to all citizens of the country. Like the UK, Malaysia’s legal system is a common law jurisdiction having reference to legislative pronouncements and decisions of the courts vis-à-vis the doctrine of judicial precedent.
- 287.
Baharuddin (2008), p. 4.
- 288.
BBC News (2011), ‘Profile: Thaksin Shinawatra’ http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13891650.
- 289.
Themgumpanat and Tanakasempipat (21 May 2017).
- 290.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2016: ‘Thailand’ https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/thailand.
- 291.
Draft Constitution of Thailand 2016 (Unofficial English translation) http://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/thailand-draft-constitution_englishtranslation_june_2016.pdf.
- 292.
Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007) https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-law-translations-constitution-of-thailand.html.
- 293.
Panaspornprasit (2017), p. 356.
- 294.
Ibid 357.
- 295.
Ibid.
- 296.
Hassan and Lopez (2005), p. 111.
- 297.
World Bank Global Knowledge and Research Hub (December 2017).
- 298.
Hassan and Lopez (2005).
- 299.
Ibid 120.
- 300.
Ibid 111.
- 301.
Ibid.
- 302.
Ibid 112.
- 303.
Ibid 120.
- 304.
Ibid 122.
- 305.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act A597).
- 306.
SUHAKAM is the acronym for Suruhanjaya Hak Asasi Manusia Malaysia; or in English, the Human Rights Commission of Malaysia. The Commission was established in 1999, with its first inaugural meeting held on 24 April 2000. The formation of the Commission was in response to Malaysia’s active involvement in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in 1995 to 1995, and the changing political climate in the country, and government concerns raised necessitated the establishment of an independent national human rights institution.
- 307.
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2009 (Act A1353).
- 308.
Federal Constitution of Malaysia 1957.
- 309.
Hassan and Lopez (2005), p. 129.
- 310.
Torii (1997), p. 209.
- 311.
Constitution of Malaysia 145.
- 312.
Ibid 148.
- 313.
Ibid.
- 314.
Jomo (2004).
- 315.
- 316.
Lee (2016), p. 511.
- 317.
- 318.
Malm (19 February 2018).
- 319.
The Straits Times (18 May 2018).
- 320.
Constitution of Malaysia.
- 321.
LGBTQ is the acronym for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer used to denote primarily non-heterosexual or non-cisgender community members.
- 322.
Penal Code 1936 (Act 574) 314.
- 323.
BBC News (6 September 2018a).
- 324.
Busby (2 July 2018).
- 325.
Zurairi (4 July 2018).
- 326.
Heydarian (11 May 2018).
- 327.
Thananithichot and Satidporn (2016), p. 340.
- 328.
Panaspornprasit (2017).
- 329.
Chambers and Waitoolkiat (2016), p. 425.
- 330.
Hewison (2014), p. 846.
- 331.
Panaspornprasit (2017), p. 351.
- 332.
Hickling (1972), p. 8.
- 333.
Human Rights Watch ‘World Report 2018’ (n 280).
- 334.
Draft Constitution of Thailand 2016 (n 291).
- 335.
Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007).
- 336.
Nolan (2012), p. 2.
- 337.
Harding and Leyland (2011).
- 338.
Nolan (2012), p. 1.
- 339.
Harding and Leyland (2011), p. 49.
- 340.
Hewison (2014), p. 857. Hewison states: “Royalists imagined a diminution of the monarchy’s role and its political centrality, and this resulted in a decade-long and still unfinished political struggle over the nature of Thailand’s democratization.”
- 341.
Ibid 849.
- 342.
Ibid.
- 343.
Ibid 853.
- 344.
Muntarbhorn (2005), p. 358.
- 345.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2018’ (n 280).
- 346.
Muntarbhorn (2005), p. 363.
- 347.
Kittiwut Jod Taywaditep, Eli Coleman and Pacharin Dumronggitigule, ‘The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Thailand’ http://www.sexarchive.info/IES/thailand.html. Women still continue to be regarded as the weaker sex, and within the practice of Thai Buddhism, women’s body parts and particularly menstruation are regarded as elements that are sacrilegious and harmful to monks, and other learned men. This mentality therefore continues to perpetuate gender inequalities, and to some extent, also gender segregation, of women from men.
- 348.
Romanow (2012), p. 44.
- 349.
Ibid 59.
- 350.
Thailand Penal Code, Thailand Criminal Law (Unofficial English Translation) https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html.
- 351.
Whittaker (2002b), p. 1.
- 352.
Whittaker (2002a), p. 46.
- 353.
Ibid 47.
- 354.
Ibid 48.
- 355.
Ibid.
- 356.
Ibid 51.
- 357.
Ibid.
- 358.
Human Rights Watch, ‘World Report 2018’ (n 280).
- 359.
Whittaker and Speier (2010), p. 363.
- 360.
Sándor (2015), p. 355.
- 361.
Ibid. Also quoting the case of Vo v France (Application No. 53924/00) from the European Court of Human Rights, judgment dated 8 July 2004.
- 362.
Ibid 359.
- 363.
Ibid 353.
- 364.
Ibid 354.
- 365.
Ibid.
References
Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom (1985) European Court of Human Rights Application no. 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81, HUDOC
Age Discrimination Act 1992
Agence France-Presse (20 February 2018) Malaysian Artist Jailed for Clown Face Caricature of PM Najib Razak That Went Viral. South China Morning Post. https://www.scmp.com/news/asia/southeast-asia/article/2133990/malaysian-artist-jailed-clown-face-caricature-pm-najib
Agence France-Presse, Bangkok (9 June 2017) Man Jailed for 35 Years in Thailand for Insulting Monarchy on Facebook. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/09/man-jailed-for-35-years-in-thailand-for-insulting-monarchy-on-facebook
Alexy R (2010) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Aroney N (2009) The constitution of a federal commonwealth: the making and meaning of the Australian Constitution. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
AsiaNews.it (21 September 2005) Malaysia Malay converts to Christianity. http://www.asianews.it/news-en/Malay-converts-to-Christianity-cannot-renounce-Islam-4157.html
Association CG Press (24 October 2017) Northern Ireland abortion law “Inhuman and Degrading”, Supreme Court Told, The Irish News. http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2017/10/24/news/northern-ireland-abortion-law-inhuman-and-degrading-supreme-court-told-1170249/
Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Phnom Penh Statement On The Adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD). http://www.asean.org/storage/images/ASEAN_RTK_2014/6_AHRD_Booklet.pdf
Australia Act 1986 (No. 142, 1985). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2004A03181/Html/Text
Australia and Australian Government Solicitor (2016) Australia’s constitution: with overview and notes by the Australian Government Solicitor
Australian Associated Press (20 February 2015) Thailand Bans commercial surrogacy, The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/20/thailand-bans-commercial-surrogacy
Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63
Australian Human Rights Commission ‘Right to Life’. https://www.humanrights.gov.au/right-life
Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986
Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Biotechnology A Powerhouse for Science and Innovation. https://www.austrade.gov.au/International/Buy/Australian-industry-capabilities/Biotechnology
Bahadur G (2001) The Human Rights Act (1998) and its impact on reproductive issues. Hum Reprod 16:785
Baharuddin SAB (2008) 7 Competing domains of control: Islam and Human Rights in Malaysia. Islam and Human Rights in Practice: Perspectives Across the Ummah 8:108
Banyard K (2010) The equality illusion: the truth about men and women today. Faber and Faber, London, pp 181–182
Barak A (2015) Human dignity: the constitutional value and the constitutional right. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Bari AA, Shuaib FS (2009) Constitution of Malaysia: text and commentary. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Barlow K (6 July 2017) Federal government accused of undermining reproductive rights. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/07/06/federal-government-accused-of-undermining-reproductive-rights_a_23018464/
BBC News (11 September 2002) IVF Wrangle Cases Go to Court. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2249442.stm
BBC News (24 June 2011) Profile: Thaksin Shinawatra. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-pacific-13891650
BBC News (14 November 2012) Abortion “Would Have Saved Wife. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-20321741
BBC News (6 September 2018a) Historic India Ruling Legalises Gay Sex. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45429664
BBC News (27 November 2018b) Terminally ill Noel Conway loses Supreme Court Appeal. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-shropshire-46359845
Beaney WM (1966) The right to privacy and American Law. Law Contemp Probl 31:253
Bennett B (12 July 2018) How Brett Kavanaugh Could Change the Supreme Court—and America. Time. http://time.com/5336621/brett-kavanaugh-supreme-court/
Bogdanor V (2009) The new British Constitution. Hart, Oxford
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582
Book of Genesis of the Bible, Chapter 18 & 19, Sodom & Gomorrah
Bowcott O (7 June 2018) Northern Ireland Abortion Law Clashes with Human Rights, Judges Say. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jun/07/supreme-court-dismisses-bid-to-overturn-northern-ireland-abortion-laws
Bowers v Hardwick [1986] Supreme Court 478 U.S. 186
Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41
Bull and another v Hall and another (2013) UKSC 73
Bulman M (24 October 2017) Supreme Court to Scrutinise Northern Ireland’s “degrading and Humiliating” Abortion Laws. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/northern-ireland-abortion-law-uk-supreme-court-scrutiny-women-terminations-degrading-humiliating-a8016921.html
Busby M (2 July 2018) Marriage of 11-Year-Old Girl to a 41-Year-Old Man Provokes Backlash in Malaysia. The Independent. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/child-marriage-malaysia-11-woman-man-41-wedding-underage-unicef-provokes-backlash-a8426311.html
Byrne L (3 January 2019) Concerns as Irish Abortion Services Start. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-46737593
Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22
Canal G (7 March 2017) Everything You Need to Know About the Anti-Vaxxer Movement. Global Citizen. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-anti-vaxxer/
Case of A, B and C v Ireland [2010] Grand Chamber 25579/05
Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine (19 January 2016) Anniversary Bioethics Debate on Gene Editing. https://celab.ceu.edu/events/2016-01-19/anniversary-bioethics-debate-gene-editing
Center for Reproductive Rights (Asia) (20 February 2014) Malaysia. https://www.reproductiverights.org/our-regions/asia/malaysia
Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) — Nuffield Department of Population Health. https://www.ndph.ox.ac.uk/research/centre-for-health-law-and-emerging-technologies-helex
Chambers P, Waitoolkiat N (2016) The resilience of Monarchised Military in Thailand. J Contemp Asia 46:425
Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom (Application No. 28957/95)
Clark AI (1905) Studies in Australian constitutional law. CF Maxwell, Melbourne
Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1969] RPC 41
Cody A, Nawaz M (9 November 2017) UN Slams Australia’s Human Rights Record. The Conversation. http://theconversation.com/un-slams-australias-human-rights-record-87169
Coke E (1628) The first part of the institutes of the Lawes of England. Or, a commentarie upon Littleton, not the name of a lawyer onely, but of the law it selfe. Societe of Stationers, London
Coke E (1642) The second part of the institutes of the lawes of England. Containing the exposition of many ancient, and other statutes; Whereof you may see the particulars in a table following. Miles Fletcher and Robert Young for Ephraim Dawson
Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution). https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2013Q00005/Html/Text
Constitution of the Kingdom of Thailand (2007). https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thai-law-translations-constitution-of-thailand.html
Cook R, Dickens BM (2003) Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform. Hum Rights Q 25(1):2–3
Crimes Amendment (Zoe’s Law) Bill 2017
Cunningham M (16 February 2017) Well Done! Australia Adds More Funds for Sexual and Reproductive Health Program. Global Citizen. https://www.globalcitizen.org/en/content/australian-government-announces-further-funding-fo/
Dahlan R, Faudzi FS (9 March 2016) The Syariah Court: Its Position Under The Malaysian Legal System. Mondaq. http://www.mondaq.com/x/472794/trials+appeals+compensation/The+Syariah+Court+Its+Position+Under+The+Malaysian+Legal+System
Daniels CR et al (2016) Informed or misinformed consent? Abortion policy in the United States. J Health Politics Policy Law 41:181
Dasgupta S (15 February 2018) A New “ASEAN Way”: finding a regional solution for human rights violations in Rakhine State. The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University. https://kenan.ethics.duke.edu/a-new-asean-way-finding-a-regional-solution-for-human-rights-violations-in-rakhine-state/
Davidson D (27 February 2018) Muslims Guard Bishop Heckled by Zealous Youths at Kuching Court Complex. The Malaysian Insight. https://www.themalaysianinsight.com/s/40086/
Dean R (2007) Erosion of access to abortion in the United States: lessons for Australia. Deakin Law Rev 12:123
Dearden L (18 January 2018) Noel Conway: terminally ill man wins right to challenge court ruling preventing “dignified Death”. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/noel-conway-latest-terminally-ill-right-to-die-court-challenge-ruling-motor-neurone-suicide-a8165606.html
Department of Health UK, Health and Safety Executive, ‘Biological Agents: Managing the Risks in Laboratories and Healthcare Premises’ 82
Dickenson D (2007) Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Dickson v United Kingdom, Application No. 44362/04
Disability Discrimination Act 1992
Dodson M (1993) Social justice for indigenous peoples, 3rd edn. Aboriginal Research Institute Publications, Underdale
Douglas v Hello! Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 595
Draft Constitution of Thailand 2016 (Unofficial English Translation). http://constitutionnet.org/sites/default/files/thailand-draft-constitution_englishtranslation_june_2016.pdf
Dyson F (1997) Can science be ethical? N Y Rev Books 44:46
Equality Act 2010 (merging the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, the Equality Act 2006 Part 2, and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007)
Evans v United Kingdom, Application No. 6339/05
Farokhmanesh M (12 December 2016) How a Trump administration threatens women’s health. The Verge. https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/12/13904032/trump-womens-reproductive-health-affordable-care-planned-parenthood
Federal Constitution of Malaysia (Federal Constitution) 1957
FPA, The Family Planning Association, A Sexual Health Charity, Abortion Law, England, Scotland and Wales. https://www.fpa.org.uk/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/abortion-rights/abortion-law
Fredman S et al (2015) The potential challenges to equality law in the UK. Oxford Human Rights Hub. https://ohrh.law.ox.ac.uk/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/here.pdf
Gardbaum S (2008) Human rights as international constitutional rights. Eur J Int Law 19:749
Gauri V, Gloppen S (2012) Human rights-based approaches to development: concepts, evidence, and policy. Polity 44:485
Gender Recognition Act 2004
Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30
Gomez J (3 July 2017) One Year Later, Duterte Remains a Human Rights Nightmare. The Diplomat. https://thediplomat.com/2017/07/one-year-later-duterte-remains-a-human-rights-nightmare/
Goold I et al (2014) The human body as property? Possession, control and commodification. J Med Ethics 40:1
Goslinga-Roy GM (2000) Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: an ethnographic perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies. Fem Stud 26:113
Gotsis T, Ismay L. Abortion Law: A National Perspective, Briefing Paper No. 2/2017. NSW Parliamentary Research Service. https://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/researchpapers/Documents/Abortion%20Law.pdf
Graham M et al (2016) Women’s reproductive choices in Australia: mapping federal and state/territory policy instruments governing choice. Gend Issues 33:335
Grant v HM Land Registry and Another [2011] EWCA Civ 769
Grant v the United Kingdom (32570/03)
Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/381/479/case.html
Grugel J, Piper N (2009) Do rights promote development? Global Soc Policy Interdisciplinary J Public Policy Soc Dev 9:79
Harding A, Leyland P (2011) The constitutional system of Thailand: a contextual analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Hassan S, Lopez C (2005) Human rights in Malaysia: globalization, national governance and local responses. In: Wah FLK, Ojendal J (eds) Southeast Asian responses to globalization: restructuring governance and deepening democracy. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, Singapore
Hewison K (2014) Considerations on inequality and politics in Thailand. Democratization 21:846
Heydarian RJ (11 May 2018) A peaceful revolution in Malaysia. Al Jazeera. https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/peaceful-revolution-malaysia-180511140532987.html
Hickling RH (1972) The legal system of Thailand. Hong Kong Law J 2:8
Hill G (2005) Resolving a true conflict between state laws: a minimalist approach. Melb Univ Law Rev 29:39
Hive Legal, Australia’s Life Science Sector – Snapshot, Trends and Our Work. http://hivelegal.com.au/australias-life-science-sector-snapshot-trends-and-our-work/
Holmes O (29 October 2016) Thailand’s Crackdown on “Insults” to the Monarchy Spreads Abroad. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/oct/29/thailand-bhumibol-monarchy-insults-law
Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, Code of Practice. https://ifqlive.blob.core.windows.net/umbraco-website/2062/2017-10-02-code-of-practice-8th-edition-full-version-11th-revision-final-clean.pdf
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2009 (Act A1353)
Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act A597)
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016: ‘Thailand’. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2016/country-chapters/thailand
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Australia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/australia
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Malaysia. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/malaysia
Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Thailand. https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2018/country-chapters/thailand
Humanists UK (3 February 2013) Abortion and Sexual and Reproductive Rights. https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/public-ethical-issues/sexual-and-reproductive-rights/
Humanists UK (9 October 2017) Humanists UK to Intervene in Northern Ireland Abortion Supreme Court Case. https://humanism.org.uk/2017/10/09/supreme-court-grants-humanists-uk-permission-to-intervene-in-northern-ireland-abortion-case/
International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (26 April 2015) Reproductive Rights, Abortion & Zoe’s Law: why freedom of choice is still feminism’s biggest fight. https://iwda.org.au/reproductive-rights-abortion-zoes-law-why-freedom-of-choice-is-still-feminisms-biggest-fight/
Jabour B (10 November 2015) UN examines Australia’s forced sterilisation of women with disabilities. The Guardian. http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2015/nov/10/un-examines-australias-forced-sterilisation-of-women-with-disabilities
John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503
Jomo KS (2004) The new economic policy and interethnic relations in Malaysia. UNRISD, Geneva
Kaye J et al (2015) Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 23:141
Kelly J (8 April 2016) Why are Northern Ireland’s abortion laws different? BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-35980195
Kerr K (2014) Queensland abortion laws: criminalising one in three women. QUT Law Rev 14:24
Kirk J (2003) Conflicts and choice of law within the Australian Constitutional Context. Federal Law Rev 31:247
Lando H (2017) Alf Ross and the functional analysis of law. SSRN Electronical J 17
Lawrence v Texas [2003] Supreme Court 539 U.S. 558
Lee HP (2004) Competing conceptions of rule of law in Malaysia. In: Asian discourses of rule of law: theories and implementation of rule of law in twelve Asian countries, France and the U.S. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, London
Lee HP (2010) A Federal Human Rights Act and the reshaping of Australian Constitutional Law. UNSW Law J 33(1):88
Lee H-A (2016) Affirmative action regime formation in Malaysia and South Africa. J Asian Afr Stud 51:511
Levett C (13 January 2007) Toothless Tiger ASEAN hopes to replace polite silence with a roar. Sydney Morning Herald. https://www.smh.com.au/news/world/toothless-tiger-asean-hopes-to-replace-polite-silence-with-a-roar/2007/01/12/1168105177847.html
Lewis v HSBC Bank plc UKEAT/0364/06/RN and UKEAT/0412/06/RN
Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485
Mahalatchimy A et al (2012) The legal landscape for advanced therapies: material and institutional implementation of European Union Rules in France and the United Kingdom. J Law Soc 39:131
Mahlmann M (2012) Human dignity and autonomy in modern constitutional orders. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajo A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Maier KE (1989) Pregnant women: fetal containers or people with rights? Affilia 4:8
Malm S (19 February 2018) Malaysian Rapper Probed over Lunar New Year Dog Video. Mail Online. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5407651/Malaysian-rapper-probed-Lunar-New-Year-dog-video.html
Marshall J, Transport of biological materials. University of Edinburgh, p 51
McDonald H (23 October 2017) Supreme Court to hear challenge to Northern Ireland Abortion Law. The Guardian, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/oct/23/supreme-court-to-hear-challenge-to-northern-ireland-abortion-law
McDonald H, Graham-Harrison E, Baker S (26 May 2018) Ireland votes by landslide to legalise abortion. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/may/26/ireland-votes-by-landslide-to-legalise-abortion
Michaels R (2006) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Minari J et al (2014) The emerging need for family-centric initiatives for obtaining consent in personal genome research. Genome Med 6:118
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11
Morningstar News (23 February 2018) Highest Court in Malaysia to hear appeal of Christian Converts from Islam. https://morningstarnews.org/2018/02/highest-court-malaysia-hear-appeal-christian-converts-islam/
Mulvenna B (2004) Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, tissue typing and beyond: the legal implications of the Hashmi Case. Med Law Int 6:163
Muntarbhorn V (2005) Rule of law and aspects of human rights in Thailand- from conceptualization to implementation? In: Peerenboom R (ed) Asian discourses of rule of law. Routledge, Abingdon
Murphy T (2013) Health and human rights. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Nazlina M (14 January 2016) Prosecution wraps up case in Azmi Sharom Sedition Trial. The Star. https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/2016/01/14/azmi-sharom-trial-prosecution/
Newland K (July 2015, Issue No. 13) Irregular Maritime migration in the Bay of Bengal: the challenges of protection, management and cooperation. International Organization for Migration, Migration Policy Institute. http://publications.iom.int/system/files/pdf/mpi-iom_brief_no_13.pdf
Nianias H (2 November 2015) It’s 2015 and British women’s right to safe abortions is still uncertain. The Debrief. https://thedebrief.co.uk/news/real-life/2015-british-womens-right-safe-abortions-still-uncertain/
Nolan MA (2012) The constitutional system of Thailand: a contextual analysis. Aust J Asian Law 13:1
Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books, New York
Nyamu-Musembi C, Cornwell A (2004) What is the ‘right-based approach’ all about?: Perspectives from international development agencies. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton
O’Cinneide C (14 September 2011) Equality: a constitutional principle? (UK Constitutional Law Association) https://ukconstitutionallaw.org/2011/09/14/colm-ocinneide-equality-a-constitutional-principle/
O’Cinneide C (2012) The human rights act and the slow transformation of the UK’s political constitution. Annales U. Sci. Budapestinensis Rolando Eotvos Nominatae 53:239
O’Connor A (28 October 2017) How the death of Savita Halappanavar changed the abortion debate. The Irish Examiner. http://www.irishexaminer.com/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html
Obergefell v Hodges [2015] Supreme Court 14–556
Panaspornprasit C (2017) Thailand: the historical and indefinite transitions. Southeast Asian Aff:351
Parry v the United Kingdom (Application No. 42971/05)
Parsa-Parsi RW (2017) The revised declaration of Geneva: a modern-day physician’s pledge. J Am Med Assoc 318:1971
Penal Code 1936 (Act 574) 314
Pennings G (2004) Saviour siblings: using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for tissue typing. Int Congr Ser 1266:311
Peters PG (2004) How safe is safe enough? Obligations to the children of reproductive technology. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Petersen K (2014) Decriminalizing abortion- the Australian experience. In: Rowlands S (ed) Abortion care. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Pitkin H (1981) Justice: on relating public and private. Polit Theory 9:327–352
Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/505/833/
Pretty v the United Kingdom [2002] European Court of Human Rights 2346/02
Public Prosecutor v Azmi Bin Sharom (Criminal Ref. No. 06-5-12/2014(W)) (6 October 2015). http://www.kehakiman.gov.my/judgment/file/PRESS_SUMMARY_PP_V_AZMI_SHAROM.pdf
R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] UKHL 28
R and F v the United Kingdom (Application No. 35748/05)
R v Brennan and Leach [2010] QDC 329
R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 1141
Racial Discrimination Act 1975
Rath J (2018) Safety and security risks of CRISPR/Cas9. In: Schroeder D et al (eds) Ethics dumping. Springer International Publishing, New York
Reiss MJ, Straughan R (1996) Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Richardson M (2002) Whither breach of confidence: a right of privacy for Australia. Melb Univ Law Rev 26:381
Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/410/113/
Romanow L (2012) The women of Thailand. Glob Majority E-J 3:44
Rothstein A (Winter 2015, Number 44) Vaccines and their critics, then and now. The New Atlantis. https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/vaccines-and-their-critics-then-and-now
Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800
Saliba I (June 2011) What Is Sharia Law? | Law Library of Congress. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sharia-law.php
Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. V Campbell Engineering Co. [1984] 65 RPC 203
Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Sills ES (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International Publishing, New York
Sex Discrimination Act 1984
Shear MD (28 June 2018) Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/us/politics/anthony-kennedy-retire-supreme-court.html
Sheffield and Horsham v the United Kingdom (Application No: 31-32/1997/815-816/1018-1019) and
Sheldon S (2004) Hashmi and Whitaker: an unjustifiable and misguided distinction? Med Law Rev 12:137
Shuaib FS (2012) The Islamic legal system in Malaysia. Pacific Rim Law Policy J 21:85
Sifris R, Belton S (2 June 2017) Australia: abortion and human rights. Health and Human Rights Journal. https://www.hhrjournal.org/2017/06/australia-abortion-and-human-rights/
Simson RS (2014) What does the right to life really entail-a framework for depolarizing the abortion debate. Connecticut Public Int Law J 14:107
Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (Justia Law) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/316/535/case.html
Spriggs M, Savulescu J (2002) Saviour siblings. J Med Ethics 28:289
Stanton-Ife J (2000) Should equality be a constitutional principle? King’s Law J 11:133
Stasi A (2015) Maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism in Thailand: a call for legal enforcement. Ubon Ratchathani Law 8:17–36
Stone GR et al (2013) Constitutional law, 7th edn. Wolters & Kluwer, Alphen aan den Rijn
Taywaditep KJ, Coleman E, Dumronggitigule P. The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Thailand. http://www.sexarchive.info/IES/thailand.html
Teare HJA et al (2017) The RUDY study: using digital technologies to enable a research partnership. Eur J Hum Genet 25:816. http://www.nature.com/doifinder/10.1038/ejhg.2017.57
Thailand Penal Code, Thailand Criminal Law (Unofficial English Translation) https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html
Thananithichot S, Satidporn W (2016) Political dynasties in Thailand: the recent picture after the 2011 general election. Asian Stud Rev 40:340
The Economist (22 September 2016) Taking the rap - religious freedom in Malaysia. https://www.economist.com/news/asia/21707565-malaysias-culture-tolerance-under-threat-taking-rap
The Straits Times (18 May 2018) “Cash Is King”: The Fall of Malaysia’s First Couple. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/se-asia/cash-is-king-the-fall-of-malaysias-first-couple
Thepgumpanat P, Tanakasempipat P (21 May 2017) Three years after Coup, Junta is deeply embedded in Thai Life. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-thailand-military/three-years-after-coup-junta-is-deeply-embedded-in-thai-life-idUSKCN18G0ZJ
Thomson M (2003) Confidence, privacy and damages: Hello! To Clarity. New Law Journal
Torii T (1997) The new economic policy and the United Malays National Organization- with special reference to the restructuring of Malaysian Society. Dev Econ XXXV(3):209–239
Tsaknis L (1993) The jurisdictional basis, elements and remedies in the action for breach of confidence- uncertainty abounds. Bond Law Rev 5:18
Umeda S (6 April 2015) Thailand: New Surrogacy Law | Global Legal Monitor. http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/thailand-new-surrogacy-law/
UNESCO (2006) The universal declaration on bioethics and human rights. http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0014/001461/146180E.pdf
United Nations (1979) Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women. http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/cedaw.htm
United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/WRGS/Pages/HealthRights.aspx
VAWnet, National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence, Reproductive justice, reproductive health and reproductive rights: a framework. https://vawnet.org/sc/reproductive-justice-frameworks
Vo v France (Application No. 53924/00)
Watson M (29 December 2013) Battle of life and death never ends for anti-abortion campaigners. The Age. http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/battle-of-life-and-death-never-ends-for-antiabortion-campaigners-20131228-300tv.html
Watts J (15 October 2017) UK Government Watchdog Pushes for New British “right to Equality” to Stop Brexit Leading to More Discrimination. The Independent. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-discrimination-laws-right-to-equality-uk-equalities-watchdog-eu-a7999461.html
West R (1988) Jurisprudence and gender. Univ Chic Law Rev 55:1
Whitman JQ (2003) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113:1151. 73
Whittaker A (2002a) The struggle for abortion law reform in Thailand. Reprod Health Matters 10:45
Whittaker A (2002b) “The Truth of Our Day by Day Lives”: abortion decision making in rural Thailand. Cult Health Sex 4:1
Whittaker A, Speier A (2010) “Cycling Overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol 29:363
Wiesenthal DL, Wiener NI (1999) Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics. Sci Eng Ethics 5:383
Women’s Agenda (16 August 2017) Reproductive freedom is unfinished business in Australia: Tanya Plibersek. https://womensagenda.com.au/politics/reproductive-freedom-unfinished-business-australia-tanya-plibersek/
Women’s Electoral Lobby, Reproductive Rights (Women’s Electoral Lobby) http://www.wel.org.au/reproductive_rights
Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012
World Bank Global Knowledge and Research Hub (December 2017) Malaysia economic monitor: turmoil to transformation 20 years after the Asian Financial Crisis. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/28990/MalaysiaEconomicMonitor2017.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y
Wright T (12 September 2016) 1MDB Scandal Around Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Puts Spotlight on Wife. Wall Street Journal. http://www.wsj.com/articles/1mdb-scandal-around-malaysian-prime-minister-najib-puts-spotlight-on-wife-1473606895
X, Y and Z v The United Kingdom (1997) Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights Application No. 21830/93, HUDOC
Yatim R (1995) Freedom under executive power in Malaysia: a study of executive supremacy. Endowment Publications, Washington, D.C.
Zubedy A (21 June 2012) NEP: the good and the bad. Malaysia Today. https://www.malaysia-today.net/2012/06/21/the-nep-the-good-and-the-bad/
Zurairi AR (4 July 2018) Kelantan Deputy MB: child marriage “Common”, LGBT a Bigger Issue. Malay Mail. https://www.malaymail.com/s/1648815/kelantan-deputy-mb-child-marriage-common-lgbt-a-bigger-issue
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lau, P.L. (2019). The Dynamics of Basic Constitutional Rights in Selected Jurisdictions. In: Comparative Legal Frameworks for Pre-Implantation Embryonic Genetic Interventions. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-22308-3_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-22307-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-22308-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)