Alternative Law Journal
|
|
Home
| Databases
| WorldLII
| Search
| Feedback
Alternative Law Journal |
|
Darren Dick[*]
How Australia has failed to keep pace with international recognition of Indigenous rights.
We have a human rights record second to none in the world.
The Hon Daryl Williams AM, QC, MP, Attorney-General, 25 March
2000
Australia’s performance on human rights has been the subject of an unprecedented level of scrutiny by the United Nations human rights treaty committees over the past year. This scrutiny, and the response of the government to it, has exposed serious deficiencies in our compliance with, and commitment to, human rights principles. International concern has particularly focused on the treatment of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders. This scrutiny has been accompanied by a significant shift in Australia’s advocacy on human rights in a range of international forums in recent years. So what does this mean for our reputation as a good international citizen? Can we honestly lay claim to a human rights record ‘second to none’?
Australia is a nation of contradictions. Over the past 55 years we have developed a solid reputation as a good international citizen by taking a lead role in international efforts to promote human rights. Yet at the same time we have actively denied such rights to our first peoples. When we were seeking to ensure that respect for human rights was placed on an equal footing with peace, security and development as one of the purposes of the United Nations in the UN Charter, many Indigenous people did not possess the right to vote or have access to basic welfare entitlements. Policies of forcible removal of Indigenous children from their families were also at their height, recognition of land rights was some 20 years away, and the white Australia policy prevailed.
While discrimination against Indigenous Australians persisted in the 1960s and 1970s, we vigorously fought against apartheid and were a model to the rest of the world with the establishment of an independent national human rights institution and a legislative framework that prevented, rather than sanctioned, racial discrimination.
But over the past 20 years the international community has turned its gaze to other — perhaps less bald — forms of discrimination. Since the publication of the Cobo study[1] on the problem of discrimination against Indigenous peoples by the United Nations in the 1970s there has been an increasing awareness and focus on discrimination against Indigenous peoples in the post-colonial setting. A striking aspect of the Cobo study was the realisation that, almost without distinction, Indigenous peoples across the globe are marginalised and severely disadvantaged in the nations where they live.
The international community, through the structures of the United Nations, has begun to respond to this realisation in two main ways. First, there have been developments over the last 20 years in the interpretation of the core principles of the international law system — non-discrimination, equality before the law and self-determination — making them more responsive to the circumstances of Indigenous peoples. Second, the United Nations has begun to recognise the unique status of Indigenous peoples by providing forums within the United Nations structure — such as the Working Group on Indigenous Populations and the recently established Permanent Forum on Indigenous Populations — for Indigenous peoples to elaborate on and further develop the application of existing human rights principles. The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is a product of this engagement.
These developments represent a major, though incomplete, shift in the human rights system.
At the same time as these developments have occurred internationally, Australia has continued to struggle with our colonial past. From deaths in custody, Mabo and Wik, to reconciliation and acknowledgment of the experiences of the stolen generations, attempts to come to terms with the legacy of our past have dominated domestic debates about Indigenous affairs. But we have yet to achieve a durable resolution to these issues.
The convergence of the growing international concern over the treatment of Indigenous peoples across the globe and the necessity for Australian governments to attempt to resolve these issues through domestic political processes has become a potent mix. While the current government continues to insist that Indigenous issues are purely domestic issues and not properly the concern of the international community, the need for a lasting domestic resolution has become increasingly important to our international reputation on human rights.
In the year 2000, Australia appeared before four of the six United Nations human rights treaty committees for the routine consideration of our periodic reports. These appearances were in relation to the conventions or covenants on racial discrimination; civil and political rights; economic, social and cultural rights; and torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
The period reporting process is the main way that countries are held accountable for their treaty obligations. Reports form the basis of a dialogue between the government and the committee in which the country’s progress in realising the rights contained in the treaty is considered. It is highly unusual for a country to be considered by four separate treaty committees in the one year. The main reason for this was that Australia was seriously overdue in the submission of a number of periodic reports to each committee — ten years in the case of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and six years for the other three treaties.
Australia appeared before the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (or the CERD) in March 2000. The timing of this appearance was linked to consideration of Australia at the Committee’s previous three sessions under the early warning/urgent action procedure. This procedure is one of the most recent reforms to the treaty system to make it more responsive to potential abuses of human rights. Under the procedure, the Committee requests information from a country on a particular issue where there is concern that the country may be seriously violating its obligations under the Convention. In 1998 Australia was the first of the traditional ‘first world’ nations to be placed under early warning notice, in relation to the amendments to the Native Title Act.[2]
The CERD considered Australia under this procedure in March 1999 and concluded that the amended Native Title Act is racially discriminatory and could no longer be characterised as a special measure under the Convention.[3] The government rejected the Committee’s concerns in the most emphatic terms. The Attorney-General released a press statement stating that the Committee’s comments ‘were an insult to Australia and all Australians as they are unbalanced and do not refer to the submission made by Australia on the native title issue’.[4] Following heavy lobbying by the Australian government the CERD gave further attention to the Australian situation at its next session in August 1999. It confirmed its earlier decision. In response to the government’s claim that they had failed to take into account the broader context of government policies relating to Indigenous people in reaching its conclusions, the Committee decided to continue consideration of the native title issue alongside Australia’s periodic reports in March 2000.[5]
The vast majority of the dialogue between the Committee and the government in March 2000 focused on Indigenous- related issues.[6] The Committee’s concluding observations on Australia were released on 24 March 2000.[7] They acknowledged progress in addressing Indigenous issues, such as through the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody; the significant efforts taken to achieve reconciliation; the implementation of recommendations of Bringing them Home[8] to facilitate family reunion and improve counselling and family support services; and efforts being made by the government to increase spending on health, housing, employment and education programs for Indigenous Australians.
They also expressed the following concerns:
• the lack of an entrenched guarantee in Australian law against racial discrimination, which would override any subsequent legislation at the federal, State or Territory levels;
• the failure of the Commonwealth government to ensure compliance of the States and Territories with the obligations under the Convention;
• the continuation of discriminatory practices in relation to native title and the unsatisfactory response of the government to the Committee’s previous findings that the native title amendments are racially discriminatory;
• proposed or actual changes to the role and functions of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Social Justice Commissioner’s office which may limit their capacity to address the full range of issues relating to Indigenous peoples;
• the progress of reconciliation, and the apparent loss of confidence by Indigenous people in the process;
• the inadequate response of the government to the recommendations of Bringing them Home, including the failure to provide a national apology and monetary compensation;
• over-representation of Indigenous people in the criminal justice system, and the lack of interpreter services for Indigenous people in court processes;
• the discriminatory impact of mandatory sentencing laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia on Indigenous peoples; and
• the extent of continuing discrimination and disadvantage faced by Indigenous people, and the lack of equality in Australian society that it reflects.
The government responded to the Committee’s concerns as follows.
The Government rejects the comments made by the [CERD] … The Committee’s report is an unbalanced and wide-ranging attack that intrudes unreasonably into Australia’s domestic affairs … The Committee has apparently failed to grapple with the unique and complex history of race relations in Australia. It has paid scant regard to the Government’s input and has relied almost exclusively on information provided by non-government organisations …
It is unacceptable that Australia, which is a model member of the United Nations, is being criticised in this way for its human rights record. We have a human rights record second to none in the world ... The Committee’s comments do not do our country justice.[9]
Within a week, the government announced a review of Australia’s participation in the treaty committee system. In announcing the review the government expressed concern at the burdensome reporting requirements under the treaties; the backlog of overdue reports and delays in consideration of these by the committees; the perception of over-reliance on NGO submissions by the committees; and the suggestion that the committees were running political agendas rather than ‘expert’ objectives.[10] In relation to the CERD it was stated that:
In this context, the Government was appalled at the blatantly political and partisan approach taken by the UN’s Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD) when it examined Australia’s periodic reports in Geneva last week … The Committee’s observations are little more than a polemical attack on the Government’s Indigenous policies. They are based on an uncritical acceptance of the claims of domestic political lobbies and take little account of the considered reports submitted by the Government …[11]
In July, shortly before Australia’s next appearance before a UN committee, the Minister for Foreign Affairs elaborated further on the government’s views of the CERD’s conclusions and the treaty review process:
We won’t cop it any longer. We are a democratically elected government in one of the most liberal and democratic countries you will find on earth, and if a United Nations committee wants to play domestic politics here in Australia, then it will end up with a bloody nose.[12]
The government then appeared before the Human Rights Committee under the ICCPR.[13] The Committee again highlighted a range of concerns on Indigenous issues, namely:
• the insufficient action taken to ensure Indigenous peoples can exercise their right to self-determination;
• the lack of effective participation in relation to native title;
• inadequate protection of Indigenous culture and heritage;
• the lack of an effective remedy for the impact of policies of forcible removal of Indigenous children;
• the lack of adequate protection of rights or provision of effective remedies for breaches of rights in the Australian system;
• the failure of the federal government to ensure compliance by the States and Territories with the principles of the covenant; and
• the inconsistency of mandatory sentencing laws with the obligations under the Covenant.[14]
The government’s response to the Committee’s concerns was more circumspect, although it still rejected their findings. The Attorney-General stated: ‘we do not agree with a number of its observations. Our views on those issues were canvassed in detail during the course of the Committee’s consideration of Australia’s reports last week.’ On Indigenous issues he stated: ‘the Government does not agree that many of the steps suggested by the Committee are either necessary or desirable’.[15]
Australia next appeared before the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The Committee’s conclusions commended Australia for the progress of reconciliation, expenditure on Indigenous specific programs and the development of Indigenous health programs at the local level. It also expressed concern at the extent of Indigenous disadvantage, and the negative impact of the native title amendments on the process of reconciliation.[16]
In November Australia appeared before the Committee Against Torture, which acknowledged the measures taken to address the historical, social and economic underpinnings of the disadvantage experienced by Indigenous people. It also expressed concern at the alleged discriminatory impact of mandatory sentencing laws and urged Australia to continue its efforts to address the socio-economic disadvantage that leads Indigenous Australians to come disproportionately into contact with the criminal justice system; and to keep under careful review mandatory sentencing laws to ensure that they do not raise issues of compliance with the obligations under the Convention.[17]
Immediately prior to the release of the concluding observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the government announced the outcomes of the treaty review process. The government stated that it would take ‘strong measures to improve the effectiveness of the United Nations human rights treaty bodies’ and that ‘Cabinet decided Australia’s strategic engagement with the treaty committee system should be dependent on the extent to which effective reform occurs’.[18]
The government stated that it would work towards reforming the treaty committee system with other states parties and immediately implement a package of measures to improve our continued interaction with UN human rights treaty committees. This package includes that reporting to and representation at treaty committees be based on a more economical and selective approach where appropriate; visits by treaty committees only being agreed to ‘where there is a compelling reason to do so’; and that Australia would not sign or ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).
There can be no doubt that the treaty committee system is in need of reform. It is greatly overburdened and has a serious backlog of reports for consideration. These are factors that are acknowledged and being worked towards by the United Nations. To the extent that Australia is committing to assist in the process of reform to make the treaty committees more effective, we are behaving as a responsible international citizen.
But there are a number of concerns about the government’s announcement and its response to the Human Rights Committee and the CERD which are more indicative of a retreat from human rights accountability. An objective way of assessing this is to consider the human rights international accountability index which has recently been developed by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). This index seeks to provide an objective and comparable measure of how nations are performing in relation to human rights.[19] The UNDP notes that members of the United Nations are held accountable for human rights through three routes:
• Acceptance of international human rights treaties, through accession or ratification;
• Cooperation through submission of periodic reports to committees established under these treaties and through cooperation with requests and visits by special rapporteurs of the United Nations; and
• Responsiveness to the views and conclusions of various United Nations treaty committees.
A country’s level of international accountability can be measured through each of these routes as follows:
• Acceptance: Has the country ratified or acceded to all human rights treaties, and all associated individual communication mechanisms?
• Cooperation: Has the country submitted periodic reports in good time; provided requested information to special rapporteurs and thematic missions; and cooperated with monitoring missions and other visits?
• Responsiveness: Has the country responded adequately to the recommendations and final views of treaty committees in relation to periodic reports and individual communications, and the recommendations of special rapporteurs and thematic missions?
When considered against this index, it can be seen that there is much room for improvement in Australia.
Australia is one of 98 countries that have ratified all six major human rights treaties. But following the government’s decision not to ratify the Optional Protocol to CEDAW, we do not have universal accession or ratification to individual communication mechanisms. Ratification of individual communication mechanisms demonstrates a country’s willingness to be fully accountable and open to international scrutiny. It reflects a confidence that a country has a good human rights record, by demonstrating a preparedness to be scrutinised. Refusal to ratify the Optional Protocol can only be seen as a retreat from human rights accountability.
Similarly, Australia’s periodic reports under all six human rights treaties have also been submitted significantly late. Much of this backlog has now been addressed, following the consideration of Australia’s periodic reports by four committees over the past year. But we are again already late in the submission of our next periodic report under CERD, which was due in October 2000.
Australia has also not complied with requests from treaty committees and special rapporteurs of the United Nations to visits to Australia. The CERD, for example, requested on 19 March 1999 to send three members of the Committee to Australia on an informal visit to consider the native title issue. The government rejected the request on 6 April 1999. Similarly the visits of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention and the Special Rapporteur on Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance have been delayed and rescheduled on numerous occasions, and now do not appear likely to proceed, unless the government sees that ‘there is a compelling reason to do so’.
The responses to the concluding observations of the CERD and the HRC last year, alongside our refusal to act in accordance with the recommendations of the Committee against Torture and the HRC on individual communications over the past four years, have also been inadequate. Professor Henkin, a member of the Human Rights Committee, expressed the concern of the Human Rights Committee at our response to the treaty system and individual communications as follows:
We see our work as an important contribution to your compliance with the obligations which you voluntarily assumed; in fact, eagerly assumed … that requires cooperation by the States Parties. It does not help to read, therefore, questions about the work of the treaty bodies, and even on communications it does not help to see Governments — and I don’t refer only to Australia — somehow resist the judgments or the final views of this Committee. Therefore, I can only close by saying that we cannot help Governments comply with the obligations which you voluntarily assumed unless there is cooperation between your Government and the Committees, both in regard to the reports which you filed and we hope you will file more frequently, and the response to our views.[20]
Perhaps the most striking example of the inadequacy of our response to observations of the various committees is the fact that the Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended in 1997 that mandatory sentencing laws be repealed — some four years before concerns about these laws were made by the CERD, the Human Rights Committee and the Committee against Torture.
Recent years have also seen Australia more actively resistant to human rights standards in a variety of international forums. From an Indigenous perspective[21] the most significant changes have been felt in the Commission on Human Rights Working Group on the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which meets in Geneva every October. After five years, negotiations remain stalled on the issue of self-determination. But the debate has moved from a strict opposition to the application of self-determination to Indigenous peoples by governments, to a concern of how to reflect the principle in the draft Declaration in a way that maintains territorial integrity and sovereignty of the state.
Each year the Indigenous caucus at the Working Group carefully evaluates government stances during the negotiations. They rate governments according to the those who urged flexibility and, while considering proposed amendments, could live with some or all of the articles of the draft Declaration as drafted; those who supported the principles contained in the draft Declaration but insisted on amendments to the current text; and those who challenged fundamental principles underlying the draft Declaration, particularly self-determination and the recognition of collective rights. They also rate them according to how actively they participate in the negotiations.[22] Australia remains in the most active category, but has gone from being rated as in the group that is most supportive of the draft Declaration to one of only four countries that continue to dispute the fundamental principles underlying the draft Declaration.
Australia’s reluctance to commit to human rights standards has not been limited to our participation in United Nations processes. It has also been a key feature of our relationship with the European Union. Europe has a long established regional human rights system, which is increasingly being combined with trade and cooperation policies of the European Union member states. As Dr Allan Rosas of the European Union noted at a recent conference in Melbourne:
Since the 1990s, human rights have become an important element in the external relations of the EU. The EU Member States increasingly coordinate their human rights policies within the framework of the Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP). And trade and cooperation agreements concluded by the European Community and EC legislative acts on financial, technical and development cooperation with third countries almost routinely contain a so-called human rights clause, proclaiming human rights an essential element of bilateral cooperation.[23]
The European Union has begun ‘introducing openly an element of conditionality for some of its trade relations’[24] through the inclusion of the human rights clause. It is accompanied by a non-execution clause that:
implies that the agreement can be suspended wholly or partially if the other party violates the human rights clause, providing respect for democratic principles and basic human rights, as recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948). Suspension can cover the trade part of the agreement as well.[25]
On 26 June 1997, Australia and the EU signed the Joint Declaration on Relations between Australia and the European Union. The Declaration formalised a commitment by both the Australian government and the European Union to a wide-ranging bi-lateral cooperation agenda, covering areas such as employment, science and technology, competition and consumer policy, education and the environment.[26] The Declaration commits to a dialogue and cooperation to support democracy, the rule of law, and the protection and promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
The Joint Declaration is a watered down version of the more than 50 trade and cooperation agreements that the European Union had entered into with over 130 countries since 1995. Australia had refused, and continues to refuse, to enter into a legally binding framework agreement on trade and cooperation that includes a human rights clause.
The European Union’s Ambassador to Australia and New Zealand, HE Mr Aneurin Hughes, has noted that there is no possibility of the EU negotiating a trade and cooperation framework agreement with Australia until there is concurrence on the inclusion of the human rights clause. At a recent conference he concluded his speech by stating that he looks forward to a time when a shared commitment to human rights principles is ‘a common bedrock’ between the EU and Australia, and not the issue that keeps us apart.[27]
At this stage there is only anecdotal evidence that Australia’s trade interests have been damaged by the refusal to enter into a trade and cooperation agreement with the EU. It is notable that Australia’s quotas for beef did not increase in Europe following the outbreak of BSE or ‘mad cow’ disease, whereas the quotas of Latin American countries that had concluded trade and cooperation agreements did. An examination of some of the trade and cooperation agreements that have been concluded by other countries also hint at the opportunities that Australia is missing. For example, the EU and Canada have entered into a comprehensive joint action plan on economic and trade relations, foreign policy and security, and transnational issues.[28] It is mind-boggling why the government continues to refuse to accept the inclusion of a human rights clause in a formalised trade and cooperation agreement with the EU, particularly as it continues efforts for increased trade opportunities in Europe.
This article has sought to provide an overview of recent developments in Australia’s advocacy on human rights from the perspective of Indigenous affairs. From this view, it is difficult to argue that we have ever had a good human rights record. But it is only recently that the international community has begun to express concern about Indigenous issues. In many ways, it is as much a case of our past catching up with us as it is a case of the recent deterioration in the treatment of Indigenous peoples.
But it is not necessarily our blemished record on Indigenous affairs that damages our international reputation the most. It is our lack of willingness to be held accountable and work openly to improve it. It is difficult to say that we meet our core obligations under human rights treaties in the way we cooperate and respond to committees. We are damaged by our refusal to be held accountable through complying with the obligations under the treaties that we ratify.
Our record is certainly not ‘second to none’. It could be described as ‘second to some’, but more to the point, it is ‘second best’ for Australia and all Australians. As the government explains in the White paper on foreign affairs:
On questions of race, as on other issues which go to the values of the Australian community, Australia’s international reputation matters. Australia has a direct national interest in an international reputation as a responsible member of the international community, committed to the rule of law, ready to assist in cases of humanitarian need, and a constructive contributor to the economic development of its neighbourhood. An international reputation as a thoughtful and creative country, genuinely committed to the peace and prosperity of its region, and a source of practical ideas enhances Australia’s capacity to influence the regional and global agenda in ways which promote the interests of Australia … promoting and protecting human rights underpins Australia’s broader security and economic interests.[29]
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
[*] Darren Dick is the Director of the Social Justice Unit at the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.This article is written in a personal capacity and does not represent the views of HREOC.© 2001 Darren Dick (text); © 2001 Stuart Roth (cartoon)email: darrendick@humanrights.gov.au
[1] Cobo, Martínez, Study of the Problem of Discrimination Against Indigenous Populations, UN Doc: E/CN.4/Sub.2/1986/7/Add.4UN Doc.
[2] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Decision 1(53) on Australia, Un Doc: CERD/C/53/Misc.17/Rev.2, 11 August 1998. The early warning procedure is discussed in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner, Native Title Report 1999, HREOC Sydney, 2000, Chapter 2.
[3] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Decision 2(54) on Australia, Un Doc: CERD/C/54/Misc.40/Rev.2, 18 March 1999. Reproduced in Native Title Report 1999, above.
[4] Attorney-General, Media Release, 19 March 1999.
[5] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Decision 2(55) on Australia, UN Doc: A/54/18, para 23(2), para 4.
[6] The transcript of the dialogue can be downloaded at <<www.faira. org.au/cerd/decisions.html>>.
[7] Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding Observations by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Australia, UN Doc: CERD/C/304/Add.101, 19/04/2000.
[8] Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, Bringing Them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and their Families, HREOC, Sydney, 1997.
[9] Attorney-General, CERD Report Unbalanced, Press Release, 26 March 2000.
[10] Minister for Foreign Affairs, Government to Review UN Treaty Committees, Press Release, 30 March 2000.
[11] Minister for Foreign Affairs, above.
[12] The Hon Alexander Downer MP, 7:30 Report, Transcript of Interview, 7 July 2000.
[13] The transcript of the hearing can be downloaded at <<www.faira.org.au/ hrc/default.html>>.
[14] Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Australia, UN Doc:CCPR/CO/69/AUS, 28 July 2000.
[15] Attorney-General, UN Human Rights Committee, Press Release, 29 July 2000.
[16] Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Concluding Observations of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights : Australia. UN Doc: E/C.12/1/Add.50, 01/09/2000.
[17] Committee against Torture, Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture: Australia, UN Doc: CAT/C/XXV/ Concl.3, 21/11/2000.
[18] Minister for Foreign Affairs, Attorney-General and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs, Improving the Effectiveness of United Nations Committees, Joint News Release, 29 August 2000.
[19] United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2000, Oxford University Press, New York, 2000, p.107.
[20] Mr Henkin in FAIRA, Human Rights Committee transcript, 20 July 2000, pp.42-3.
[21] For a perspective on women’s issues see the article in this issue of Alt.LJ on Beijing +5. p.16.
[22] For a detailed analysis see Pritchard, S., ‘The Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Remains on its Troubled Path through the UN’, in IWGIA, The Indigenous World 1999–2000, IWGIA, Copenhagen 2000.
[23] Rosas, A., ‘Human Rights and Trade: An EU Perspective’, Conference paper, Trade and Cooperation with the European Union in the New Millennium, University of Melbourne, 13-15 December 2000, p.1.
[24] Rosas, A., above, p.2.
[25] Rosas, A., above. There are, however, restraints on when the non-execution clause can be invoked.
[26] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, Joint Declaration on Relations between Australia and the European Union, 26 June 1997, <<www.dfat.gov.au/geo/european_union/jointdec.html>>.
[27] Hughes, A., Speech, Trade and Cooperation with the European Union in the New Millennium, ref 23 above.
[28] European Union, Joint Action Plan — New EU-Canada Agreement, Delegation of the European Union in Canada, Ottawa, 1998, <<www.delcan.cec.eu.int/english/>>.
[29] Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, In the National Interest — Australia’s Foreign and Trade Policy White Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, 1997, paras 24-5.
AustLII:
Copyright Policy
|
Disclaimers
|
Privacy Policy
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AltLawJl/2001/6.html