The present article asks: what bearing does the relationship between changing sexual discourse and human rights law have on the furtherance of lesbian, gay, bi-, and transsexual rights? This question the article answers by way of recourse to the Foucaultian concepts ‘genealogy’ and ‘discourse’; it traces in this vein how the law of the European Convention on Human Rights on sexuality rights has changed in relation to societal views of sexuality over the last twenty years. By bringing to bear a Foucaultian perspective the article shows the instabilities and costs incurred in the liberalising human rights project of which sexual rights is a part, bringing out how that which at first blush looks like a liberal development may in point of fact be ripe with unintended consequences.
Keywords: Discrimination; Sexuality Rights; European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR); Foucaultian Analysis.
The Norwegian Finnmark Act 2005 aims to initiate a process for surveying and recognising land rights of areas previously considered to be state-owned. This clarification of land rights involves two separate bodies: the Finnmark Commission to investigate and conclude fields, and a land tribunal to settle disputes arising from hearings by the Finnmark Commission. Together they constitute a unified system to effectuate the trial process.
In connection with the Finnmark Commission’s regulations, it is stated that it is an aim to investigate the legal situation in the whole county within a reasonable time. Fair trial within a reasonable time is a human right enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights 1950 (ECHR) article 6(1). The issue to be addressed in this paper is whether the legal clarification process conducted by the Finnmark Commission is subject to the rules of trial within a reasonable time, and if so, to examine how best to prevent these processes from coming into conflict with ECHR 1950 article 6(1).
Keywords: Finnmark Act; Reasonable Time; ECHR; Finnmark Commission; Indigenous People.
The general principles governing waiver of rights according to ECHR were analysed in the first article, published in Joint issue 3&4 2010 of this Journal: if there is sufficient proof for a valid and societal acceptable waiver, there is a freedom and may even be an obligation for the state to respect it. The application of these principles to substantive convention rights were investigated in issue 1 2011. In the present article I will focus on procedural rights laid down in article 6 of the Convention. Both waiver of the right to a court in tote and of particular rights in an ordinary court hearing will be addressed (in part 1 and 2 et seq. respectively).
Keywords: Waiver of Rights.