918 research outputs found
Seven Out of Nine Legal Experts Agree: Expertise No Longer Matters (in the Same Way) After Vavilov!
No full text© Audrey Macklin. First Published in Supreme Court Law Review, 2nd Series, Volume 100.At the time of publication, Audrey Macklin was a fellow of the Trudeau Foundation and the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research and thanked both institutions for their financial support
Book Review: The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, And The Home State Advantage, by Penelope Simons & Audrey Macklin
No full textBook review of The Governance Gap: Extractive Industries, Human Rights, And The Home State Advantage, by Penelope Simons & Audrey Macklin
Foreword to The Organic Grower
No full textAudrey Windram is a living treasure of Australian organics. She has been ‘fighting the good fight’ to advance the cause of organics for the best part of half a century. When it comes to organics, Audrey leads by example. She has been living the organic life, variously as an organics pioneer, producer, evangelist, educator and author, all the while ‘practising what she preaches’ and preaching in the most gentle of ways. It is a delight to commend Audrey Windram’s latest book The Organic Grower on the fortieth anniversary of the publication of her first organics book. Organic Gardening originally appeared in 1975 as a Rigby Instant Book. It was a mass-market book distributed throughout Australia. The organics enterprise must continue to draw strength from the validity of its foundational premises and continue the fight which Lord Northbourne warned in 1940 may be a fight lasting “for many decades, perhaps for centuries”. In The Organic Grower Audrey Windram brings together four publications, Organic Gardening, the two volumes of Meet the Organic Farmer, together with Ways of Being Organic. Enjoy it
The return of banishment : do the new denationalisation policies weaken citizenship?
No full textIn this EUDO CITIZENSHIP Forum Debate, several authors discuss the growing trend in Europe and North America of using denationalisation of citizens as a counter-terrorism strategy. The deprivation of citizenship status, alongside passport revocation, and denial of re-admission to citizens returning from abroad, manifest the securitisation of citizenship. Britain leads in citizenship deprivation, but in 2014, Canada passed new citizenship-stripping legislation and France’s Conseil Constitutionnel recently upheld denaturalisation of dual citizens convicted of terrorism-related offences. In the wake of the ongoing crisis in Iraq and Syria, assorted legislators in Austria, Australia, the Netherlands, and the United States have expressed interest in enacting (or reviving) similar legislation. The contributors to the Forum Debate consider the normative justification for citizenship deprivation from a variety of disciplinary perspectives. There is relatively little disagreement among commentators about the limited instrumental value of citizenship revocation in enhancing national security, and more diversity in viewpoint about its significance for citizenship itself. The contributors discuss the characterisation of citizenship as right versus privilege, the relevance of statelessness and dual nationality, the relative merits of citizenship versus human rights as normative framework, and the expansiveness of banishment itself as a concept.
Kickoff contribution and rejoinder by Audrey Macklin. Comments by Peter Spiro, Peter H. Schuck, Christian Joppke, Vesco Paskalev, Bronwen Manby, Kay Hailbronner, Rainer Bauböck, Linda Bosniak, Daniel Kanstroom, Matthew J. Gibney, Ruvi Ziegler, Saskia Sassen and Jo Shaw
Working against and with the State
No full textThis is the Version of Record (VOR) of an article originally published in the Migration and Society journal in 2021 (https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/migration-and-society/4/1/arms040105.xml?ArticleBodyColorStyles=contentsummary-4283). It is distributed under Creative Commons license CC-BY 4.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).A handful of Canadian church congregations provide sanctuary to failed asylum seekers. Many also participate in resettling refugees through a government program called private sponsorship. Both sanctuary and sponsorship arise as specific modes of hospitality in response to practices of exclusion and inclusion under national migration regimes. Sanctuary engages oppositional politics, whereby providers confront and challenge state authority to exclude. Refugee sponsorship embodies a form of collaborative politics, in which sponsorship groups partner with government in settlement and integration. I demonstrate how the state's perspective on asylum versus resettlement structures the relationship between citizen and state and between citizen and refugee. I also reveal that there is more collaboration in sanctuary and resistance in sponsorship than might be supposed.The research was initiated through a Canadian SSHRC/IRCC Rapid Response Grant with Audrey Macklin as Principal Investigator and expanded through the support of her Pierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation Project, “Re-Settler Society: Making and Remaking Citizenship through Private Refugee Sponsorship.
Should We Presume State Protection?
No full textProfessors Hathaway and Macklin debate the legality of the “presumption of state protection” that the Supreme Court of Canada established as a matter of Canadian refugee law in the Ward decision. Professor Hathaway argues that this presumption should be rejected because it lacks a sound empirical basis and because it conflicts with the relatively low evidentiary threshold set by the Refugee Convention’s “well-founded fear” standard. Professor Macklin contends that the Ward presumption does not in and of itself impose an unduly onerous burden on claimants, and that much of the damage wrought by the presumption comes instead from misinterpretation and misapplication of the Supreme Court’s dictum by lower courts
Audrey and Bill a romantic biography of Audrey Hepburn & William Holden
No full text"Here for the first time is the complete, captivating story of an on-set romance that turned into a lifelong love story between silver screen legends Audrey Hepburn and William Holden. In 1954, Hepburn and Holden were America's sweethearts. Both won Oscars that year and together they filmed Sabrina, a now-iconic film that continues to inspire the worlds of film and fashion. Audrey & Bill tells the stories of both stars, from before they met to their electrifying first encounter when they began making Sabrina. The love affair that sparked on-set was relatively short-lived, but was a turning point in the lives of both stars. Audrey & Bill follows both Hepburn and Holden as their lives crisscrossed through to the end, providing an inside look at the Hollywood of the 1950s, '60s, and beyond. Through in-depth research and interviews with former friends, co-stars, and studio workers, Audrey & Bill author Edward Z. Epstein sheds new light on the stars and the fascinating times in which they lived"-
Audrey Niffenegger @ The Cleveland Public Library
No full textAuthor and dedicated book artist Audrey Niffenegger autographs one of her books at an appearance she made as part of Octavofest 2011 at the Cleveland Public Library. Audrey Niffenegger is the acclaimed author of The Time Traveler\u27s Wife and Her Fearful Symmetry as well as the graphic novel, The Night Bookmobile. She is also a co-founder of the Columbia College Center for Book and Paper Arts in Chicagohttps://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/octavofest_gallery/1002/thumbnail.jp
Audrey Niffenegger @ The Cleveland Public Library
No full textAuthor and dedicated book artist Audrey Niffenegger autographs one of her books at an appearance she made as part of Octavofest 2011 at the Cleveland Public Library. Audrey Niffenegger is the acclaimed author of The Time Traveler\u27s Wife and Her Fearful Symmetry as well as the graphic novel, The Night Bookmobile. She is also a co-founder of the Columbia College Center for Book and Paper Arts in Chicagohttps://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/octavofest_gallery/1002/thumbnail.jp
Should We Presume State Protection?
No full textProfessors Hathaway and Macklin debate the legality of the “presumption of state protection” that the Supreme Court of Canada established as a matter of Canadian refugee law in the Ward decision. Professor Hathaway argues that this presumption should be rejected because it lacks a sound empirical basis and because it conflicts with the relatively low evidentiary threshold set by the Refugee Convention’s “well-founded fear” standard. Professor Macklin contends that the Ward presumption does not in and of itself impose an unduly onerous burden on claimants, and that much of the damage wrought by the presumption comes instead from misinterpretation and misapplication of the Supreme Court’s dictum by lower courts.Les professeurs Hathaway et Macklin reconsidèrent la légalité de la «présomption de la protection de l’État» que La Cour suprême du Canada avait promulgé comme principe de droit canadien en matière de réfugiés dans le jugement Ward. Le professeur Hathaway soutient que cette présomption devrait être rejetée en raison de son manque de fondement empirique rigoureux ainsi que de son incompatibilité avec le niveau de preuve relative-ment faible impliqué par la norme de «crainte justifiée» établie par la Convention relative au statut des réfugiés. La professeure Macklin estime que la présomption Ward n’impose guère en soi un fardeau excessivement lourd sur les demandeurs, et que la plupart des problèmes engendrés par la présomption découlent des erreurs d’interprétation ou d’application de la décision de la Cour suprême de la part des tribunaux inférieurs
- …
