Search

Following the COVID-19 pandemic, amid collapsing revenues and a rising torrent of online misinformation and gender-based hate speech, States have a human rights-based obligation to ensure the survival of public interest media, most urgently through subsidies that can be funded by proper taxation of multinational tech companies. That is the leading conclusion of a new report by International Media Support (IMS), which assesses the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the operation of the global media sector. Drawing on reports from over 30 IMS partners worldwide, on surveys conducted by international journalism watchdogs through 2020, and supported by in-depth interviews with eight journalists working in public interest media in select IMS partner countries, this report provides comprehensive insight into what it terms ‘a pandemic of paradoxes’. The paper was launched at the opening of the academic conference of UNESCO's World Press Freedom Day 2021.

Summary Background HIV pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) is highly effective in men who have sex with men (MSM) at the individual level, but data on population-level impact are lacking. We examined whether rapid, targeted, and high-coverage roll-out of PrEP in an MSM epidemic would reduce HIV incidence in the cohort prescribed PrEP and state-wide in Australia's most populous state, New South Wales. Methods The Expanded PrEP Implementation in Communities–New South Wales (EPIC-NSW) study is an implementation cohort study of daily co-formulated tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine as HIV PrEP. We recruited high-risk gay men in a New South Wales-wide network of 21 clinics. We report protocol-specified co-primary outcomes at 12 months after recruitment of the first 3700 participants: within-cohort HIV incidence; and change in population HIV diagnoses in New South Wales between the 12-month periods before and after PrEP roll-out. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov , number NCT02870790 . Findings We recruited 3700 participants in the 8 months between March 1, 2016, and Oct 31, 2016. 3676 (99%) were men, 3534 (96%) identified as gay, and 149 (4%) as bisexual. Median age was 36 years (IQR 30–45 years). Overall, 3069 (83%) participants attended a visit at 12 months or later. Over 4100 person-years, two men became infected with HIV (incidence 0·048 per 100 person-years, 95% CI 0·012–0·195). Both had been non-adherent to PrEP. HIV diagnoses in MSM in New South Wales declined from 295 in the 12 months before PrEP roll-out to 221 in the 12 months after (relative risk reduction [RRR] 25·1%, 95% CI 10·5–37·4). There was a decline both in recent HIV infections (from 149 to 102, RRR 31·5%, 95% CI 11·3 to 47·3) and in other HIV diagnoses (from 146 to 119, RRR 18·5%, 95% CI −4·5 to 36·6). Interpretation PrEP implementation was associated with a rapid decline in HIV diagnoses in the state of New South Wales, which was greatest for recent infections. As part of a combination prevention approach, rapid, targeted, high-coverage PrEP implementation is effective to reduce new HIV infections at the population level. Funding New South Wales Ministry of Health, Gilead Sciences.

The use of arbitration in investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) enables foreign investors to sue host states for alleged breaches of international investment law. But the practise has grown increasingly controversial over the past decade, with respondent states refusing to pay damages, or withdrawing from the system entirely. ISDS is founded on the principles of commercial arbitration that uphold contract law. When used to resolve disputes between foreign companies it is an exercise in private international law. Arbitration in ISDS, however, operates at the level of public international law, because foreign investors enjoy protection standards under treaties signed between their home state and the host state. ISDS thus operates as a form of judicial review, adjudicating on the lawfulness of actions taken by the host State’s Government, Parliament, or Court that may have violated the property rights of the investor. Its decisions can cost host states billions of dollars of taxpayer’s money, and directly impact on rights of citizens protected under International Human Rights Law (IHRL). Yet IHRL is construed as playing little to no role in ISDS arbitration. Thus, the question this paper seeks to answer is whether the continued use of arbitration in ISDS is justified, or not. To do that, ISDS will be put on ‘trial’, charged with being incompatible with public law and the obligations of international law as codified in IHRL. Chapter One presents the case for arbitration in ISDS, Chapter Two the case against, and Chapter 3 reaches a verdict. ISDS is at the frontline of adjudicating globalisation, of striking a balance between profit and people, business and human rights. If it is not justified in law, it can hardly be justified in policy.

‘…the possibility of damages for those whose interests Urgenda represents, including current and future generations of Dutch nationals, is so great and concrete that given its duty of care, the state must make an adequate contribution, greater than its current contribution, to prevent hazardous climate change.’ Hague District Court, June 23rd, 2015. In light of the above landmark ruling - which found the Dutch government owed a duty of care to its citizens over action to mitigate climate change - critically evaluate the chances and possible outcomes of bringing a similar action in the English courts, with particular reference to locus standi under tort, public and international law.