Search

New Zealand’s legal system uses statute law and regulatory bodies to regulate genome editing techniques applied to germline cells. This paper will set out the regulation of germline editing techniques in New Zealand. Based on this analysis, this paper will then point to existing legal problems and questions in relation to germline interventions before proposing solutions and approaches to these problems. Ultimately, the use of new genome editing technologies such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeat (CRISPR) and the enzyme Cas9 (together, CRISPR and Cas9) has vast potential consequences given that unintended heritable changes could be passed from generation to generation. New Zealand’s legal framework provides for decision-makers to regulate germline interventions, yet significant gaps in law and outdated advice given by relevant advisory bodies mean that New Zealand’s legal framework inadequately addresses the significant and pressing implications of germline interventions in modern science. This paper reflects New Zealand’s legal position as at 30 April 2017.

The Roman law of persons is defined as the body of rules concerned with the legal position of the human person (persona) comprising their rights, capacities and duties. It pertained to the various aspects of a persons status (status or condicio) as an individual, as a member of the community and as a member of a family hence it includes the law of marriage and family relations. Although the concept of persona underwent a long process of evolution, it has meant simply human being(homo) since the classical period. Hence even slaves (servi) were considered persons, despite the fact that in modern legal doctrine a slave was a legal object of rights and duties whereas a free person was a legal subject or a holder of rights and duties. Although Roman law also recognized non-human subjects of rights and duties, such as private corporations and public enterprises (labelled in contemporary law as juristic persons), these entities were not considered persons for the reason that in the eyes of the law only the natural person was a persona.

Art 70 governs the legal consequences of a treaty that ceases to exist because the conditions for a ground of termination are met. Contrary to invalidity, termination presupposes the valid conclusion and entry into force of the treaty but, for reasons unrelated thereto, the treaty comes to an end due to circumstances that have occurred after its entry into force. Like in case of invalidity, the question arises as to the consequences on the legal position of the parties of the treaty’s coming to an end.

Just as the first volume of this book series, this second volume starts with an introductory chapter on a general topic. This time the choice has fallen on the legal position of herbal remedies in various countries. The basic consideration is that herbal remedies have gained such an obvious place in our health care system that it has become hard for public health legislators to ignore them. Yet the regulations for herbal remedies vary considerably from country to country, and nations prominent in the field of synthetic drug legislation may be less progressive in the regulation of herbal products. To illustrate this point, the current legislation of herbal remedies in the European Economic Community and in certain individual countries will be discussed. These countries have been selected, either because they have developed special guidelines for the marketing of herbal preparations as drugs (Germany, France, Belgium) or because they have internationally well-respected drug regulatory bodies rooted in the Anglo-Saxon tradition (United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Sweden).

In this paper I should like to approach the topic of cancer clinical trials from two directions. In the first part I will give an exposition of the current legal position. This part will contain information of a kind which in my opinion is absolutely necessary for all scientists involved in clinical trials. In the second part I will then try to approach the subject from a different and substantially more critical, perhaps even provocative, starting-point.