QSpace

Queen's Scholarship & Digital Collections

QSpace is an open access repository for scholarship and research produced at Queen's University. QSpace offers faculty, students, staff, and researchers a free and secure home to preserve and present their scholarship.

Communities in DSpace

Select a community to browse its collections.

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5

Digital Collections 5940
This community includes digital collections produced by members of the Queen’s community, as well as digital special collections made available via W.D. Jordan Rare Books & Special Collections.
Exams & Syllabi 0
This community provides access for staff and students at Queen’s University to degree examination papers and syllabi. To access Exams & Syllabi off campus please login using your Queen's NetID and password.
Graduate Theses, Dissertations and Projects 10124
This community includes graduate theses, dissertations and projects produced by students at Queen’s University.
McGill-Queen's University Press 9
Scholarly Contributions 14452
This community includes Queen’s peer-reviewed research publications, including journal articles, book chapters, conference proceedings, and more.

Recent Submissions

Access status: Open Access ,
Choice of Law and Interpretive Authority in Investor-State Arbitration
(Thompson Rivers University Faculty of Law, 2017) Karton, Joshua
This article rejoins one of the core debates in investor-state arbitration, over the extent to which arbitrators may refer to sources of international law beyond the investment treaty that governs the dispute. This issue may appear esoteric, but the political backlash to investment treaty arbitration is largely fueled by uncertainty over the content of the substantive rules that bind states in their relations with foreign investors. Such uncertainty affords arbitrators room to indulge what is alleged to be a pro-investor bias. It may chill regulatory initiatives, even if in the end most states’ actions are vindicated. The problem at the heart of investment arbitration is, therefore, a legal one, so there may be a legal response to the political backlash. This article argues that arbitrators are obligated by the choice of law clauses contained in most investment treaties to consider all potentially relevant sources of international law. Arbitrators are akin to agents of the states that enter into investment treaties, and are bound by choice of law provisions in those treaties. Since most of these refer simply to the text of the treaty and “international law”, tribunals not only may but must refer to international law beyond the treaty. Putting choice of law at the centre of determinations of tribunals’ interpretive authority refocuses arbitrators’ attention on states, which are, after all, the parties to the arbitration agreements that empower investor-state tribunals. It gives proper weight to the economic objectives of international investment law, but also provides arbitrators with an appropriate basis on which to account for the public interest, via international law doctrines of environmental protection, indigenous rights, and the like. Finally, it could help stave off a continued backlash to investor-state arbitration, which would harm the global investment climate and the global rule of law.
Access status: Open Access ,
Reconstructing Gladue
(University of Toronto Press, 2024) Ewing, Benjamin; Kerr, Lisa
Section 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code directs sentencing judges to exercise restraint in the use of incarceration ‘with particular attention to the circumstances of Aboriginal offenders.’ In R v Gladue, the Supreme Court of Canada interpreted this as a remedial provision aiming to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people. That has made it appear to be a failure by its own lights. Yet to write off section 718.2(e) and the Gladue principles would be to fail properly to understand their moral foundations and structure. Judges are called upon to reduce the incarceration of Indigenous people neither by working backwards from prison demographic targets nor merely by combating implicit bias. Rather, Gladue requires judges to open their minds to hitherto unappreciated reasons that many Indigenous offenders should be afforded mitigation, restorative justice, and community-based accountability. One reason, we argue, relates to the unfair criminogenic disadvantages disproportionately faced by Indigenous offenders. Another reason is that the Canadian state’s complicity in such disadvantages calls into question its legitimate authority and its standing to blame Indigenous offenders. In sum, Gladue calls upon our courts to widen the horizon of fairness in their treatment of Indigenous people. This matters for its own sake in each and every case, whether or not it brings about an appreciable reduction in Indigenous incarceration in the aggregate. Our reconstruction of Gladue not only rescues it from cynical dismissals but also helps to solve the central doctrinal puzzles surrounding it: how Indigenous offenders’ unique life circumstances must be connected to their offences to be mitigating; how Gladue principles should apply differently to more and less serious offences; how a variant of Gladue principles should be extended to members of other disadvantaged groups such as Black Canadians; and how judges should weigh the interests of Indigenous victims when sentencing Indigenous offenders.
Access status: Open Access ,
Health Policy and Federalism: A Comparative Perspective on Multi-Level Governance
(Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University & McGill-Queen's University Press, 2002) Banting, Ketih; Corbett, Stan
Do federal institutions influence policy outcomes? This book explores this question in the critical sector of health policy. Governments everywhere confront major challenges to their health-care programs, but federal countries must respond through systems of multi-level governance. The contributors to this book lay bare the complexities in decision-making that results in five federations: Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, and the United States.
Access status: Open Access ,
Disability and Federalism: Comparing Different Approaches to Full Participation
(Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University & McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001) Cameron, David; Valentine, Fraser
This volume offers a unique comparative analysis of the impact of the structures and practices of federalism on disability policy and programming. All modern democratic states have fashioned policies and programs in response to the needs of persons with disabilities. Not surprisingly, however, the nature of this response varies from nation to nation. The chapters contained in this work provide a broad assessment of the approach taken to disablement and disability policy in five federations - Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany and the United States.
Access status: Open Access ,
Federalism, Democracy and Health Policy in Canada
(Institute of Intergovernmental Relations, Queen's University & McGill-Queen's University Press, 2001) Adams, Duane
The future of health policy is centre stage in Canadian politics today with declining public confidence in the quality and timeliness of available health services. Fixing the situation is high on governments' agendas. Since both federal and provincial governments play a role in the health-care system, part of addressing these issues requires that the different orders of government learn to work more effectively with one another. The focus of this volume is on how federal and provincial governments relate to one another, and to citizens and stakeholder groups, in the development and implementation of health policy.