HSC Legal Studies Question Thread

[jamonwindeyer]

ohh thanks both

and also for a question that says “With reference to one contemporary human rights issue, explain the role of state sovereignty in enforcing human rights” can we just talk about domestic responses or does it have to be like any international state sovereignty?

You're welcome! For that question, you'd be wanting to focus on international responses, domestic responses have much less to do with that particular legal issue. Explore how sovereign states interact and cooperate to enforce human rights issues (treaties, IGO's, etc), and then you can reference domestic responses also

im looking at my textbook and the notes that I received from a lecture and I want to ask
is equality between men and women under ICCPR or ICESCR ?
the textbook and the notes say different things

Speaking of lectures, are you coming to the ATAR Notes lectures? I'm running the Legal one, I'd love to see you there

[EmileeSmith]

but in the textbook there's nothing about state sovereignty in the contemporary human rights issue of human trafficking ?? or is it part of international response?

yes please I want to come where can I book a spot

[jamonwindeyer]

but in the textbook there's nothing about state sovereignty in the contemporary human rights issue of human trafficking ?? or is it part of international response?

yes please I want to come where can I book a spot

You can book here! The 2016 Exam Revision Legal Lecture is on the 2nd October

State sovereignty is a primarily international legal issue, so you must tailor your response that way! Human trafficking can be linked to state sovereignty through the treaties that are signed to address it (sovereignty allows sovereign states to enter into treaties). Some for you to research and explore:

 - Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons (2003), ratified by Australia in 2004
 - Slavery Convention (1926)
 - International Bill Of Rights (Freedom from Slavery)

[EmileeSmith]

thank you soo much, makes way more sense now!!
and is the legal studies revision lecture on the 2nd the same as the 1st Oct?  2nd is my bday and kinda don't want to do any work on that day lol

[jamonwindeyer]

thank you soo much, makes way more sense now!!
and is the legal studies revision lecture on the 2nd the same as the 1st Oct?  2nd is my bday and kinda don't want to do any work on that day lol

Aha totally understand that the one on the 1st is targeted towards Year 11 students about to start the Year 12 course. If you feel the need to brush up on the fundamentals, it might still be useful for you!

[Work!!]

ohh thanks both

and also for a question that says “With reference to one contemporary human rights issue, explain the role of state sovereignty in enforcing human rights” can we just talk about domestic responses or does it have to be like any international state sovereignty?

I would talk about domestic responses that enforce the contemporary human rights issue (that have been put into place by the sovereign government if any), and then how state sovereignty in an international context constricts enforcement of human rights issues that occur domestically: as states are free to govern themselves and may choose, because of the lack of enforceable measures against them, to ignore the human rights breaches

[aoife98]

When/how is everyone planning on learning case law for the core? Legal is my last exam but there's only a day between it and the exam before so I'm worried if I learn them now, I'll have forgotten them by the 2nd of Nov.

[jamonwindeyer]

When/how is everyone planning on learning case law for the core? Legal is my last exam but there's only a day between it and the exam before so I'm worried if I learn them now, I'll have forgotten them by the 2nd of Nov.

Make some summary sheets like those available in our Legal Studies Notes section!! They are how I memorised my stuff, and I swear by it (in conjunction with lots of practice) palm cards might work for you too! I use them a lot at uni now if you are coming to my legal lecture I'll be going through this sort of thing then, and I'll be loading you up on some good cases for the Core

[EmileeSmith]

I would talk about domestic responses that enforce the contemporary human rights issue (that have been put into place by the sovereign government if any), and then how state sovereignty in an international context constricts enforcement of human rights issues that occur domestically: as states are free to govern themselves and may choose, because of the lack of enforceable measures against them, to ignore the human rights breaches

oh so I can kinda talk about both, but more about international?
thank you !

[EmileeSmith]

what does express and implied rights mean in simple terms ?

[elysepopplewell]

what does express and implied rights mean in simple terms ?

Express rights are the rights that are explicitly written in the Constitution. Implied rights aren't found specifically in the Constitution, but are implied. So, the most definitively protected and written rights are the express rights. The implied rights are the rights that have been sought from the text, but aren't explicitly written in there.

A good case for implied rights is Lange v. Australian Broadcasting Commission (1997).

[Lauradf36]

I know the ICESCR & ICCPR were introduced in 1966, and entered into force in 1976 - so which date should we attribute it to in essays??

[jamonwindeyer]

I know the ICESCR & ICCPR were introduced in 1966, and entered into force in 1976 - so which date should we attribute it to in essays??

Hey! That's a good question, and probably one without a single correct answer. I, however, always used "came into force in 1976" when I needed to identify the year for a law like these you could do the other though, I don't see an issue!

[angiezhang9]

Hey guys,

I have a question about legal essays and I'm using the family option as an example.
Say I was talking about adoption in a family essay and i was discussing how the current process is lengthy and there is currently law reform to speed up the process. If I have a media article claiming that there are lengthy delays and that there are too many children out of care but I have another article claiming that a mother has unfairly lost her children due to the "fast track adoption amendment", should I discuss both cases with both pieces of evidence or should I choose one that supports my argument. For example, should I just argue that the current adoption is ineffective and use the first media article to support this?

If I was to discuss both sides of the argument, how would i do this? Like, how do I form a judgement without being contradictory if that makes sense.

Thanks heaps

[jamonwindeyer]

Hey guys,

I have a question about legal essays and I'm using the family option as an example.
Say I was talking about adoption in a family essay and i was discussing how the current process is lengthy and there is currently law reform to speed up the process. If I have a media article claiming that there are lengthy delays and that there are too many children out of care but I have another article claiming that a mother has unfairly lost her children due to the "fast track adoption amendment", should I discuss both cases with both pieces of evidence or should I choose one that supports my argument. For example, should I just argue that the current adoption is ineffective and use the first media article to support this?

If I was to discuss both sides of the argument, how would i do this? Like, how do I form a judgement without being contradictory if that makes sense.

Thanks heaps

Hey Angie! Great question!

The answer is simply that your entire essay must re-enforce your main argument. If you started your paragraph in one way, you must carry that through, no contradictions. The answer to this is to leave room to wiggle in your topic sentences and your Thesis. Phrases like, "there are both positives and negatives that can be gleamed from _________," or, "is only somewhat effect in achieving ________." Notice how these leave me room to address both sides of the argument, because my argument is sort of neutral!

If you are looking to address two sides of something like you describe, this is my best piece of advice: Leave wiggle room when you introduce the argument in the first place. If you don't assume one specific side of the argument, then you aren't contradicting yourself