In October 2019, the UN Human

Committee (HRC) adopted a landmark ruling marking the first decision by a UN human treaty body based on a complaint filed by an individual seeking protection from the adverse effects of climate change. The case concerned a national of Kiribati who sought asylum in New Zealand claiming that the effects of climate change and sea level rise in his native country violated his right to life under article 6(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political (ICCPR). While the HRC determined there had been no violation of his right to life in this particular case, it warned that before the entire country become submerged by rising sea levels, conditions of life in such a country may become incompatible with the right to life with dignity. This article examines what made this landmark ruling possible by analysing its background of broader international legal and policy framework surrounding so-called climate refugees. Subsequently, it reviews some of the possible ramifications that the ruling may have on areas of debate regarding the potential of international human law for the protection of migrants and refugees within the emerging refugee protection mechanism. It considers that this case sets forth new guidance that could serve as a basis for future climate change-related asylum claims by recognising for the first time that forcibly returning a person to a place where his life would be at risk due to the adverse effects of climate change may violate the right to life under article 6 ICCPR. It is built on the interpretation of right to life with dignity based on intersectionality of civil and political and economic and socio-cultural ones. This article concludes that international human law may be able to address the current protection gap, on the grounds of right to life interpreted in a non-restrictive manner, responding to the call for universal legal instruments for climate migrants.

抄録全体を表示

The Standing Committee of Copyright and Related of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) has been discussing the possibility of introducing intellectual property protection of non-original databases through new international norms. It has been examining whether databases that do not presently qualify for copyright protection should also be protected. On the other hand, it is pointed out that the need of the scientific, research and educational sectors and the issue of access to information should also be taken into account.

抄録全体を表示

わが国において、環境を保全する権利として環境権は必ずしも承認されているわけではない。このような状況のもとで最近、所有論に依拠して環境保全の論拠を提示しようとする議論が見受けられる。その論点を一言でいえば、地域に居住する住民には共同占有権（都市地域）、総有権ないし入会権（農山村地域）が存在し、それが環境保全の権利根拠になり得る、というものである。しかしこういった議論は次の点で問題が残る。

（1）入会、総有は基本的に封建的所有形態であり、封建的な共同体（Gemeinde）が解体した近代以降の社会においては存続し得ない。

（2）また住民がそこに居住していることの反射的な権利としての入会的な権利は法律の保護の対象とはならず、したがって環境保全の権利根拠とはなり得ない。

（3）入会的な山林所有の形態はわが国の歴史的現実に照らしてみても環境保全的であるとはいい難い。

このように所有の視点を環境保全の論拠とすることには限界がある。そこでこの限界を突破するための環境保全の戦略として、この小論では（1）環境権の中核としての人格権が差し止め請求の法的根拠として判例上認定されていることを足場として、身近な生活環境に関する保全の論拠を提示し、また（2）貴重な自然環境の保全についても、個々人の利益の集積を代表するという論理で、裁判における「訴えの利益」を主張していく、という方向性を提示した。

抄録全体を表示

According to the present writer, the term "" implies both in the West and the East, a justifying ground for individuals' behaviour and claims.
However, viewed genetically, it is a concept premised upon the conflict between the nation and society. are not merely divisible between original, primary and remedial, secondary . Furthermore, concepts such as privilege, power, and immunity are frequently included as in a broader sense.
While theories applicable to these various types of are thus required, the "-benefits theory" and the "-claims theory" are nothing but tautological explanations. Although Hart's "-selection theory" is valid as a criticism of the "Utilitarian -benefits theory", it still does not elucidate the meaning of human or power.

抄録全体を表示