Collective Law Is a Non-Hierarchical Organization - Essay Example

PAGE Collective law Role of collective law in Canada Role of collective law in India Contrast and similarities in collective law between two countries Conclusion Sources The reference given at the end as the bibliography is collected from British library India COLLECTIVE LAW A Collective law is a non-hierarchical organization which provides legal services to a community or communities in need. Such type of work ranges from traditional criminal defense, to advocacy on behalf of immigrants, to legal support at large and small protests, to "Know Your Rights" and other law-related ones. There were many law collectives in the 1970s and till late 1980s. These collectives ran as worker-run, co operative law firms. They often had revolutionary politics, and supported explicitly revolutionary groups and individuals. Lawyer and non-lawyer employees were paid the same wages, and had equal decision- making power. At some law collectives, workers supporting families were paid more. A handful of law collectives organized along those lines still exist - For example, the People's Law Office in Chicago. There has been a small movement of activist law collectives since the 1999 Seattle WTO protests. These groups are usually non-lawyer centered, they run along anarchist principles even if they do not explicitly identify as anarchist, and work as part of the movement for social justice. These law collectives are made up mostly or entirely of non-lawyers. They are located in cities including Philadelphia, Washington, DC; New York; Madison; Portland; Oakland; and Montreal, Ottawa, and Toronto, Canada. This new generation of law collective works to empower people to provide their own legal support. They give "trainer trainings" so people can give "Know Your Rights" and other workshops to their communities; teach people to provide legal support for their affinity groups or for specific protests; and demystify the law in general and law collective work in particular. . Law collectives have been central in the successful defense of thousands of activists from criminal prosecution in such protests including the Seattle WTO protests in November 1999; the "A16" World Bank and IMF protests in 2000; the Republican and Democratic convention protests, also in 2000; the Free Trade Area of the Americas FTAA protests in 2001 and 2004; on going protests by the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty; and in the mass protests around the US against the war in Iraq in 2003. Role of collective law in Canada:- Canadians believe that the rule of law must govern relations between states. Canadians have deemed their own security indivisible from that of their allies. These are the abiding foundations of Canada's commitment to collective security. Canadians have a strong sense of responsibility to alleviate suffering and respond, where their efforts can make a difference. Canadians have proven their worth in the past and remain equally valid in a global environment that is increasingly inter dependent. Canada cannot dispense with the maritime, land, and air combat capabilities of modern armed forces. at present, there is no immediate direct military threat to Canada and that today's conflicts are far from our shores. even so, the country must maintain a prudent level of military force to deal with challenges to our sovereignty in peacetime, and retain the capability to generate forces capable of contributing to the defense of their country when the need arise. Beyond the basic national requirement, were Canada to abandon the capability to participate effectively in the defense of North America, NATO-Europe allies, and victims of aggression elsewhere, the country would stand to lose a significant degree of respect and influence abroad. Collective Security and the Changing Face of Peacekeeping. If the country make a significant contribution to collective security, it must recognize that the nature of multilateral operations in support of peace and stability has changed considerably. Indeed, peacekeeping operations have evolved from mainly interposition and monitoring operations to undertakings that are far more ambitious and pose far more challenges and risks to our personnel. Canada's traditional goals is that the deterrence and reversal of aggression, the peaceful settlement of disputes and the relief of civilian populations should remain constant. It is the context that has changed. If the Canadian Forces are to play a role in collective security, they must remain a capable fighting force. Collective Defence:-With the transformation of the strategic environment, the role of Canada's collective defence relationships with NATO-Europe and the United States will change. It would be a mistake, however, to discount the merits of these arrangements. From a Canadian perspective, collective defence remains fundamental to our security. First, allies are countries to which the countries are bound by political values, interests, and traditions that we have an interest in upholding and fostering. Second, the practical benefits of collective defence standardized equipment and procedures, as well as the accumulated experience of joint operations - are of great value to international efforts in support of collective security. Third, were a serious military threat to Canada or its allies to emerge, Canada would, once again, seek its security in collective defence arrangements. It is, therefore, important that such arrangements be maintained in peacetime as it would be very difficult to revive them in a crisis. Organizing a Full Spectrum of Conflict. Canadians have died fighting alongside allies for common values. now to leave combat roles to others would mean abandoning this commitment to help defend commonly accepted principles of state behavior. in this commitment more than 100,000 over the last 80 years. In short, by opting for a constabulary force that is, one not designed to make a genuine contribution in combat the country would be sending a very clear message about the depth of their commitment to their allies and their values, one that would betray history and diminish their future. Beyond this, because they cannot expect their political influence in global and regional security arrangements to be significantly out of proportion to their military contributions, they must make the required investment in their armed force if they are to play any kind of role in shaping their common future. The Government has concluded that the maintenance of multi purpose, combat-capable forces is in the national interest. It is only through the maintenance of such forces that Canada will be able to retain the necessary degree of flexibility and freedom of action when it comes to the defence of its interests and the projection of its values abroad. Importantly, the maintenance of core combat capabilities forms the basis for the generation of larger forces should they ever be needed. Indeed, it is the governments view that from the perspective of promoting the countries values, protecting countries interests, insuring against uncertainty, or even providing value for money, an investment in forces capable only of constabulary operations would be very difficult to justify. Canada needs armed forces that are able to operate with the modern forces maintained by our allies and like-minded nations against a capable opponent that is able to fight "alongside the best, against the best". To maintain this general capability, we have had to make some difficult choices. We will continue to assess the relative costs and benefits of various capabilities in order to make trade-offs which, while difficult, will be essential if the Forces are to contribute to a broader range of Canadian objectives. It would be misguided to invest in very specific forces and capabilities, whether at the higher end of the scale (aircraft designed for anti-tank warfare, for example) or at the lower end (forces limited to minimal-risk peacekeeping operations). To opt for either approach would be to forego the capability and flexibility those are inherent in a multi-purpose force. In short, the maintenance of multi- purpose forces represents a pragmatic, sensible approach to defence at a time of fiscal restraint, one that will provide government with a broad range of military options at a price consistent with the government's other policy and fiscal priorities. The government's approach to defence is to maintain the Canadian Forces as a fundamental national resource which makes important contributions to a range of Canadian objectives. The policy and intelligence capabilities of the Department and the Canadian Forces will ensure that the Government has access to independent Canadian advice as the basis for sound decisions. Beyond this, our investment in the Forces' training and equipment will yield a capable fighting force whose skills can be applied not just to a number of specialized tasks, but also to a variety of domestic and international objectives. The retention of multi-purpose, Combat-capable forces represent the only prudent choice for Canada. It is only through the maintenance of the core military capabilities that define such forces that, come what may, Canada will be able to attend to its own security needs both now and in the future. Role of Collective rights in India:- The notion of collective rights resonates strongly in India. With its varied ethnic communities, religious groups, social classes and vast economic differences, India has considerable experience with the challenge of realising and protecting equal rights. Supported by a progressive Constitution, a court system that has witnessed a favorable increase in public interest litigation and an energetic civil society, India has shown signs of progress in the development of collective rights in recent decades. However, significantly more needs to be accomplished. In this arena, discrimination in society and poorly designed government policies persist. India's main weakness in upholding collective rights relates to the disparity between what is declared on paper and what occurs in practice. The Constitution in India stresses fundamental rights, asserts equality before the law, prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth, and guarantees the right to reside in any part of the territory of India. Collective rights are also specifically supported in the Constitution under Article seventeen, which abolishes untouchables, and under Article fifteen, which enables the State to make special provision for the "advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes". The provisions on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes identify certain categories of peoples collectively and provide them with institutional protections to ensure them fair representation. Article nineteen implies that indigenous peoples, peasants or other groups strongly tied to their land may remain on their land. In terms of international law, India has also ratified the principal human rights treaties which have provisions guaranteeing collective and group rights. As the provisions of the Constitution and the country's international pledges suggest India's commitment to collective rights, the result of these formal commitments is highly questionable. most jurists appear to agree that at least until the late 1970s and early 1980s, the social impact was negligible as "the poor, illiterate and oppressed had hardly heard about them, nor did they have access to the civil courts". Furthermore, although Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution empower any person to move the highest courts when there is an infringement of a fundamental right, narrow and tortuous procedures have thwarted the cause of justice. However, the institutional support for PIL has proven to be neither consistent nor sustainable. According to one legal expert, "the pace of progress of the PIL movement depends to a large extent on the attitude of the judges. There is no legal framework for this type of litigation." Additionally, the practice of permitting letters and news reports as writ petitions are still rare. Instead, the courts insist on affidavits. The fundamental purpose of PIL to improve access to justice for the disadvantaged has been undermined by the practice of hearing cases associated with prominent names while the same problems raised by unknown individuals have been rejected. Due to the progressive Constitution, developments in public interest litigation, and a robust civil society, India has significant potential for the protection of collective rights. However, there is also plenty of potential for Indian society to develop authoritarian traits as caste discrimination, communalism and the marginalization of indigenous peoples continues in many cases to be worse or unabated. Clearly, much more must be done to guarantee the rights of all groups in India. To be a strong democracy, India must uphold group rights as human rights, ensuring that all individuals enjoy equal protection before the law and equal dignity in State. Similarities and differences One India unified in its respect and protection of diverse groups is not so difficult to imagine. It will, however, take hard work by politicians and leaders in society to work for the greater good of India to make this happen. To most outsiders, India's formal legal commitments give the veneer that this has already been accomplished. In India the Government has mistakenly relied too much upon "self governance" by private sectors and in that zeal kept aside the "welfare State role". The concept of self governance may be appropriate for matters having civil consequences but a catastrophic blunder for matter pertaining to crimes, offences, contraventions and cyber crimes. Further, the Government must also draw a line between "Privatization' and "abdication of duties" as imposed by the Supreme Constitution of India. In India, although there were fifteen languages, the states did not correspond to linguistic boundaries. It made provisions to carve new states, i. e. a "holding together" federation. This is impossible in the United States: this prevented secession of some of the States. Conclusion Unlike the United States, multi-national democracies are constitutionally asymmetrical. and are mono-national. Austria, Germany, India, Belgium, Canada, Spain, and Australia are multi- national and their federations are all asymmetrical. Canada is still trying to balance its adherence to both the U.N. and NATO. Increasingly, this is becoming an impossible task as the differences between each become irreconcilable. The U.N. wants peace through peace- making techniques. Though NATO wants peace through military dominance there is also plenty of potential for Indian society to develop authoritarian traits as caste discrimination, communalism and the marginalization of indigenous peoples continue in many cases to be worse or unabated. . India has significant potential for the protection of collective rights. Bibliography:- Canadian perspectives on international law and organization; Ronald St John Mc Donald(1974) International and Comparative Employment Relations; Bamber, G and R. Lansbury (1998), 3rd edition. London sage Collective action T.Sandler (1992) Law And Revolution; H. J. Berman (1985) The Rights of Culture; W Kymlicya-Political theory, (1992). Labour law and Urban law in Canada by Bernier, Ivan, Andree Lajoie Law, Society, and Collective Consciousness V R Krishna Iyer ;(1982) The Law of Collective Agreement Charles Oscar Gregory ;(1959) The Common law in India Motilal Chimanlal Stevalvad ;(1960) Constituonal law of India H. M. Seervia; (1975). Law Politics and Judicial Process in Canada F L Mortan; (2002). Labour Policy in Canada H. D. Woods; (1973). Student protest and the law institute of continuing legal education; (1969). Law in making Carleton kemp Allen; (1939). Minorities and state at the Indian law by Syed Tahir Mahmood, Institute of objective studies Delhi, India; (1991) Indian constitution trends and issues Alice Jacob, Indian law institute Nagpur university; (1978) Common weal Herbert Fischer; (1924). These books are taken from British library India. Read More