The identity of a nation can be determined from many things, one of them through geographical indication. Geographical indication is a sign indicating the origin of an item and / or product. As part of intellectual property rights, geographical indications can also be interpreted as the identity of a nation because the determining factors of geographical indication are factors that are also the identity of a nation such as geographical environment, natural factors, human factors, or a combination of the two factor. All these factors provide a reputation and quality, as well as certain characteristics of the goods and / or products produced. Through these goods and products, the introduction of a nation is created. This paper will describe the importance of geographical indication as the identity of the nation and how intellectual property rights act as the nation’s development capital.
Like other decision-making processes in which human beings are involved, judicial decision-making is subjected to certain biases that run counter the rationality assumption. A particularly visible and far-reaching example of this phenomenon can be found in the jurisprudence of domestic constitutional courts, particularly in the context of their interaction with the CJEU and with constitutional courts of other states. With reference to the categories of biases established in behavioural science, this paper will highlight how the constitutional courts’ use of “constitutional identity” as an argumentative tool can be seen as an expression of different biases that relate to the self-understanding of the court and its role in the domestic constitutional setting as well as to their perceived position in the dialogue with other external courts.
Genetic identity often differs from the established forms of cultural identity (ethnicity, gender, class, citizenship) or family law status. Over the past two decades, however, we can observe that genetic features have become more and more important elements of personal identity. Genetic testing and genetic screening, paternity testing and forensic identification have emerged as powerful determinants of who we are and whom we can identify with. Advances in genetics have undoubtedly provided useful methods for criminal justice, but they also created new challenges for interpreting forensic research findings in a non-discriminatory way. This paper explores and discusses the current legal dilemmas of using genetic identity in place of personhood in ancestry search, reproduction policy, and in other domains of legal policies, and argues that law should keep the distinction between genetic identity and personal identity in order to avoid the trap of a mereological fallacy.
This paper presents a theory of an inclusive communitarian approach to constitutional rights that non-liberal, self-professed communitarian Singapore should adopt. Instead of prioritising the community over the individual and subjugating some identities to the collective will, the paper argues that, by adopting a pluralistic conception of 'community' as the communities that constitute our identity, a communitarian approach to rights can accommodate a myriad of identities. Rights would then protect constitutive communities from unjustified state and/or majority encroachment and promote the individual's interest in participating in these communities and living as her various identities. Due to the ethical significance of the national community, its members have an obligation to recognise and include even unpopular constitutive communities. This theory is particularly relevant to societies in Asia that seek to accommodate diverse identities within a communitarian rights-based framework
This paper builds heavily on Anchugov and Gladkov prisoner voting case – the Russian Constitutional Court’s refusal to implement a decision of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) declaring prisoner voting ban contrary to the universal suffrage since the Constitution explicitly prohibited prisoner voting. This case is a result of Russian national measures designed to strike a balance between protecting the Russian Constitution and respecting the ECtHR rulings. Russia has installed a system of constitutional brakes with regards to the ECtHR decisions – if a ruling contradicts the Constitution it is impossible to implement. The presentation will compare Russian approach to similar constitutional brakes in the UK (Chester and Pinnock cases) and Germany (Görgülü decision). Even though they share some features it will be argued that Russia went further than these systems in subverting the ECtHR’s reach by relying on all and not some fundamental national legal rules (unlike the UK) and asserting state sovereignty rather than pushing for alternative rights protections (unlike Germany). This is one of the reasons why Russia’s refusal to follow the ECtHR decisions can be construed as illegitimate together with different political and legal context. Still the paper will argue that Russia’s answer was the only possible way to resolve the conflict between national identity and international obligations and hence can be regarded as a failure of international order as a whole.
Parliaments composition expresses the national identity. The establishment of grounds for access to Parliament is a considerable mechanism for shaping this identity. Traditionally, States enjoyed great latitude in establishing these grounds. Nowadays, while some grounds amount to blatant discriminations and are no longer tolerated in our societies (race, sex and religion), others are considered not only acceptable but also foundational (age, language, nationality) to Parliaments composition and functioning. The legitimacy of other grounds, such as not being affiliated to a certain party or not being convicted for a certain crime, is instead debated. They may serve a legitimate identity goal but, at once, they clash with a large notion of passive electorate that is a pillar of free and democratic elections. The paper analyzes, in the light of the ECtHR case law, on which grounds and to what extent States may regulate the access to Parliament without annihilating the right to be voted.