In this chapter, we consider other forms of remedies which seek to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights by a public statement of those rights, including declarations and awards of nominal damages and apologies. The court may make a public statement of rights (as with declarations) or the defendant himself may be compelled to make the statement (as with apology orders). We first consider apologies, then declarations, nominal damages and contemptuous damages, and then finally other vindicatory awards available under the Australian Consumer Law.

In a tort action, if the plaintiff’s claims are successful and no relevant defences are available to the defendant, the plaintiff will be entitled to an order or award by the court for an appropriate remedy. Such judicial remedies include:

• damages

• injunctions

• declarations.

In addition, self-help remedies are available and include:

• eviction of trespassers and re-entry of land

• self-defence

• abatement

• apology.

  The focus of this chapter will be on judicial remedies, especially damages.

In this chapter, we consider other forms of remedies which seek to vindicate the plaintiff’s rights by a public statement of those rights, including declarations, awards of nominal damages and apologies. The court may make a public statement of rights (as with declarations) or the defendant himself may be compelled to make the statement (as with apology orders). Below, we first consider apologies, then declarations, nominal damages and contemptuous damages, and then finally other vindicatory awards available under the Australian Consumer Law.

Part I examines common issues in remedies including their dual compensatory and preventive goals pursued through the two-track approach. Part II discusses the legal process and dialogic methodology used throughout the book. With reference to scholarship by Edwin Borchard and Abram Chayes, Part III justifies the decision to examine remedies in both supra-national and national human rights. Part IV examines the relation between rights and remedies including remedial deterrence where judges do not find violations because of concerns about excessive remedies. Part V examines textual sources for remedies in international and select domestic human rights contexts. It concludes that while some texts such as the European Convention on Human Rights may restrict some remedies, vague admonitions for the need for effective and appropriate remedies do not assist remedial decision-making. Distinctions between strong and rule-based exercises of remedial discretion are examined in Part VI where a principled approach is defended. The ability of proportionality principles to make remedial decision-making more disciplined and transparent is discussed in Part VII. The remedial principles of respecting subsidiarity in international law and the separation of powers are examined in Part VIII with an emphasis on the flexible and dialogic nature of these principles.

This chapter examines declarations and injunctions in complex cases involving institutions that violate human rights. Part I examines American and Indian public law litigation suggesting that in many cases, courts focus only on systemic remedies whereas supra-national regional human rights courts often combine both individual and systemic remedies. Part II argues that courts can deal with complex cases in a manner consistent with the separation of powers if they provide individual remedies while being more cautious and dialogic with respect to systemic remedies. Negotiation, mediation and broad public participation can help resolve the complexities of polycentric issues. Part III argues that a new remedy called the “declaration plus” allows courts to avoid premature use of detailed injunctions enforceable through contempt while still retaining jurisdiction. A few Canadian cases and supra-national courts follow the declaration plus model. Part IV argues that the two-track approach allows courts to achieve some remedial success by ordering individual remedies while still retaining jurisdiction and engaging in the difficult project of systemic reform. Domestic courts should be more willing to retain jurisdiction, order individual remedies and re-evaluate their approach when systemic reforms fail to prevent violations.

Though protestations have been little studied as an early modern mode of resistance, in Scotland the protestation was transformed from a routine means of expressing formal dissent into an assertive mode of collective resistance. Protestations in political settings challenged royal and institutional authority with public statements of argument, highlighting the views of groups outside authorised assemblies. Extra weight could be provided by collecting the signatures of adherents, stimulating opinion at large, while the trope of Christian testimony provided a justification for the disruption of strong cultural norms for consensus. This chapter reveals the use of protestations for and against ecclesiastical and constitutional innovations in Scotland, including the creation of ‘the Protesters’ in 1650 and the making of public testimonies by hardline dissenters in the Restoration period.

This chapter has two primary purposes. The first is to address the question of whether the psychology community has a responsibility to promote and protect human rights and, if so, what this means for psychology and for psychologists in the context of an increasingly globalizing world. The second is to examine how psychological ethics can support human rights in psychology and help further the promotion of human rights for the benefit of humanity. The chapter opens with a brief history of the origins and development of psychological ethics and human rights, and the implications of these histories for their contemporary meanings. Then, using the Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the primary references, the ways in which psychological ethics and human rights complement and differ from each other are examined. The chapter ends with a series of recommendations for the integration of human rights into psychological ethics and for psychology’s involvement in the protection and promotion of human rights. The recommendations emphasize the importance of enlightened globalization, as well as the importance of psychology and the human rights movement working together to serve humanity.

There is a crucial difference between creating a treaty, expressing consent to be bound by it and bringing it into force. The focus of this chapter is on completing the process of consenting to be bound and bringing the treaty into force, once the decision to become a party has been taken and treaty officials are asked to prepare the documentation and take care of procedures. The process is examined at both the international and domestic levels. It concludes by considering the action needed immediately after entry into force, in particular publication of the treaty text and registration at the UN under Article 102 of the UN Charter.