ORCID Profile
0000-0002-3555-6311
Current Organisation
University of Birmingham
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 04-05-2018
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 13-08-2021
Abstract: In this article, we consider the one‐year review (OYR) by Parliament of temporary powers in the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA). The OYR stands as a key concession on the part of the UK government to enable scrutiny of Covid‐19 law making, after the CVA was rushed through Parliament at the beginning of the pandemic. The principal argument of this article is that despite appearances, this review was another ex le of Parliament being marginalised during the Covid‐19 pandemic. In particular, there were four obstacles to meaningful scrutiny in the OYR: inadequate parliamentary time scheduled for the review the ‘all‐or‐nothing’ framing of the review late and inaccurate government reporting prior to the OYR and the failure to address key issues regarding the operation of the CVA, including major human rights concerns. In light of such obstruction to scrutiny, it is clear that the review represents a broken promise on the part of the current government to Parliament. The review is also part of a broader pattern of marginalising Parliament during the pandemic. In presenting this analysis, we argue that two changes could be made in the upcoming and penultimate review of the CVA in September 2021, in order to enable Parliament to engage in meaningful scrutiny in this review.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 03-2020
Abstract: Irish legislative engagement with abortion law reform has never been framed by recognition of the rights of pregnant women, girls and other people. Rather, where it has taken place at all, it has always been foetocentric and punitive, exceptionalising abortion and conceptualising law as a means of discouraging it. In important ways, the post-repeal landscape has failed to break decisively with this orientation. While in 2018 there was certainly more discussion of women’s entitlement not to be exiled from the country in order to make decisions about reproduction, the framing that dominated legislative and government discourses of abortion law reform was one in which the ‘problem’ being addressed was such that unsafe medication, exclusion from formal medical systems, and the undeserved punishment of people who had received diagnoses of fatal foetal conditions in the course of their ‘much wanted pregnancies’ were the focus. There was little or no engagement in legislative politics with the right to choose, reproductive agency, reproductive justice or the moral standing of pregnant people as ethical decision makers when it came to their pregnancies. As a result, post-repeal abortion law reform was more about managing risk than maximising agency. I will argue that this underpins and partly explains the shortcomings of the new law: the Health (Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy) Act 2018 (‘HRTPA 2018’). Within that new legal regime, I argue, pregnant people continue to lack decisional security when it comes to their reproductive lives and are exposed to significant constitutional and dignitary harms as a result.
Publisher: SAGE Publications
Date: 03-2020
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 21-06-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S12889-022-13620-Z
Abstract: This review follows an established methodology for integrating human rights to address knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of mandatory waiting periods (MWPs) for access to abortion. MWP is a requirement imposed by law, policy, or practice, to wait a specified amount of time between requesting and receiving abortion care. Recognizing that MWPs “demean[] women as competent decision-makers”, the World Health Organization recommends against MWPs. International human rights bodies have similarly encouraged states to repeal and not to introduce MWPs, which they recognize as operating as barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive healthcare. This review of 34 studies published between 2010 and 2021, together with international human rights law, establishes the health and non-health harms of MWPs for people seeking abortion, including delayed abortion, opportunity costs, and disproportionate impact. Impacts on abortion providers include increased workloads and system costs.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 12-2007
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 09-2018
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 28-02-2022
DOI: 10.1017/EIS.2022.3
Abstract: The purpose of this introduction is to concisely present The Morality of Security: A Theory of Just Securitization so that those unfamiliar with this work are better able to engage with the symposium. The book develops a Theory of Just Securitisation outlining when securitisation is morally permissible. Securitisation, here, refers to more than a securitising speech act coupled with a legitimising audience's tacit or actual acceptance of the threat and defence framing. Arguably the question of the morality of securitisation is most pertinent when the same encompasses the use of measures and conduct that most reasonable persons would ordinarily (that is, in times when there is no relevant threat) consider unacceptable, largely because of the harm and/or the violence risked or entailed.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 19-08-2015
DOI: 10.1093/HRLR/NGV020
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 23-10-2023
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 02-2021
DOI: 10.1136/BMJGH-2020-004141
Abstract: As part of its core work, the WHO generates, translates and disseminates knowledge, including through guideline development. In recent years, substantial work has been undertaken to revise the Evidence to Decision framework in order to fully integrate inter alia human rights. This paper describes an innovative methodological approach taken by the authors to inform law and policy recommendations for the forthcoming third edition of the Safe Abortion: Technical and Policy Guidance for Health Systems. The methodology described here effectively integrates human rights protection and enjoyment as part of health outcomes and analysis, ensuring that subsequent recommendations are consistent with international human rights standards. This will allow guideline users to make informed decisions on interventions, including legal and policy reform, to fulfil relevant human rights including the right to health.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 29-10-2013
DOI: 10.1093/SLR/HMT017
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 18-04-2022
DOI: 10.1186/S12978-022-01405-X
Abstract: Many components of abortion care in early pregnancy can safely be provided on an outpatient basis by mid-level providers or by pregnant people themselves. Yet, some states impose non-evidence-based provider restrictions, understood as legal or regulatory restrictions on who may provide or manage all or some aspects of abortion care. These restrictions are inconsistent with the World Health Organization’s support for the optimization of the roles of various health workers, and do not usually reflect evidence-based determinations of who can provide abortion. As a matter of international human rights law, states should ensure that the regulation of abortion is evidence-based and proportionate, and disproportionate impacts must be remedied. Furthermore, states are obliged take steps to ensure women do not have to undergo unsafe abortion, to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to effectively protect women and girls from the physical and mental risks associated with unsafe abortion. States must revise their laws to ensure this. Where laws restrict those with the training and competence to provide from participating in abortion care, they are prima facie arbitrary and disproportionate and thus in need of reform. This review, developed by experts in reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, examined the impact of provider restrictions on people seeking abortion, and medical professionals. The evidence from this review suggests that provider restrictions have negative implications for access to quality abortion, contributing inter alia to delays and recourse to unsafe abortion. A human rights-based approach to abortion regulation would require the removal of overly restrictive provider restrictions. The review provides evidence that speaks to possible routes for regulatory reform by expanding the health workforce involved in abortion-related care, as well as expanding health workers' roles, both of which could improve timely access to first trimester surgical and medical abortion, reduce costs, save time, and reduce the need for travel.
Publisher: Project Muse
Date: 2021
Publisher: Edinburgh University Press
Date: 05-2022
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 03-2023
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 23-02-2017
DOI: 10.1017/S002058931700001X
Abstract: Non-execution of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights is a matter of serious concern. In order to address it, the reasons for and dynamics of non-execution need to be fully considered. This paper engages with non-execution by sketching the underpinning issues that help to explain it and, we argue, must shape our responses to it. Through this engagement, we conclude that non-execution is properly understood as a phenomenon that requires political rather than legal responses. This calls into question the usefulness of the infringement proceedings contained in Article 46(4) of the Convention and which it has recently been suggested ought to be embraced in attempts to address non-execution. We argue that, even if the practical difficulties of triggering Article 46(4) proceedings could somehow be overcome, the dynamics of non-execution suggest that such proceedings would be both futile and counterproductive, likely to lead to backlash against the Court and unlikely to improve States’ execution of its judgments.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 19-01-2022
Abstract: The attacks of 9/11 kickstarted the development of a pervasive and durable transnational counter-terrorism order. This has evolved into a vast institutional architecture with direct effects on domestic law around the world and a number of impacts on everyday life that are often poorly understood. States found, fund and lead institutions inside and outside the United Nations that develop and consolidate transnational counter-terrorism through hard and soft law, strategies, capacity building and counter-terrorism 'products'. These institutions and laws underpin the expansion of counter-terrorism, so that new fields of activity get drawn into it, and others are securitised through their reframing as counter-terrorism and 'preventing and countering extremism'. Drawing on insights from law, international relations, political science and security studies, this book demonstrates the international, regional, national and personal impacts of this institutional and legal order. Fiona de Londras demonstrates that it is expansionary, rights-limiting and unaccountable.
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 27-12-2016
Abstract: Under the Irish Constitution abortion is allowed only where the life of the pregnant woman is at risk. The provision in question, Article 40.3.3 (or the 8th Amendment) has long been criticised for failing to respect women's autonomy, and in Mellet v Ireland, the UN Human Rights Committee found that Amanda Jane Mellet, who travelled to Liverpool to access abortion following a finding that her foetus suffered a fatal abnormality, had suffered a violation of her rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). In this commentary I demonstrate the value of Mellet when compared to the possible legal findings in such circumstances under both the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights, and argue that the findings are not restricted to cases of fatal foetal abnormality. Rather, the Committee's decision illustrates the suffering that all women in Ireland who travel to access abortion experience, arguably constituting a violation of their right to be free from cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment. On that reading, Mellet signifies the need to implement a comprehensive rethink of Irish abortion law including, but going beyond, access to abortion in cases of fatal foetal abnormality.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 11-07-2022
Abstract: Constitutions come under pressure during emergencies and, as is increasingly clear, during pandemics. Taking the legislative and post‐legislative debates in Westminster and the Devolved Legislatures on the Coronavirus Act 2020 (CVA) as its focus, this paper explores the robustness of parliamentary accountability during the pandemic, and finds it lacking. It suggests that this is attributable not to the situation of emergency per se, but to (a) executive decisions that have limited Parliament's capacity to scrutinise (b) MPs’ failure to maximise the opportunities for scrutiny that did exist and (c) the limited nature of Legislative Consent Motions (LCMs) as a mode of holding the central government to account. While at first glance the CVA appears to confirm the view that in emergencies law empowers the executive and reduces its accountability, rendering legal constraints near‐futile, our analysis suggests that this ought to be understood as a product, to a significant extent, of constitutional actors’ mindset vis‐à‐vis accountability.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 05-10-2023
DOI: 10.1017/LST.2023.25
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 21-08-2007
DOI: 10.1093/JCSL/KRM016
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 07-03-2022
DOI: 10.1017/S002122372100025X
Abstract: In 2020 the Constitutional Tribunal of Poland held that the legislation that permitted abortion in cases of ‘fatal foetal anomaly’ was an unconstitutional interference with the right to life of the foetus. This article examines the recent decision, which prohibits abortion on the grounds of foetal anomaly, arguing that this decision is part of a broader scheme of Polish and transnational anti-abortion lawfare. This lawfare seeks both to (re)shape Polish law in an anti-abortion mould, and to take advantage of ‘gaps’ in European and international human rights law standards on abortion in order to claim rights compliance for law and policy that, in reality, restricts access to abortion in a manner that is incompatible with international human rights law.
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 22-02-2011
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-2010
Publisher: Bentham Science Publishers Ltd.
Date: 28-02-2023
DOI: 10.2174/0929867330666230228120416
Abstract: Molecules containing triazolopyrimidine core showed erse biological activities, including anti-Alzheimer, antidiabetes, anticancer, antimicrobial, antituberculosis, antiviral, antimalarial, anti-inflammatory, anti-parkinsonism activities, and treatment of glaucoma. Triazolopyrimidines have around 8 isomeric structures including the most stable 1,2,4-triazolo[1,5-a] pyrimidine ones. Triazolopyrimidines were obtained by using various chemical reactions, among them a) 1,2,4-triazole nucleus annulation to pyrimidine, b) pyrimidines annulation to 1,2,4-triazole structure, c) 1,2,4-triazolo[l,5-a] pyrimidines rearrangement, and d) pyrimido-tetrazine rearrangement. This review discusses synthetic methods, recent pharmacological actions and drug delivery perspectives of triazolopyrimidines.
Publisher: Routledge
Date: 17-02-2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press (OUP)
Date: 04-2021
DOI: 10.1093/ICON/MOAB047
Abstract: Proportionality is a key principle of EU law. However, in spite of procedural requirements intended to ensure the full integration of proportionality as a design principle in EU law, the European Union continues to pass disproportionate counterterrorism laws. If proportionality is a fundamental constitutional principle of the European Union, and if lawmaking processes at EU level have been designed expressly with this in mind, then why do the EU’s counterterrorism laws consistently raise issues of disproportionate interference with rights? Taking as a case study the passage of the EU Directive on Combating Terrorism, this article argues that at least part of the answer lies in the curtailment and adjustment, in the counterterrorism field, of lawmaking processes that are designed to be participatory, evidence-based, and informed by proportionality.
Publisher: BMJ
Date: 12-2022
DOI: 10.1136/BMJGH-2022-010409
Abstract: Abortion is criminalised to at least some degree in most countries. International human rights bodies have recognised that criminalisation results in the provision of poor-quality healthcare goods and services, is associated with lack of registration and unavailability of essential medicines including mifepristone and misoprostol, obstructs the provision of abortion information, obstructs training for abortion provision, is associated with delayed and unsafe abortion, and does not achieve its apparent aims of ether protecting abortion seekers from unsafe abortion or preventing abortion. Human rights bodies recommend decriminalisation, which is generally associated with reduced stigma, improved quality of care, and improved access to safe abortion. Drawing on insights from reproductive health, law, policy, and human rights, this review addresses knowledge gaps related to the health and non-health outcomes of criminalisation of abortion. This review identified evidence of the impacts of criminalisation of people seeking to access abortion and on abortion providers and considered whether, and if so how, this demonstrates the incompatibility of criminalisation with substantive requirements of international human rights law. Our analysis shows that criminalisation is associated with negative implications for health outcomes, health systems, and human rights enjoyment. It provides a further underpinning from empirical evidence of the harms of criminalisation that have already been identified by human rights bodies. It also provides additional evidence to support the WHO’s recommendation for full decriminalisation of abortion.
Publisher: Brill
Date: 17-12-2018
DOI: 10.3224/ERIS.V5I3.06
Abstract: Since 2001 a transnational counter-terrorism space has emerged that is vast in its scale and ambition and which can be discerned at both ‘universal’ (i.e. United Nations) and regional (e.g. European Union) levels, as well as in other formal and informal international organisations (for ex le the G7 and the Global Counter-Terrorism Forum). This article explores the question of politicisation within that transnational counter-terrorism space, and the potential for meaningful politicisation in respect of initiatives and measures emanating from transnational processes. Taking the ex le of ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ it argues that a shift in arena to the transnational counter-terrorism space has fundamentally challenged the capacity for effective and meaningful politicisation that the transnational counter-terrorism space can be depoliticised by design, that where this happens the domestic counter-terrorism space is depoliticised by implication, and that the legal benefits of politicisation may thus be lost to the detriment of rights, legality and accountability.
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Location: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
No related grants have been discovered for Fiona de Londras.