These research papers explore the concept of vulnerability in international human rights law. In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010-2011, this research focuses on how "vulnerability" has been used and developed within the wider human rights discourse. They also examine jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, and how the concept of "vulnerability" has been applied. The research also includes a brief investigation into the experiences of vulnerable populations in disaster contexts, focusing primarily on the experiences of "vulnerable persons" in the Christchurch earthquakes and their aftermath.
These research papers explore the concept of vulnerability in international human rights law. In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010-2011, this research focuses on how "vulnerability" has been used and developed within the wider human rights discourse. They also examine jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, and how the concept of "vulnerability" has been applied. The research also includes a brief investigation into the experiences of vulnerable populations in disaster contexts, focusing primarily on the experiences of "vulnerable persons" in the Christchurch earthquakes and their aftermath.
These research papers explore the concept of vulnerability in international human rights law. In the wake of the Christchurch earthquakes of 2010-2011, this research focuses on how "vulnerability" has been used and developed within the wider human rights discourse. They also examine jurisprudence of international human rights bodies, and how the concept of "vulnerability" has been applied. The research also includes a brief investigation into the experiences of vulnerable populations in disaster contexts, focusing primarily on the experiences of "vulnerable persons" in the Christchurch earthquakes and their aftermath.
In response to the February 2011 earthquake, Parliament enacted the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Act. This emergency legislation provided the executive with extreme powers that extended well beyond the initial emergency response and into the recovery phase. Although New Zealand has the Civil Defence Emergency Management Act 2002, it was unable to cope with the scale and intensity of the Canterbury earthquake sequence. Considering the well-known geological risk facing the Wellington region, this paper will consider whether a standalone “Disaster Recovery Act” should be established to separate an emergency and its response from the recovery phase. Currently, Government policy is to respond reactively to a disaster rather than proactively. In a major event, this typically involves the executive being given the ability to make rules, regulations and policy without the delay or oversight of normal legislative process. In the first part of this paper, I will canvas what a “Disaster Recovery Act” could prescribe and why there is a need to separate recovery from emergency. Secondly, I will consider the shortfalls in the current civil defence recovery framework which necessitates this kind of heavy governmental response after a disaster. In the final section, I will examine how
