The Dynamics of Basic Constitutional Rights in Selected Jurisdictions

  • Pin Lean Lau


This final chapter delves into the dynamics of basic constitutional human rights in the selected jurisdictions by studying the key approaches taken by each of the jurisdictions in generally dealing with human rights matters. In examining the potential regulation of future pre-implantation genetic interventions in the jurisdictions (which should take into account human rights components such as the right to life, the right to privacy (autonomy) and the right to equality and non-discrimination), the chapter introduces the concept of ‘entry points of regulatory approaches’. These entry points of regulation are symbolic of concerns regarding various branches of biomedical technologies. In the chapter, I identify two spectrums of these entry points: firstly, the practical, positivistic and private law aspects; and secondly, the philosophical human rights aspects. I posit that these classifications point to the main prevailing and concerning issues that would prompt a state to regulate those technologies. Using these entry points of regulation as lenses of comparisons allows us to navigate the role of fundamental rights in the selected jurisdictions by determining how these jurisdictions prioritize the human rights components that would be relevant in pre-implantation genetic interventions.


  1. Abdulaziz, Cabales and Balkandali v The United Kingdom (1985) European Court of Human Rights Application no. 9214/80; 9473/81; 9474/81, HUDOCGoogle Scholar
  2. Age Discrimination Act 1992Google Scholar
  3. Agence France-Presse (20 February 2018) Malaysian Artist Jailed for Clown Face Caricature of PM Najib Razak That Went Viral. South China Morning Post.
  4. Agence France-Presse, Bangkok (9 June 2017) Man Jailed for 35 Years in Thailand for Insulting Monarchy on Facebook. The Guardian.
  5. Alexy R (2010) A theory of constitutional rights. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Aroney N (2009) The constitution of a federal commonwealth: the making and meaning of the Australian Constitution. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. (21 September 2005) Malaysia Malay converts to Christianity.
  8. Association CG Press (24 October 2017) Northern Ireland abortion law “Inhuman and Degrading”, Supreme Court Told, The Irish News.
  9. Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN Human Rights Declaration and the Phnom Penh Statement On The Adoption of the ASEAN Human Rights Declaration (AHRD).
  10. Australia and Australian Government Solicitor (2016) Australia’s constitution: with overview and notes by the Australian Government Solicitor Google Scholar
  11. Australian Associated Press (20 February 2015) Thailand Bans commercial surrogacy, The Guardian.
  12. Australian Broadcasting Corporation v Lenah Game Meats Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 63Google Scholar
  13. Australian Human Rights Commission ‘Right to Life’.
  14. Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986Google Scholar
  15. Australian Trade and Investment Commission, Biotechnology A Powerhouse for Science and Innovation.
  16. Bahadur G (2001) The Human Rights Act (1998) and its impact on reproductive issues. Hum Reprod 16:785CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Baharuddin SAB (2008) 7 Competing domains of control: Islam and Human Rights in Malaysia. Islam and Human Rights in Practice: Perspectives Across the Ummah 8:108Google Scholar
  18. Banyard K (2010) The equality illusion: the truth about men and women today. Faber and Faber, London, pp 181–182Google Scholar
  19. Barak A (2015) Human dignity: the constitutional value and the constitutional right. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Bari AA, Shuaib FS (2009) Constitution of Malaysia: text and commentary. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  21. Barlow K (6 July 2017) Federal government accused of undermining reproductive rights. Huffington Post.
  22. BBC News (11 September 2002) IVF Wrangle Cases Go to Court.
  23. BBC News (24 June 2011) Profile: Thaksin Shinawatra.
  24. BBC News (14 November 2012) Abortion “Would Have Saved Wife.
  25. BBC News (6 September 2018a) Historic India Ruling Legalises Gay Sex.
  26. BBC News (27 November 2018b) Terminally ill Noel Conway loses Supreme Court Appeal.
  27. Beaney WM (1966) The right to privacy and American Law. Law Contemp Probl 31:253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Bennett B (12 July 2018) How Brett Kavanaugh Could Change the Supreme Court—and America. Time.
  29. Bogdanor V (2009) The new British Constitution. Hart, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  30. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582Google Scholar
  31. Book of Genesis of the Bible, Chapter 18 & 19, Sodom & GomorrahGoogle Scholar
  32. Bowcott O (7 June 2018) Northern Ireland Abortion Law Clashes with Human Rights, Judges Say. The Guardian.
  33. Bowers v Hardwick [1986] Supreme Court 478 U.S. 186Google Scholar
  34. Breavington v Godleman (1988) 169 CLR 41Google Scholar
  35. Bull and another v Hall and another (2013) UKSC 73Google Scholar
  36. Bulman M (24 October 2017) Supreme Court to Scrutinise Northern Ireland’s “degrading and Humiliating” Abortion Laws. The Independent.
  37. Busby M (2 July 2018) Marriage of 11-Year-Old Girl to a 41-Year-Old Man Provokes Backlash in Malaysia. The Independent.
  38. Byrne L (3 January 2019) Concerns as Irish Abortion Services Start. BBC News.
  39. Campbell v MGN Ltd. [2004] UKHL 22Google Scholar
  40. Canal G (7 March 2017) Everything You Need to Know About the Anti-Vaxxer Movement. Global Citizen.
  41. Case of A, B and C v Ireland [2010] Grand Chamber 25579/05Google Scholar
  42. Center for Ethics and Law in Biomedicine (19 January 2016) Anniversary Bioethics Debate on Gene Editing.
  43. Center for Reproductive Rights (Asia) (20 February 2014) Malaysia.
  44. Centre for Health, Law and Emerging Technologies (HeLEX) — Nuffield Department of Population Health.
  45. Chambers P, Waitoolkiat N (2016) The resilience of Monarchised Military in Thailand. J Contemp Asia 46:425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Christine Goodwin v the United Kingdom (Application No. 28957/95)Google Scholar
  47. Clark AI (1905) Studies in Australian constitutional law. CF Maxwell, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  48. Coco v AN Clark (Engineers) Ltd. [1969] RPC 41Google Scholar
  49. Cody A, Nawaz M (9 November 2017) UN Slams Australia’s Human Rights Record. The Conversation.
  50. Coke E (1628) The first part of the institutes of the Lawes of England. Or, a commentarie upon Littleton, not the name of a lawyer onely, but of the law it selfe. Societe of Stationers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  51. Coke E (1642) The second part of the institutes of the lawes of England. Containing the exposition of many ancient, and other statutes; Whereof you may see the particulars in a table following. Miles Fletcher and Robert Young for Ephraim DawsonGoogle Scholar
  52. Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act (The Constitution).
  53. Cook R, Dickens BM (2003) Human rights dynamics of abortion law reform. Hum Rights Q 25(1):2–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Crimes Amendment (Zoe’s Law) Bill 2017Google Scholar
  55. Cunningham M (16 February 2017) Well Done! Australia Adds More Funds for Sexual and Reproductive Health Program. Global Citizen.
  56. Dahlan R, Faudzi FS (9 March 2016) The Syariah Court: Its Position Under The Malaysian Legal System. Mondaq.
  57. Daniels CR et al (2016) Informed or misinformed consent? Abortion policy in the United States. J Health Politics Policy Law 41:181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Dasgupta S (15 February 2018) A New “ASEAN Way”: finding a regional solution for human rights violations in Rakhine State. The Kenan Institute for Ethics at Duke University.
  59. Davidson D (27 February 2018) Muslims Guard Bishop Heckled by Zealous Youths at Kuching Court Complex. The Malaysian Insight.
  60. Dean R (2007) Erosion of access to abortion in the United States: lessons for Australia. Deakin Law Rev 12:123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Dearden L (18 January 2018) Noel Conway: terminally ill man wins right to challenge court ruling preventing “dignified Death”. The Independent.
  62. Department of Health UK, Health and Safety Executive, ‘Biological Agents: Managing the Risks in Laboratories and Healthcare Premises’ 82Google Scholar
  63. Dickenson D (2007) Property in the body: feminist perspectives. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Dickson v United Kingdom, Application No. 44362/04Google Scholar
  65. Disability Discrimination Act 1992Google Scholar
  66. Dodson M (1993) Social justice for indigenous peoples, 3rd edn. Aboriginal Research Institute Publications, UnderdaleGoogle Scholar
  67. Douglas v Hello! Ltd. [2005] EWCA Civ 595Google Scholar
  68. Dyson F (1997) Can science be ethical? N Y Rev Books 44:46Google Scholar
  69. Equality Act 2010 (merging the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, the Race Relations Act 1976, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003, the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006, the Equality Act 2006 Part 2, and the Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007)Google Scholar
  70. Evans v United Kingdom, Application No. 6339/05Google Scholar
  71. Farokhmanesh M (12 December 2016) How a Trump administration threatens women’s health. The Verge.
  72. Federal Constitution of Malaysia (Federal Constitution) 1957Google Scholar
  73. FPA, The Family Planning Association, A Sexual Health Charity, Abortion Law, England, Scotland and Wales.
  74. Fredman S et al (2015) The potential challenges to equality law in the UK. Oxford Human Rights Hub.
  75. Gardbaum S (2008) Human rights as international constitutional rights. Eur J Int Law 19:749CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Gauri V, Gloppen S (2012) Human rights-based approaches to development: concepts, evidence, and policy. Polity 44:485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Gender Recognition Act 2004Google Scholar
  78. Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza [2004] UKHL 30Google Scholar
  79. Gomez J (3 July 2017) One Year Later, Duterte Remains a Human Rights Nightmare. The Diplomat.
  80. Goold I et al (2014) The human body as property? Possession, control and commodification. J Med Ethics 40:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Goslinga-Roy GM (2000) Body boundaries, fiction of the female self: an ethnographic perspective on power, feminism, and the reproductive technologies. Fem Stud 26:113CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Gotsis T, Ismay L. Abortion Law: A National Perspective, Briefing Paper No. 2/2017. NSW Parliamentary Research Service.
  83. Graham M et al (2016) Women’s reproductive choices in Australia: mapping federal and state/territory policy instruments governing choice. Gend Issues 33:335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Grant v HM Land Registry and Another [2011] EWCA Civ 769Google Scholar
  85. Grant v the United Kingdom (32570/03)Google Scholar
  86. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) (Justia Law)
  87. Grugel J, Piper N (2009) Do rights promote development? Global Soc Policy Interdisciplinary J Public Policy Soc Dev 9:79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Harding A, Leyland P (2011) The constitutional system of Thailand: a contextual analysis. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  89. Hassan S, Lopez C (2005) Human rights in Malaysia: globalization, national governance and local responses. In: Wah FLK, Ojendal J (eds) Southeast Asian responses to globalization: restructuring governance and deepening democracy. Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  90. Hewison K (2014) Considerations on inequality and politics in Thailand. Democratization 21:846CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Heydarian RJ (11 May 2018) A peaceful revolution in Malaysia. Al Jazeera.
  92. Hickling RH (1972) The legal system of Thailand. Hong Kong Law J 2:8Google Scholar
  93. Hill G (2005) Resolving a true conflict between state laws: a minimalist approach. Melb Univ Law Rev 29:39Google Scholar
  94. Hive Legal, Australia’s Life Science Sector – Snapshot, Trends and Our Work.
  95. Holmes O (29 October 2016) Thailand’s Crackdown on “Insults” to the Monarchy Spreads Abroad. The Guardian.
  96. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia (Amendment) Act 2009 (Act A1353)Google Scholar
  97. Human Rights Commission of Malaysia Act 1999 (Act A597)Google Scholar
  98. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2016: ‘Thailand’.
  99. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Australia.
  100. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Malaysia.
  101. Human Rights Watch, World Report 2018: Rights Trends in Thailand.
  102. Humanists UK (3 February 2013) Abortion and Sexual and Reproductive Rights.
  103. Humanists UK (9 October 2017) Humanists UK to Intervene in Northern Ireland Abortion Supreme Court Case.
  104. International Women’s Development Agency (IWDA) (26 April 2015) Reproductive Rights, Abortion & Zoe’s Law: why freedom of choice is still feminism’s biggest fight.
  105. Jabour B (10 November 2015) UN examines Australia’s forced sterilisation of women with disabilities. The Guardian.
  106. John Pfeiffer Pty Ltd v Rogerson (2000) 203 CLR 503Google Scholar
  107. Jomo KS (2004) The new economic policy and interethnic relations in Malaysia. UNRISD, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  108. Kaye J et al (2015) Dynamic consent: a patient interface for twenty-first century research networks. Eur J Hum Genet 23:141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Kelly J (8 April 2016) Why are Northern Ireland’s abortion laws different? BBC News.
  110. Kerr K (2014) Queensland abortion laws: criminalising one in three women. QUT Law Rev 14:24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Kirk J (2003) Conflicts and choice of law within the Australian Constitutional Context. Federal Law Rev 31:247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Lando H (2017) Alf Ross and the functional analysis of law. SSRN Electronical J 17Google Scholar
  113. Lawrence v Texas [2003] Supreme Court 539 U.S. 558Google Scholar
  114. Lee HP (2004) Competing conceptions of rule of law in Malaysia. In: Asian discourses of rule of law: theories and implementation of rule of law in twelve Asian countries, France and the U.S. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  115. Lee HP (2010) A Federal Human Rights Act and the reshaping of Australian Constitutional Law. UNSW Law J 33(1):88Google Scholar
  116. Lee H-A (2016) Affirmative action regime formation in Malaysia and South Africa. J Asian Afr Stud 51:511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Levett C (13 January 2007) Toothless Tiger ASEAN hopes to replace polite silence with a roar. Sydney Morning Herald.
  118. Lewis v HSBC Bank plc UKEAT/0364/06/RN and UKEAT/0412/06/RNGoogle Scholar
  119. Lipohar v The Queen (1999) 200 CLR 485Google Scholar
  120. Mahalatchimy A et al (2012) The legal landscape for advanced therapies: material and institutional implementation of European Union Rules in France and the United Kingdom. J Law Soc 39:131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Mahlmann M (2012) Human dignity and autonomy in modern constitutional orders. In: Rosenfeld M, Sajo A (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative constitutional law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  122. Maier KE (1989) Pregnant women: fetal containers or people with rights? Affilia 4:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Malm S (19 February 2018) Malaysian Rapper Probed over Lunar New Year Dog Video. Mail Online.
  124. Marshall J, Transport of biological materials. University of Edinburgh, p 51Google Scholar
  125. McDonald H (23 October 2017) Supreme Court to hear challenge to Northern Ireland Abortion Law. The Guardian,
  126. McDonald H, Graham-Harrison E, Baker S (26 May 2018) Ireland votes by landslide to legalise abortion. The Guardian.
  127. Michaels R (2006) The functional method of comparative law. In: Reimann M, Zimmermann R (eds) The Oxford handbook of comparative law. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  128. Minari J et al (2014) The emerging need for family-centric initiatives for obtaining consent in personal genome research. Genome Med 6:118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  129. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11Google Scholar
  130. Morningstar News (23 February 2018) Highest Court in Malaysia to hear appeal of Christian Converts from Islam.
  131. Mulvenna B (2004) Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, tissue typing and beyond: the legal implications of the Hashmi Case. Med Law Int 6:163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  132. Muntarbhorn V (2005) Rule of law and aspects of human rights in Thailand- from conceptualization to implementation? In: Peerenboom R (ed) Asian discourses of rule of law. Routledge, AbingdonGoogle Scholar
  133. Murphy T (2013) Health and human rights. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  134. Nazlina M (14 January 2016) Prosecution wraps up case in Azmi Sharom Sedition Trial. The Star.
  135. Newland K (July 2015, Issue No. 13) Irregular Maritime migration in the Bay of Bengal: the challenges of protection, management and cooperation. International Organization for Migration, Migration Policy Institute.
  136. Nianias H (2 November 2015) It’s 2015 and British women’s right to safe abortions is still uncertain. The Debrief.
  137. Nolan MA (2012) The constitutional system of Thailand: a contextual analysis. Aust J Asian Law 13:1Google Scholar
  138. Nozick R (1974) Anarchy, State, and Utopia. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  139. Nyamu-Musembi C, Cornwell A (2004) What is the ‘right-based approach’ all about?: Perspectives from international development agencies. Institute of Development Studies, BrightonGoogle Scholar
  140. O’Cinneide C (14 September 2011) Equality: a constitutional principle? (UK Constitutional Law Association)
  141. O’Cinneide C (2012) The human rights act and the slow transformation of the UK’s political constitution. Annales U. Sci. Budapestinensis Rolando Eotvos Nominatae 53:239Google Scholar
  142. O’Connor A (28 October 2017) How the death of Savita Halappanavar changed the abortion debate. The Irish Examiner.
  143. Obergefell v Hodges [2015] Supreme Court 14–556Google Scholar
  144. Panaspornprasit C (2017) Thailand: the historical and indefinite transitions. Southeast Asian Aff:351Google Scholar
  145. Parry v the United Kingdom (Application No. 42971/05)Google Scholar
  146. Parsa-Parsi RW (2017) The revised declaration of Geneva: a modern-day physician’s pledge. J Am Med Assoc 318:1971CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  147. Penal Code 1936 (Act 574) 314Google Scholar
  148. Pennings G (2004) Saviour siblings: using preimplantation genetic diagnosis for tissue typing. Int Congr Ser 1266:311CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  149. Peters PG (2004) How safe is safe enough? Obligations to the children of reproductive technology. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  150. Petersen K (2014) Decriminalizing abortion- the Australian experience. In: Rowlands S (ed) Abortion care. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  151. Pitkin H (1981) Justice: on relating public and private. Polit Theory 9:327–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992) (Justia Law)
  153. Pretty v the United Kingdom [2002] European Court of Human Rights 2346/02Google Scholar
  154. Public Prosecutor v Azmi Bin Sharom (Criminal Ref. No. 06-5-12/2014(W)) (6 October 2015).
  155. R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority [2005] UKHL 28Google Scholar
  156. R and F v the United Kingdom (Application No. 35748/05)Google Scholar
  157. R v Brennan and Leach [2010] QDC 329Google Scholar
  158. R v Sood [2006] NSWSC 1141Google Scholar
  159. Racial Discrimination Act 1975Google Scholar
  160. Rath J (2018) Safety and security risks of CRISPR/Cas9. In: Schroeder D et al (eds) Ethics dumping. Springer International Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  161. Reiss MJ, Straughan R (1996) Improving nature? The science and ethics of genetic engineering. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  162. Richardson M (2002) Whither breach of confidence: a right of privacy for Australia. Melb Univ Law Rev 26:381Google Scholar
  163. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973) (Justia Law)
  164. Romanow L (2012) The women of Thailand. Glob Majority E-J 3:44Google Scholar
  165. Rothstein A (Winter 2015, Number 44) Vaccines and their critics, then and now. The New Atlantis.
  166. Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security [1981] AC 800Google Scholar
  167. Saliba I (June 2011) What Is Sharia Law? | Law Library of Congress.
  168. Saltman Engineering Co. Ltd. V Campbell Engineering Co. [1984] 65 RPC 203Google Scholar
  169. Sándor J (2015) The ethical and legal analysis of embryo preimplantation testing policies in Europe. In: Sills ES (ed) Screening the single euploid embryo. Springer International Publishing, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  170. Sex Discrimination Act 1984Google Scholar
  171. Shear MD (28 June 2018) Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy Will Retire. The New York Times.
  172. Sheffield and Horsham v the United Kingdom (Application No: 31-32/1997/815-816/1018-1019) andGoogle Scholar
  173. Sheldon S (2004) Hashmi and Whitaker: an unjustifiable and misguided distinction? Med Law Rev 12:137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  174. Shuaib FS (2012) The Islamic legal system in Malaysia. Pacific Rim Law Policy J 21:85Google Scholar
  175. Sifris R, Belton S (2 June 2017) Australia: abortion and human rights. Health and Human Rights Journal.
  176. Simson RS (2014) What does the right to life really entail-a framework for depolarizing the abortion debate. Connecticut Public Int Law J 14:107Google Scholar
  177. Skinner v. Oklahoma Ex Rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535 (1942) (Justia Law)
  178. Spriggs M, Savulescu J (2002) Saviour siblings. J Med Ethics 28:289CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  179. Stanton-Ife J (2000) Should equality be a constitutional principle? King’s Law J 11:133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  180. Stasi A (2015) Maternal surrogacy and reproductive tourism in Thailand: a call for legal enforcement. Ubon Ratchathani Law 8:17–36Google Scholar
  181. Stone GR et al (2013) Constitutional law, 7th edn. Wolters & Kluwer, Alphen aan den RijnGoogle Scholar
  182. Taywaditep KJ, Coleman E, Dumronggitigule P. The International Encyclopedia of Sexuality: Thailand.
  183. Teare HJA et al (2017) The RUDY study: using digital technologies to enable a research partnership. Eur J Hum Genet 25:816. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  184. Thailand Penal Code, Thailand Criminal Law (Unofficial English Translation)
  185. Thananithichot S, Satidporn W (2016) Political dynasties in Thailand: the recent picture after the 2011 general election. Asian Stud Rev 40:340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  186. The Economist (22 September 2016) Taking the rap - religious freedom in Malaysia.
  187. The Straits Times (18 May 2018) “Cash Is King”: The Fall of Malaysia’s First Couple.
  188. Thepgumpanat P, Tanakasempipat P (21 May 2017) Three years after Coup, Junta is deeply embedded in Thai Life. Reuters.
  189. Thomson M (2003) Confidence, privacy and damages: Hello! To Clarity. New Law JournalGoogle Scholar
  190. Torii T (1997) The new economic policy and the United Malays National Organization- with special reference to the restructuring of Malaysian Society. Dev Econ XXXV(3):209–239CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  191. Tsaknis L (1993) The jurisdictional basis, elements and remedies in the action for breach of confidence- uncertainty abounds. Bond Law Rev 5:18Google Scholar
  192. Umeda S (6 April 2015) Thailand: New Surrogacy Law | Global Legal Monitor.
  193. UNESCO (2006) The universal declaration on bioethics and human rights.
  194. United Nations (1979) Convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women.
  195. United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner, Human Rights, Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights.
  196. VAWnet, National Resource Centre on Domestic Violence, Reproductive justice, reproductive health and reproductive rights: a framework.
  197. Vo v France (Application No. 53924/00)Google Scholar
  198. Watson M (29 December 2013) Battle of life and death never ends for anti-abortion campaigners. The Age.
  199. Watts J (15 October 2017) UK Government Watchdog Pushes for New British “right to Equality” to Stop Brexit Leading to More Discrimination. The Independent.
  200. West R (1988) Jurisprudence and gender. Univ Chic Law Rev 55:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  201. Whitman JQ (2003) The two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113:1151. 73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  202. Whittaker A (2002a) The struggle for abortion law reform in Thailand. Reprod Health Matters 10:45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  203. Whittaker A (2002b) “The Truth of Our Day by Day Lives”: abortion decision making in rural Thailand. Cult Health Sex 4:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  204. Whittaker A, Speier A (2010) “Cycling Overseas”: care, commodification, and stratification in cross-border reproductive travel. Med Anthropol 29:363CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  205. Wiesenthal DL, Wiener NI (1999) Ethical questions in the age of the new eugenics. Sci Eng Ethics 5:383CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  206. Women’s Agenda (16 August 2017) Reproductive freedom is unfinished business in Australia: Tanya Plibersek.
  207. Women’s Electoral Lobby, Reproductive Rights (Women’s Electoral Lobby)
  208. Workplace Gender Equality Act 2012Google Scholar
  209. World Bank Global Knowledge and Research Hub (December 2017) Malaysia economic monitor: turmoil to transformation 20 years after the Asian Financial Crisis.
  210. Wright T (12 September 2016) 1MDB Scandal Around Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Puts Spotlight on Wife. Wall Street Journal.
  211. X, Y and Z v The United Kingdom (1997) Grand Chamber, European Court of Human Rights Application No. 21830/93, HUDOCGoogle Scholar
  212. Yatim R (1995) Freedom under executive power in Malaysia: a study of executive supremacy. Endowment Publications, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  213. Zubedy A (21 June 2012) NEP: the good and the bad. Malaysia Today.
  214. Zurairi AR (4 July 2018) Kelantan Deputy MB: child marriage “Common”, LGBT a Bigger Issue. Malay Mail.

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pin Lean Lau
    • 1
  1. 1.Central European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations