The School of Law has already hosted 2 speakers, Dr Marcia Leuzinger on Tuesday 2 February and Mr Indrajit Dube on Thursday 4 February. The abstracts for their seminars are below. If you missed attending these seminars, you can watch the recordings.

Dr Marcia Leuzinger

presented

The investigation of Aboriginal co-management arrangements for protected areas

The creation in Brazil of environment protected areas (IUCN I and II categories), or ‘conservation units’ on public lands which are inhabited by traditional populations involves a serious conflict between environmental conservation and the protection of these groups’ cultural rights. This occurs because, in accordance with the SNUC Act 2000 (Law nº 9985), the permanent presence of human populations within national parks, ecological stations and biological reserves is prohibited. This causes, in the case of traditional peoples, transfer to a place which is agreed by the parties. Due to the strong sense of territoriality, the transfer of these groups to another area means, in general, the group’s disintegration and the loss of cultural heritage.
The adoption of ‘joint management’ models between government agencies and traditional groups, as used in Australia, is a possible solution to the problem. Different types of joint management, also called co-management, are used in some Australian protected areas. Each arrangement has peculiarities, and can involve either strong or weak agreements between official agencies and Aboriginal communities, in terms of the rights and interests of the Aboriginal land users. Memoranda of Understanding for Joint Management – MoU, Indigenous Land Use Agreements – ILUAs or Lease Back Agreements are three of the several types of joint management agreements in various Australian States and Territories. The implementation of joint management does however encounter difficulties, sometimes including mistrust by official conservation agencies of traditional knowledge and, consequently, of the ability of traditional peoples to manage protected areas and natural resources. When co-management is successful, it involves a trade-off between the rights of traditional communities and the interests of the official environmental agencies. Each stakeholder gives up a portion of his powers or interests in favor of finding a solution to potential conflicts over the area. Therefore, although there are problems in relation to joint management, many benefits can also be identified. Joint management, practiced in different forms, could be applied in Brazil to help solve conflicts between traditional populations living in public conservation units.

Mr Indrajit Dube

presented

Statutory Corporate Social Responsibility – Outcome of Decolonized Corporate Law

Decolonization of Company Law in India accelerated with economic transition. The present Company Act 2013 has been de-rooted largely from its colonial origin. Post Colonial Company Law 1956 [CA 2015] was largely a replica of British Law, which sustained for 56 years with 24 amendments. With the shift in country’s economic model in 1991, CA 1956 was felt to be inadequate to address the growing local needs.

Colonial Company Law Philosophy was based on Shareholder Primacy. But Government of Independent India emphasized on role of companies in societal building. So, India witnessed massive nationalization of companies with the objective that they will contribute to the economic and social growth in postcolonial period. In this process, the Government became the largest shareholder. This model was short-lived even though it proved to be successful to a certain extent.

This model was also somewhat counter-productive. It contributed to inefficacy in Model of Public Sector Undertaking, slow growth in economy, heavy balance of payment deficit and sinking balance in foreign currency. This led the Government of India to adopt a New Economic Policy.

The model of corporate business, India wanted to develop was largely based on Gandhi’s concept of trusteeship. This demanded that they manage the assets in the best possible way, take part of the profits to sustain themselves and dedicate the remaining profits for the upliftment of society. To that extent, the Corporate philosophy forwarded by CA 1956 was not in synchrony with the Gandhian philosophy of trusteeship.

Many commentators have opined that there is difference between India and Bharat. There are large underprivileged sections in India, even though a number of millionaires and billionaires feature in the Forbes list of richest people in the world.

India thought, through the development of corporate economy, it could contemporaneously uplift its social Institutions. And in doing that, corporate need to participate significantly in the process. So, after a long debate within and outside Parliament, Indian adopted Statutory Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR), where a particular class of companies needs to spend two percent of their profit in CSR of their choice.

India made a remarkable departure in its corporate philosophy from shareholder primacy to stakeholder primacy.