Search

This paper deliberates on the nature of justice in Indigenous engagement with settler-colonial legality. I use the case law-based evidence from the three jurisdictions, Australia, Brazil, and Canada, to reflect on the abstract and material representations of Indigenous environmental justice in contemporary settler-colonial societies. There are two elements at play here. While some of the constituent elements of 'Indigenous environmental justice' may remain undefined in the legal system, they function as an invitation to the courts for interpreting them widely. How far has this been used, and in what manner speaks to the nature of juridical engagement with indigeneity? Second, the need for certainty and procedural integrity within the legal interpretation often belies the assumption of neutrality. This is pronounced when political and historical questions are antecedents to the legal questions to be determined by a court. Settler colonial nations illustrate this contradiction by laying bare the past and present historical injustices that accompany Indigenous rights and sovereignty. To think about 'justice' in these cases requires principle-led juridical innovations. I argue that courts are yet to recognize their key role in identifying and remedying the violence scripted by the law on Indigenous people. While it may be a difficult and complex task to develop a radical jurisprudence without violating the separation of power, courts continue to be the final altars of justice with a wide range of creative and untapped powers. The responsibility to articulate Indigenous environmental justice as a legal principle in the Anthropocene1 calls for deploying those powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient safety in primary care is an emerging field of research with a growing evidence base in western countries but little has been explored in the Gulf Cooperation Council Countries (GCC) including the Sultanate of Oman. This study aimed to review the literature on the safety culture and patient safety measures used globally to inform the development of safety culture among health care workers in primary care with a particular focus on the Middle East. Methods: A systematic review of the literature. Searches were undertaken using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL and Scopus from the year 2000 to 2014. Terms defining safety culture were combined with terms identifying patient safety and primary care. Results: The database searches identified 3072 papers that were screened for inclusion in the review. After the screening and verification, data were extracted from 28 papers that described safety culture in primary care. The global distribution of the articles is as follows: the Netherlands (7), the United States (5), Germany (4), the United Kingdom (1), Australia, Canada and Brazil (two for each country), and with one each from Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. The characteristics of the included studies were grouped under the following themes: safety culture in primary care, incident reporting, safety climate and adverse events. The most common theme from 2011 onwards was the assessment of safety culture in primary care (13 studies, 46%). The most commonly used safety culture assessment tool is the Hospital survey on patient safety culture (HSOPSC) which has been used in developing countries in the Middle East. Conclusions: This systematic review reveals that the most important first step is the assessment of safety culture in primary care which will provide a basic understanding to safety-related perceptions of health care providers. The HSOPSC has been commonly used in Kuwait, Turkey, and Iran. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]