To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This research explores the legal and jurisdictional frameworks governing the deployment of Australian WHO-classified Emergency Medical Teams (EMTs) in Asia-Pacific disaster responses, focusing on how these factors influence authorization, timeliness, scope of practice, and legal risks.
Methods
A scoping review was conducted using thematic document analysis, comparative legal analysis, and case studies anchored in specific jurisdictions. Sixty-one publicly available sources were reviewed, including legal instruments, national disaster laws, bilateral agreements, and reports from recent EMT missions.
Results
EMTs face fragmented legal environments. Host-country sovereignty primarily determines authorization, but the mechanisms for expedited licensure, customs clearance, and legal protection are often lacking. WHO classification provides no overarching legal standing during international deployments. Other barriers include immigration rules, drug regulations, and inconsistent data protection laws. Case studies highlight gaps in bilateral agreements and inconsistent credential recognition.
Conclusions
Despite improved technical standards, legal uncertainty hampers EMT effectiveness, including legal risk exposure. Countries should establish bilateral frameworks, regional licensing systems, embedded legal support, and standardized data governance. These steps are critical for ensuring timely, safe, and lawful EMT operations during international disasters.
Chapter 9 focuses on parties’ attempts to set aside or vacate an award. Courts rarely overturn an arbitral award, which is considered to be final and binding. However, parties can challenge an award on jurisdictional grounds or other grounds such as arbitrator misconduct, bias or public policy. If the award was vacated because the court held that the arbitration agreement itself was invalid, the prevailing party may be able to initiate a court action on the same issue. The chapter concludes that the reason it is not easy to vacate an arbitral award is not only because the grounds for setting aside are very narrow, but also there is a judicial resistance to second-guessing an arbitral tribunal that has rendered a final and binding award. Without substantial evidence of some flaw in the arbitral process or in the conduct of the arbitrator, it would be wise for counsel not to waste clients’ resources on challenging the arbitral award.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.