Cooperative Hegemony and Summitry in the Americas

As an instrument for governance, summitry is a novel structure for the management of contemporary hemispheric regionalism in the Americas. Such regionalism is a clear case of the "structuralist paradox" of international cooperation. This article attempts to explain the particular asymmetric regionalism in the Americas by using the concept of cooperative hegemony. The underlying hypothesis is that the U.S. government, since 1994, has pursued a strategy of cooperative behavior, at least in regard to power sharing, in two specific phases of hemispheric regionalism: agenda setting and institutionalization. This study tests the hypothesis through a content analysis of the main documents produced at the Miami, Santiago, and Quebec summits, then relates these findings to the progress of institutionalization from 1994 to 2003.     

Dissolving the difference between humanitarianism and development: The mixing of a rights-based solution

The conventional (but false) dichotomy between humanitarianism and development, hitherto grounded in the perceived differences between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, respectively, is not merely unhelpful in practical terms but also serves to diminish our understanding of the shared issues underlying the two discourses. There are welcome signs, however, of a growing recognition that all development and relief work is essentially rights-based, and of efforts to integrate thinking and practice under one common set of principles.     

EU Refugee Qualification Directive: a Brave New World?

This article aims to map some of the major implications forasylum–related law in Europe of the Refugee QualificationDirective, which twenty-four EU Member States were requiredto implement by 10 October 2006. It seeks to build on importantstudies of the Directive completed by, among others, Hemme Battjes,in his book European Asylum Law and International Law, Nijhoff2006, and Jane McAdam, in her book Complementary Protectionin International Refugee Law, OUP 2007, albeit it takes a differentview of some key questions. Part 2 deals with the impact of the Directive on the applicationand interpretation of the 1951 Refugee Convention and its 1967Protocol. It is argued that, even read simply as a set of provisionsgiving interpretive guidelines on the application of the RefugeeConvention, it affects many things concerned with refugee eligibility,since these provisions cover key elements of the refugee definition. Part 3 deals with the impact of the Directive on the asylum-relatedhuman rights jurisdiction that currently prevails in Europein one form or another.¹ It is argued that the effect of theDirective is and must be to render Article 3 ECHR protection– or its domestic equivalent – a largely residualcategory, save in exclusion cases. Part 4 addresses to what extent, if at all, the Directive containsmandatory provisions and how, post-implementation, these canbe integrated into the national law of Member States. It isargued that, considered in purely textual terms, the key definitionaland interpretive provisions of the Directive are mostly in mandatoryform. Further, that whilst, by virtue of being a minimum standardsdirective, the Directive allows Member States to introduce orretain more favourable standards (A3), the same article stipulatesthat such standards must be compatible with the Directive. Thatproviso is of some importance given that the Directive’spreamble (at R7) identifies as one objective the avoidance ofsecondary movements. In relation to articles of the Directivewhich specify in mandatory terms how elements of the refugeedefinition are to be applied, Member States cannot be free tointroduce or retain differing standards. Parts 5 and 6 analyse suggested differences, first, betweenthe Directive’s refugee definition and the Refugee Convention(it is argued that the only potential difference of real significanceconcerns the Directive’s rendering of the Article 1F exclusionclauses of the Refugee Convention) and, secondly, between theDirective’s subsidiary protection definition and Article3 ECHR. The extent of symmetry between the new subsidiary protectioncriteria and ECHR protection under Article 3 is explored, inparticular, arguing that, whilst there are three respects inwhich subsidiary protection criteria are narrower (relatingto personal scope; the existence of cessation and exclusionclauses; and limited application to ‘health cases’),there may be limited respects in which it may be broader inscope than Article 3 ECHR. Part 7 examines patterns of implementation in the light of earlyevidence to hand from, for example, the November 2007 UNHCRsurvey of five Member States. The UK is considered as a furtherexample, that of a member state where, despite it being seenas unnecessary to make any substantial changes, the implementingmeasures have required important changes in method of approachand in conceptual language.     

Intimate Partner Violence Reports During the COVID-19 Pandemic First Year in Portuguese Urban Areas: A Brief Report

Journal of Family Violence - The COVID-19 pandemic raised concerns about the exponential growth of intimate partner violence (IPV), both in numbers and severity. This brief report aims to describe...     

Does economic freedom cause prosperity? An IV approach

A positive, statistical and economic significant relation between growth, income level and the Economic Freedom of the World (EFW) index has been amply documented. Most analyses, however, use OLS methods which, in the presence of endogenous variables do not establish causality and produce biased and inconsistent estimates. This paper uncovers the exogenous component of EFW using IV methods and finds a robust channel from economic freedom to prosperity. The findings, including instrument validity tests, support the importance of policies and institutions for development and warrants policy advice aimed at increasing economic freedom to foster prosperity.     

Probability of exclusion in paternity testing: time to reassess

The average exclusion probability is a measure of efficiency in paternity testing; it refers to the a priori ability of a battery of tests to detect paternity inconsistencies. This parameter measures the capacity of the system to detect a false accusation of paternity. Traditionally, this average exclusion probability has been estimated as the probability of excluding a man who is not the father by an inconsistency in at least one of the studied loci. We suggest that this criterion should be corrected, as currently the presumed father is excluded when at least three genetic inconsistencies are found with the child being tested, not just one. This change of criterion has occurred because of the use of microsatellite loci, whose mutation rates are much greater than those of the coding genes used previously in paternity studies. We propose the use of the average probability of exclusion for at least three loci (not only one), as an honest measure of the combined probability of exclusion of several loci, and we propose an algebraic expression to calculate it.