Technical Cooperation and the International Coordination of Patentability of Biotechnological Inventions

Within the formal international framework, the coordination and harmonization of substantive patentability is currently of a limited nature, confined to the level of general principles, in contrast to the greater degree of procedural coordination. This involves increased costs and a lack of legal certainty for those seeking patents in multiple jurisdictions, mainly transnational corporations in some research-based industries such as pharmaceuticals. The problems encountered in achieving even a basic level of international consensus have encouraged informal cooperation through what could be conceptualized as 'global patent networks'. Furthermore, the interrelationship between procedural and substantive patent law issues has led the Trilateral Patent Offices, an informal, transgovernmental regulatory network of technical specialists, to undertake projects relating to the harmonization of procedural and substantive patent law issues primarily in contentious areas of patentability such as biotechnology. This raises the possibility of developing convergent interpretations of the patentability rules, although with implications for accountability and legitimacy.     

My Experiences of the Region during the Last Century - with Particular Reference to Sino-British Relations

The author describes his early diplomatic experiences as a Chinese language student during the Cultural Revolution, followed by his first posting to Peking. Hong Kong was then a major issue between China and Britain. He examines the tensions and difficulties of those years and the first signs of better days ahead. He details his involvement in the upgrading of diplomatic relations, and the first ministerial exchanges. His final overseas posting was to Hong Kong, first to head the Trade Commission, and then, importantly, to manage the final four years of detailed negotiations with China over the handover.     

Doing,Allowing, and the State

The doing/allowing distinction plays an important role in our thinking about a number of legal issues, such as the need for criminal process protections, prohibitions on torture, the permissibility of the death penalty and so on. These are areas where, at least initially, there seem to be distinctions between harms that the state inflicts and harms that it merely allows. In this paper I will argue for the importance of the doing/allowing distinction as applied to state action. Sunstein, Holmes, Vermeule and others have presented influential arguments for the claim that where the state is concerned the doing/allowing distinction has no moral significance, even if it does elsewhere. I show that these arguments can be resisted. In doing so, I defend some important distinctions and principles that help us understand the state’s role in protecting people from harm.     

A Cross-cultural Validation of the Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (BCAP)

The aim of this study was to provide preliminary findings on the cross-cultural validation and reliability of the Brief Child Abuse Potential Inventory (BCAP) developed by Ondersma et al. (Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 2005). A community sample of 324 parents was recruited through schools from a range of socioeconomic areas in a large UK city. The BCAP appears to be a reliable instrument that is easy to use and shows promise as a brief screening tool for parental child abuse potential within the UK. Modifications are suggested to the validity scales and the conceptual structure based on this sample, however, detailed testing of the utility of this scale for clinical practice outside the US should be pursued.     

Local Governance and Redistributive Policy: Explaining Local Funding for Public Defense

In many American states, public defense is provided at the county rather than state level (Langton & Farole 2009 ). Local governments have discretion over implementing and funding the right to counsel, resulting in considerable variability in programs and funding levels. Placing this issue in the theoretical context of redistributive policies and politics, we investigate decisions on funding this service across upstate New York counties. Using as a point of departure Paul Peterson's classic explication of community politics, we first model variation in funding as a function of counties' fiscal capacity, need for services, and costs of supplying legal representation. We also test Peterson's prediction that local political factors will play little if any role in budget decisions. Second, through interviews with program administrators we explore the characters of twelve defender programs in which expenditures departed from the model's predictions. We find that three factors—which we term “influence,” “infrastructure,” and “ideas"”—also vary directly with levels of funding. We conclude with a discussion of the implications of these findings for theoretical thinking about due process policies and local politics, and for policy debate over how best to ensure adequate counsel in criminal court.