Regime Change and Conflict Recidivism within Rivalry: Interludes in Disputes

How does regime change affect the risk of militarized disputes? Within the democratic peace literature, there is disagreement over whether it is democratization, autocratization, political dissimilarity or political instability that is particularly perilous. I distinguish four perspectives from this literature and test their attendant hypotheses on a dataset of conflict episodes within enduring rivalry from 1816 to 2001 using survival analysis. I find that both democratization and autocratization reduce the hazard of dispute recurrence in enduring rivalries. After controlling for selection bias, the effect of democratization was robust whereas the effect of autocratization was not. Democratization also has the additional property of terminating rivalries; autocratization does not. Together, the results imply that democratization is better at promoting a transition from rivalry to peaceful relations than is the autocratization of a rivalry dyad.     

Henry Shue on Basic Rights: A Defense

In light of the many recent criticisms of Henry Shue's philosophy, this article provides a defense of Shue's philosophical argument for basic rights. The author demonstrates that the latest criticisms made by Thomas Pogge, Michael Payne, and Andrew Cohen misconstrue Shue's position, and therefore fail to overturn the soundness of Shue's argument. Against those who contend that basic rights demand too much, both logically and morally, the author argues that basic rights serve as the minimal threshold for human dignity and the foundation for all other rights. Consequentially, the overall moral landscape is skewed if basic rights are absent.     

Foreword: Follow-on Biologics: Implementation Challenges and Opportunities

This Book of the Seton Hall Law Review presents the contributions to Follow-On Biologics: Implementation Challenges and Opportunities, a one-day roundtable event hosted by Seton Hall University School of Law in the fall of 2010. The roundtable fostered an international dialogue regarding the future of follow-on biologics in the United States resulting from the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of March 2010. THE BIOLOGIC PRICE COMPETITION AND INNOVATION ACT OF 2010. The March 23, 2010, enactment of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) and the companion Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 ushered in landmark reform of the American health care system. Along with sweeping overhauls of the health care system generally, PPACA also provides a new regulatory challenge for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A subtitle within PPACA, the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), bestows upon FDA broad authority to implement an abbreviated approval route to market for biological products (also known as biologics) that are "biosimilar" to an existing marketed product. The brief introduction will provide a basic comparison of biologics and conventional pharmaceutical drugs that will prove central to the FDA's development of this follow-on biologic pathway as well as specifically examine the content and scope of the BPCIA provisions and identify future challenges for the FDA. It will conclude by highlighting details of presentations during the roundtable held at the Seton Hall University School of Law and introduce the two resulting articles contained with this Book of the Seton Hall Law Review.     

Here we go round the review-go-round: Rape investigation and prosecution—are things getting worse not better?

Abstract

Despite numerous reviews, reports and commissions of inquiry, the investigation and prosecution of rape cases remains fraught. Victims are still ambivalent about reporting incidents of sexual violence, while those who do often struggle to be believed and have their cases progress through justice systems. This paper explores some of the reasons why promised reforms materialise so rarely into tangible benefits for the majority of rape complainants, and focuses on six areas: reporting, attrition, adversarial justice systems, victim support, specialisation and attitudes. These are canvassed with particular reference to examples from England and New Zealand demonstrating the barriers to substantive reform and the ways in which gender inequalities and patriarchal beliefs continue to impact upon both the prevalence of sexual violence as well as state responses to its occurrence. The paper contains a cautionary message regarding the potential dangers involved in accepting the rhetoric of reform while the underlying realities remain little changed.