Amnesty,peace and reconciliation in Algeria

Amnesties constitute the most contentious issue in transitional justice processes. While largely rejected for contravening international law and being morally objectionable, political realities may sometimes force us to accept them in the interest of peace and stability. Determinations about the desirability and effectiveness of amnesties to promote peace thus need to look beyond legalistic claims, and take into account the specific political context within a country, as well as the nature of the amnesty itself. Taking the case of Algeria, where an amnesty was adopted in 2005 with the Charter for Peace and National Reconciliation, this article argues that although the amnesty can be justified partially by the fragile political context in Algeria and may contribute to reducing levels of violence in the country, its effective contribution to peace and reconciliation will be limited because it has, so far, not been accompanied by other political and economic measures necessary to bring peace and stability to the country, and because it promotes amnesia and largely ignores the plight of the victims of the war.     

Foreign Policy Analysis: Actor-Specific Theory and the Ground of International Relations

Examining the history, conceptual breadth, and recent trends in the study of foreign policy analysis, it is clear that this subfield provides what may be the best conceptual connection to the empirical ground upon which all international relations (IR) theory is based. Foreign policy analysis is characterized by an actor-specific focus, based upon the argument that all that occurs between nations and across nations is grounded in human decision makers acting singly or in groups. FPA offers significant contributions to IR—theoretical, substantive, and methodological—and is situated at the intersection of all social science and policy fields as they relate to international affairs. A renewed emphasis on actor-specific theory will allow IR to more fully reclaim its ability to manifest human agency, with its attendant change, creativity, accountability, and meaning.     

The Swiss regulatory framework for paediatric health research

Medical research on minors entails both risks and benefits. Under Swiss law, clinical trials on children, including nontherapeutic drug trials, are permissible. However, ethics committees must systematically verify that all clinical studies have a favorable risk-benefit profile. Additional safeguards are designed to ensure that children are not unnecessarily involved in research and that proper consent is always obtained. Federal Swiss law is undergoing revision to extend these protections beyond clinical trials to a broad array of health research. The Swiss drug agency also seeks to improve the incentives for pharmaceutical firms to develop new paediatric drugs and relevant paediatric drug labels.     

Making the Case for Evaluation Partnerships in Child Protection Mediation Programs: Insights from a Case Study

Many jurisdictions have instituted child protection mediation programs (CPM) for the purposes of reducing the length of children's stays in out‐of‐home care and decreasing court system burden, and numerous studies have shown promising results. However, important implementation and sustainability problems persist. This article presents a case study's findings and retrospectively interprets underlying reasons for challenges the program faced in implementation. Study implications call for a more structured planning process, including early partnership with experienced court‐based evaluators to develop successful marketing and recruitment strategies that may encourage stakeholder endorsement and foster sustainability.     

The Coalition and the Decline of Majoritarianism in the UK

The United Kingdom has traditionally featured many aspects of the majoritarian model of democracy: its first‐past‐the‐post electoral system tends towards producing single‐party majorities, while its legislative decision rules concentrate policy‐making power in the hands of the resulting single‐party governments. However, in an unprecedented break with the UK's postwar conventions, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition following the general election of 2010. In this article, we examine some of the Coalition's impacts on governing and constitutional conventions, placing them in a comparative European context. We conclude that the Coalition reflects a shift towards the less majoritarian forms of politics prevalent in continental Europe, and that some of these changes are likely to persist even after the end of the current government.