AIDS and the politics of rights in South Africa: A contested terrain

The prevalence of HIV/AIDS in South Africa has drawn particular attention in recent years, not only because of the country's high rates of infection but also because of the highly contentious debates between the state, AIDS NGOs, and scientists over AIDS policy. The national AIDS lobby in South Africa, including groups such as the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC), has been forcefully articulating a rights-based discourse as a strategy to realize particular normative claims on the state. I examine these recent public debates and challenges to the human rights based response to AIDS that has gained consensus internationally among AIDS NGOs, governments, doctors and medical researchers. I explore the limitations of framing political demands in terms of the constitution and within a rights-based discourse in the present are of globalization and neo-liberalism, where the state’s capacity to respond to the social welfare demands of its citizens has declined, and where the protection of universal human rights requires that powerful transnational actors, in addition to the state, be held democratically accountable.     

Racial Disparities in Political Participation Across Issues: The Role of Issue-Specific Motivators

Research documenting disparities in political participation across racial and ethnic groups (in particular lower levels of participation for Blacks and Latinos, compared to Whites) has primarily focused on broad explanations for racial and ethnic differences in participation (e.g., socio-economic status, social, or psychological resources). There is little research that links racial and ethnic differences in participation across issues to the literature on issue publics and issue-specific factors that may motivate participation. In this study, we examine racial and ethnic differences in participation for a variety of issues and test a model in which issue-specific motivators of participation (self-interest, racial or ethnic group interest, attitude importance, and policy change threat) and general explanations for participation differences (e.g., socio-economic status, political knowledge) account for these racial and ethnic differences. In particular, the results of a survey of Chicago residents show that Blacks, Latinos and Whites demonstrate significant differences in political participation across five issues (affirmative action, immigration, school funding, gentrification, the Iraq War), but that the specific pattern of racial and ethnic differences in participation varies across issues. Issue-specific factors help to explain why racial and ethnic differences in participation vary across issues above and beyond variables shown to be associated with participation more generally (e.g., political efficacy, education). This model has the potential to be expanded and applied to help explain other types of disparities in political participation.     

The Influence of Stadia and the Built Environment on the Spatial Distribution of Crime

Journal of Quantitative Criminology - The aim of this study was to explore the influence of “micro-” (e.g., pubs and fast-food restaurants) and “super-facilities” on area...     

FOCUS： PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CHINA PUNITIVE DAMAGES,CHINESE TORT LAW,AND THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

In a country such as China, with abundant consumer products and the inevitability of product defects, claims for punitive damages are sure to arise under Article 47 of the new Chinese Tort Law. Article 47 provides that ＂（w）hereany producer or seller knowingly produces or sells defective products, causing death or serious damage to the health of others, the injured party may request appropriate punitive damages.＂ As Chinese jurists and scholars interpret Article 47, they may wish to consider whether lessons can be drawn from the American experience. During the past two decades, few areas of American law have changed more radically than the law on punitive damages. While there were once few restraints on the ability of a judge or jury to impose punitive damages in a case involving egregious conduct, today there are a host of limitations embodied in American state and federal law. In many American states, statutes or judicial decisions restrict the ability of a court to award punitive damages by narrowly defining the types of conduct that will justify a punitive award, raising the standard of proof capping the amount of punitive damages, requiring a portion of a punitive award to be forfeited to the state, or limiting vicarious liability for punitive damages. In addition, under federal constitutional law, the principle of due process limits the imposition of punitive damages by scrutinizing the ratio between compensatory and punitive damages and prohibiting an award to be based on harm to persons other than the plaintiff. An examination of these developments from a comparative law perspective may prove useful to the implementation of Article 47.     

Regulation of cognitive enhancement devices: commentary

Maslen et al. (2013) have provided us with a comprehensive overview of the current legislation regulating non-clinical cognitive enhancement devices (CEDs) in the European Union and have proposed a specific model whereby CEDs would be regulated in the same way as medical devices. An alternative model would be to require manufacturers to quantify risks only. Irrespective of the purported ‘benefits’ of a product, this would allow the consumer freedom of choice to use the product at their will and allow the periodic review of worthwhile indications and unexpected adverse events. Although this departs from the standard Cochrane-type assessment, it takes into account the facts that (i) the evaluation of clinically used cognitive enhancement techniques may not be as rigorous as one might expect, (ii) variations and case-by-case use might be widespread, and (iii) independent variables of significance and useful endpoints may not be obvious ab initio. We consider cerebrospinal fluid diversion techniques which are widely used clinically to enhance cognition in patients with normal pressure hydrocephalus despite any large-scale clinical studies demonstrating substantial benefit, and the real risks of paralysis and death from these invasive procedures. The risks of CEDs which have been available for some time need to be kept in perspective: are the risks really more than using conventional cognitive enhancement techniques such as imbibing too caffeinated drinks? Furthermore, the loss of Europe as a market for CEDs which do not comply with the proposed regulatory model implies a potential gain in the market for other parts of the world. This could impact on the ability of companies in Europe being able to compete in an evolving market demand for CEDs. Legislation to regulate CEDs should be guided by the principle of ‘do no harm’ and allow for innovation and competition.