The Distinctive Characteristics and Needs of Domestic Violence Victims in a Native American Community

The objectives of the research described in this paper were to describe specific features of Native American domestic violence (DV), and identify the needs and barriers to service delivery for American Indians experiencing DV. Qualitative methods of data collection were used in this research. The results suggest that DV in Native American communities may be distinct in a number of ways. The cause of Native American DV may be anchored in historic trauma, poverty, alcohol and drugs, and rural isolation. Cultural and economic features of Native American DV are discussed. The complexity of DV in the Native American community, its association with a number of co-morbid problems, suggests a multi-modal intervention approach and collaboration among a variety of professionals.     

PROTECTING YOUTH PLACED IN UNLICENSED,UNREGULATED RESIDENTIAL “TREATMENT” FACILITIES

Throughout the country, there is considerable inconsistency in how states regulate residential treatment programs for youth. In states with little oversight, the health and safety of youth are unprotected and they may be subject to substandard treatment, rights violations, and/or abuse. Three initiatives to address this issue are reported: (1) an Internet survey of youth who are former residents, (2) a four‐state pilot study of how states regulate and monitor residential programs, and (3) a bridge‐building conference between residential treatment providers and mental health leaders. Recommendations address the next steps for lawmakers, lawyers, judges, mental health and education professionals, and parents.     

The future of claims to resist removal by non-nationals suffering from HIV/AIDS

The focus of this article is to consider the difficulties facing non-nationals suffering HIV/AIDS to resist removal to their countries of origin where there is no or inadequate medical treatment. The link between HIV/AIDS and migration will be explored illustrating the vulnerability of displaced people to the virus. The current UK legal position for those attempting to resist removal in such circumstances will be explored. The article will explore two potential avenues that may prevent removal of non-nationals with HIV/AIDS to countries with limited access to the necessary treatment. In the first instance consideration of Article 3 European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) will be made with particular emphasis on mother and child claims. The second argument will examine the potential for refugee claims under Article 1A (2) Refugee Convention 1951 where an applicant may be able to demonstrate a well-founded fear of persecution because of membership to a particular social group. The authors will particularly emphasise the argument that in certain countries sufferers will experience ostracism and victimisation where its severity may amount to treatment contrary to Article 3 ECHR and persecution under the Refugee Convention. Vanessa Bettinson and Dr Alwyn Jones, senior lecturers, De Montfort University. The authors would like to thank Professor Tony Barnett at London School of Economics for his useful and invaluable thoughts and comments. We would also like to thank our colleague Gavin Dingwall and the students in our 2006/07 Immigration and Refugee Law seminars for their very helpful feedback.     

Structures of Bio-terrorism Preparedness in the UK and the US: Responses to 9/11 and the Anthrax Attacks

This article describes UK and US responses to 9/11 and the subsequent anthrax attacks, referring to 'biodefence' and the civilian structures of disaster preparedness. Following a review of initiatives undertaken in each country the article details principal differences between the two systems, the federal nature of the US response and the more localised arrangements preferred in the UK. Finally, with reference to certain international standards articulated by the World Health Organisation, the article concludes with some critical reflections on recent policy developments. International standards promote the civilian character of preparedness programmes and their connections to public health infrastructure. This is being challenged by US developments that emphasise the role of the military while, in the UK, there remain questions about the capacity of civilian structures.