Guarding against Nanotort Liabilities

Recent headlines comparing the health risks of nanotechnology to those of asbestos have appeared in newspapers throughout the country and on the Internet. Governmental agencies and standard-setting organizations have begun considering and actually adopting requirements to protect against such purported risks. The plaintiffs’ bar and potential plaintiffs have surely taken note. There is every reason to believe that the era of mass tort and class actions related to nanotechnology—“nanotorts” for short—is rapidly approaching. This article examines what nanotort claims might look like, the role that regulations and industry practices may play in such lawsuits, potential defenses to those claims, and what nanotech companies can do now to guard against future nanotort liabilities.     

Connecting models of the individual and policy change processes: a research agenda

Policy Sciences - This article proposes that closer attention to models of the individual provides substantial theoretical and empirical leverage to policy studies scholars. Capturing the nuances...     

Keeping discourses separate: explaining the non-alignment of climate politics and human rights norms by small island states in United Nations climate negotiations

The Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS) encompasses more than 40 low-lying and island developing states that are among the most vulnerable but also most vocal parties in international climate negotiations. Over the years AOSIS's strategies comprised of the building of scientific expertise, and leadership by example, but also a particular framing that puts emphasis on multilateral processes to deal with issues of common concern and established principles of the international community. The initial assumption of the paper is that a frame alignment of climate change and human rights concerns would strengthen the coalition's moral and legal arguments. However, as a frame analysis of close to 50 coalition submissions and statements reveals, such a linkage is not established. The paper concludes by outlining three possible explanatory factors for this observation: the nature of the issue area, the character of the coalition and the professional background of AOSIS negotiators.     

Britannia waived the rules: The Major government and the 1994 Rwandan genocide

Ten years after the 1994 Rwandan genocide occurred, seriousquestions remain about the circumstances of the British government'sresponse. This article critically evaluates the response ofJohn Major's government to the genocide. It does so in fourstages. The first section provides a brief overview of the Majorgovernment's international agenda in 1994, focusing on Britishpolicy towards the war in Bosnia and the African continent ingeneral. The second section deals with the substance of Britain'sRwanda policy, while the third discusses the ways in which thispolicy has been almost totally omitted from mainstream accountsof this period. The final section provides a critical evaluationof some of the tactics that British officials employed to avertcriticism of their government's policies. Based on the evidencepresented we conclude that the British government displayeda deeply troubling indifference towards the victims of Rwanda'sgenocide.     

MANITOBA'S ACCESS ASSISTANCE PROJECT

Reported in this article is an innovative access project in Manitoba. This project is ongoing and is designed to strengthen parenting skills and reduce the anger inherent in the breakup of any relationship.