Violence against teachers: prevalence and consequences

Data collected from 731 teachers were used to examine the consequences of violence directed toward teachers while in the workplace. Analyses showed that the majority of respondents (n = 585, 80.0%) had experienced school-related violence—broadly defined—at one point in their careers. Serious violence (actual, attempted, or threatened physical violence) was less common, but still common enough to be of concern (n = 202, 27.6%). Violence predicted physical and emotional effects, as well as teaching-related functioning. In addition, a model with fear as a potential mediator revealed that both fear and violence were independently predictive of these negative outcomes. Finally, analyses showed that, in general, women reported higher levels of physical symptoms compared to men. We discuss the implications of violence against teachers in terms of personal consequences and the implications for mental health professionals working in an educational setting.     

The Future of the U.S.–Australian Security Relationship

Abstract

The recent triumph of the Howard government at the polls confirms Australia’s emergence as an increasingly important ally for the United States. It is willing to be part of challenging global missions, and its strong economy and growing self-confidence suggest a more prominent role in both global and regional affairs. Moreover, its government has worked hard to strengthen the link between Canberra and Washington. Political and strategic affinities between the two countries have been reflected in—and complemented by—practiced military interoperability, as the two allies have sustained a pattern of security cooperation in relation to East Timor, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the last five years.

This growing collaboration between the two countries suggests that a reinvention of the traditional bilateral security relationship is taking place. At the core of this process lies an agreement about the need for engaging in more proactive strategic behavior in the changing global security environment, and a mutual acceptance of looming military and technological interdependence. But this new alliance relationship has already tested the boundaries of bipartisan support for security policy within Australia, and will continue to do so despite the latest election results. Issues of strategic doctrine, defense planning, and procurement are becoming topics of fiercer policy debate. Such discussion is likely to be sharpened in the years ahead as Australia’s security relationship with the United States settles into a new framework.     

Governmental liability for breach of contract

Government contracts are subject to a number of legal rulesthat have no private sector analogues and that have receivedvirtually no attention from law and economics scholar. Thisarticle explores these rules from an economic perspective, withspecial attention to the leading modern case on the subject,United States v. Winstar. The analysis emphasizes a number ofdifferences between governmental and private actors that haveimportant implications for the wisdom of applying conventionalbreach of contract remedies to the government. These differencesafford plausible efficiency justifications, in our view, formany of the most important doctrines governing government contracts.Some of these doctrines help to impede the use of long-termcontracts to insulate inefficient rent-seeking arrangementsagainst subsequent attack, some seem to prevent the governmentfrom inefficiently contracting away its ability to respond tonew information, and others seem to work a sensible allocationbetween the government and private contractors of the risk thatgovernment may change its policies. Not all doctrines and decisionscan be justified in this fashion, however, and we do not meanto claim that the existing body of law is in any sense optimal.Indeed, the Winstar decision itself seems quite mistaken froman economic standpoint. The considerations that we develop haveimplications for a number of related legal issues. Not all ofthese implications are developed here, but we do consider modernlitigation under the Contract Clause of the U.S. Constitutionas well as the recent academic debate about the wisdom of retroactivetaxation.     

A Reaction to Popular Hysteria: The Titles Deprivation Act 1917

The Titles Deprivation Act represents the `other side of the coin' of King George V's decision in 1917 to divest the Royal Family of its appearance of German-ness and adopt an outwardEnglishness by renouncing the German titles of its members and adopting the surname of Windsor. The Act created a mechanism by which German holders of British royal titles and peerages could be deprived of those honours on grounds which had no precedent in earlier law and practice, this mechanism being used for the first and only time in an Order in Council of 28th March 1919 to deprive three German princes and one Austrian, two of them first cousins of George V and a third an uncle by marriage, of the British titles which they held. This paper considers, first, the background to the Act and, in particular, the reason why legislation on this highly controversial issue was introduced in Parliament only after theFirst World War had been going on for two-and-a-half years. It identifies the reason for this delay as the reluctance of the Asquith Government to involve the King as the `fountain of honour' with a course of action which he personally considered to be petty and undignified and of no importance to the war effort, and hypothesises that the Government's change of heart resulted from the trial and execution of Roger Casement for treason, with which there is an exact coincidence in time. Second, the paper considers the manner in which the Bill was drafted, identifies its distinctive features and follows its passage through Parliament. Third, it considers the manner in which the provisions of the Act were put into effect, in particular the manner in which evidence was gathered to create a case against the persons affected by it. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.