Research note: Institute for the study of conflict

The London‐based Institute for the Study of Conflict (ISC) was the first body to research systematically into low‐intensity warfare. It has chronicled in its house journal, Conflict Studies, the rise of terrorism and political violence throughout the world and has contributed toward an understanding of its causes. New developments include the establishment of a U.S. Committee in North America, chaired by George Ball, and plans for 1978 to publish through branch offices in Germany, France and Latin America. The facilities of the ISC, which is industrially financed, are open to scholars on the acceptance of a formal application.     

EU-China relations: balancing political challenges with economic opportunities

During 2005, the European Union and China marked 30 years of diplomatic relations with much fanfare. Celebrations surrounding the anniversary however belied the fact that throughout most of this period the European Union and China remained largely aloof from one another. The strengthening of EU foreign policy over time, as well as the economic reforms and new outward orientation exhibited by China have changed the dynamics of the relationship. Both sides are increasingly recognizing the potential mutual benefits that can be accrued from a closer relationship. This paper assesses EU-China relations from both economic and political perspectives. In terms of economics, it is clear that the EU must build stronger relations with China if it is to accrue the benefits of access to an expanding market with over one billion people. To do so successfully however, the EU will have to reconcile the economic and political components of its foreign policy. The EU continues to challenge the Chinese government to reform its practices on a number of issues including human rights, democratic reform, and Tibet, all of which remain bones of contention. How the EU achieves the balance between political constraints and economic opportunities is the primary focus of this paper.

---

Risks and Realities of Working with Alienated Children

Involvement in custody cases that include accusations of parental alienation—whether as an evaluator, expert witness, lawyer, judge, therapist, provider of a specialized intervention, or researcher—incurs both professional and personal risks. Some risks relate to false negative or false positive identifications of parental alienation that can lead to regulatory agency complaints and public condemnation by the parent who feels wronged by the case outcome. Other risks stem from providing services in an emerging area of practice and working with children who overtly oppose repairing the relationship with their rejected parent. These risks include: unfounded accusations of mistreating children; negatively biased commentary and sensationalist attacks in the media and in social media, professional conferences and journals, and in courtroom testimony; harassment, vilification, and invasion of privacy; threats of violence and public humiliation; shunning and rumor spreading by colleagues; and complaints to regulatory agencies. This article examines circumstances, beliefs, and dynamics that give rise to these risks, suggests precautions to reduce the risk of false accusations against professionals, and offers recommendations for dealing with regulatory agencies. Criticisms that a court or service provider has mistreated a child merit careful scrutiny in the context of the case evidence and empirical data. While some interventions for alienated children raise legitimate concerns, others have been maligned by anecdotal complaints that studies show do not represent the experience of most participants.     

Development of a Validity Scale for the Dissociative Experience Scale-Revised: Atypicality,Structure, and Inconsistency

Psychological Injury and Law - The Dissociative Experiences Scale (DES), the most commonly used scale for assessing dissociation across settings, lacks a validity scale. In this study, six methods...