Through a glass darkly: Cause and effect in refugee resettlement policies

As the ongoing debate among philosophers and social scientists suggests, interpretation of cause and effect in human action is often extremely difficult. Especially complicated for the policy analyst is the problem of determining whether causal relationships are inferred from the evidence or imputed to it. This dilemma characterizes certain types of government activity in which distinctions between policy and implementation, between decisions and actions, and between inputs and outcomes are unclear. The efforts of the federal government between 1960 and 1985 to assist refugees in securing employment illustrate how the flow of events may elude causal explanation, and how conclusions and recommendation for improvement derived from the evidence may prove highly ambiguous. In such instances the most rational course open to policy analysts may be to concede ignorance.     

Dilution in the US, Europe, and beyond: international obligations and basic definitions

Legal context. The efficacy of trade mark dilution as a causeof action has been cast into doubt by the Supreme Court's actualdilution standard. However, Congress is currently consideringthe Trademark Dilution Revision Act 2005, removing the actualdilution standard and resolving other difficulties under thepresent Lanham Act 43(c). This should breathe new life intoblurring and tarnishment. It should also be recalled that theEU already has strong laws against dilution and unfair advantage. Key points. This article identifies international dilution obligationsin order to determine (in Part II) whether the US and EU arecompliant. It identifies problems under the present US dilutionlaw and the solutions offered by the Revision Act. It comparesthe US proposals with EU dilution protection to determiningwhat the two jurisdictions have to learn from each other. Thistheme will be continued in the next part of this article, whichfocuses specifically on blurring/detriment to distinctive character. Practical significance. The introduction of new US legislationwill make successful dilution claims easier and will increasethe frequency of actions under 43(c). It is vital that trademark lawyers are familiar with the changes. At the same time,it should be remembered that many of the same outcomes can beachieved under the current European legislative provisions.To the extent that the jurisdictions do not live up to theirinternational dilution obligations, there is scope for proprietorsto lobby for even stronger protection.     

US: immigration court allows Zambian woman's asylum claim based on HIV infection

On 9 February 2004, the federal Immigration Court ruled that a Zambian woman can stay in the US because her HIV-positive status gives her a well-founded fear of persecution in Zambia. The court found that she would face severe and lethal discrimination in the public health clinics and in the employment sector and that the Zambian government is unwilling or unable to control this persecution.     

Detergent: an alternative approach to traditional bone cleaning methods for forensic practice

Osteological assessment of human remains forms an essential part of forensic work, especially during the examination of extensively decomposed, dismembered, or burnt bodies. Currently employed methods for removal of adherent soft tissue reflect practices often used by museum curators, notably insect consumption, enzymatic maceration, or boiling of the bones, with subsequent manual removal of material. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of detergents for the purpose of soft-tissue removal from animal-derived specimens. The results indicate that such a means is comparable to enzymatic maceration but with fewer health and safety issues and greater advantages regarding transportation and availability of materials when an investigator is in a fieldwork scenario.     

UK: Court of Appeal orders retrial in UK's first HIV criminal transmission case

On 5 May 2004, the UK Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, granted Mohammed Dica's appeal against his October 2003 conviction on two counts of causing grievous bodily harm for reckless transmission of HIV. The court ordered a retrial after determining that the trial judge was wrong to not allow the defendant to present information that the victims had known about his condition and had consented to the risk.