Subjective Invulnerability,Optimism Bias and Adjustment in Emerging Adulthood

The relationship between subjective invulnerability and optimism bias in risk appraisal, and their comparative association with indices of risk activity, substance use and college adjustment problems was assessed in a sample of 350 (M _age = 20.17; 73% female; 93% White/European American) emerging adults. Subjective invulnerability was measured with the newly devised adolescent invulnerability scale (AIS). Optimism bias in decision-making was assessed with a standard comparative-conditional risk appraisal task. Results showed that the danger- and psychological invulnerability subscales of the AIS demonstrated strong internal consistency and evidence of predictive validity. Subjective invulnerability and optimism bias were also shown to be empirically distinct constructs with differential ability to predict risk and adjustment. Danger invulnerability and psychological invulnerability were more pervasively associated with risk behavior than was optimism bias; and psychological invulnerability counter-indicated depression, self-esteem and interpersonal problems. Results support recent claims regarding the “two faces” of adolescent invulnerability. Implications for future research are drawn.     

The Dissemination of Detainees Awaiting Trial Before International and Internationalized Criminal Tribunals

This paper will focus on the rights attributed to detainees who are facing charges before international and internationalized criminal courts. The question is whether their position merits a different approach compared to the position of detainees who are confronted with domestic criminal trials. In particular, this paper will address the question whether, and to what extent, international human rights have a direct effect on the position of the former detainees. Attention will focus on case law of the European Court of Human Rights vis-a-vis the rights of detainees and the impact thereof on the position of detainees who are held in custody on behalf of international and internationalized criminal courts. The author is Professor of International Criminal Law at Utrecht University (The Netherlands), defence counsel acting before the ICTY, ICTR and SCSL, and a partner of the law firm Knoops & Partners Advocaten in Amsterdam, the Netherlands.