Promoting country ownership and inclusive growth? An assessment of Feed the Future

This article investigates the level of country ownership and inclusivity in Feed the Future (FtF) projects in Ethiopia, Ghana, Haiti, Senegal, and Tanzania. It finds that though interventions largely align with country-defined priorities and plans, other aspects of country ownership – consultation and provision of aid through local systems – are weaker than expected. Regarding inclusion, FtF is to some extent exclusive, perhaps as an unintended consequence of alignment with national development plans that do not reasonably promote equity. Focus is mostly on productive areas and ‘market-ready’ smallholders. The article suggests policy actions needed to better achieve expected results.     

Testing Claims about Large Land Deals in Africa: Findings from a Multi-Country Study

Abstract

Despite much research on large land deals for plantation agriculture in Africa, reliable data remain elusive, partly because of limited access to information and practical and methodological challenges. International debates are still shaped by misperceptions about how much land is being acquired, where, by whom, how and with what consequences. This article aims empirically to test some common perceptions through an analysis of findings from research conducted in three African countries: Ethiopia, Ghana, and Tanzania. The article presents new evidence on the scale, geography, drivers and features of land deals, relates findings to data from earlier research and international efforts to monitor land deals, and outlines possible ways forward for ongoing monitoring of the deals.     

The Hurried Justification of Sanctions

In this paper I try to see how the Derridean aporias of the law of the urgency of legal decisions (the law interrupts the input of knowledge in the decision-making process) and the épokhè of the rule (justice can never be done in the present) are revealed in the context of the justification of sanctions. I argue that sanctions can only be justified in a purposive manner in the last instance. They can only be means to an end of punishment which has been opted for, and which can be justified on grounds of principles, or an authoritative calculation of incommensurable entities. I argue against theories, which advocate the internal connection of law and morality, because if such a connection could be established, the aporia of the hurried and unjustified action would obviously disappear. In particular my target is discourse theory as formulated mainly by Robert Alexy with his Sonderfallthese(Special Case Thesis). My objection is that, because of their instrumental nature, sanctions cannot be justified on moral grounds. I also consider some objections that could be raised from Klaus Günther's theory of appropriateness and Habermas' distinction between the moral, ethical and pragmatic employments of practical reason. I am argue that the former, which would become relevant at the stage of application, that is sentencing, does not resolve the justificatory problem of sanctions, and the latter confirms rather than falsifies my claim that punishment can never be said to be just.     

Medical aspects of malpractice crisis in Greece: medical responsibility: a doctor's view

Malpractice and medical liability have been introduced into Greek reality over the last decade. Forensic sciences hold a key role in the investigation of medical liability cases. Along these lines, the medical examiner stands between colleagues and lawyers, who have divergent intentions in the investigation of such cases. This article offers an overview of the rapidly changing reality in Greece and approaches medical liability from the doctor's viewpoint. The role of forensic science and the medical examiner is portrayed, along with the emerging difficulties in the investigation of medical liability cases. Also attempted is an interpretation of the crisis phenomena that are very often seen between doctors and lawyers. However, the intent of this article is to search for ways to turn competition and tension between medical and law professionals into cooperation and understanding for the best interest for both professions and, more importantly, for the community.