Suchergebnisse

In this piece I consider the relationship between denationalization and discrimination. Denationalization, the involuntary removal of citizenship or nationality by the state, has a dark history, reflected in the Nazi use of the power. Yet before 1945, many liberal democratic states also practiced citizenship-stripping, in ways informed by considerations of gender, race, national origin, and mode of citizenship acquisition. As denationalization is currently making a revival across a range of liberal democratic states as a way of responding to "home grown" terrorists, a question emerges: Do recent denationalization provisions manage to break free of this discriminatory past? Here, I use a discussion of denationalization's history and examination of the UK as the basis for a critical assessment of the power's contemporary incarnations. I find that contemporary denationalization power is still a powerful tracer of groups within the polity who, despite holding formal citizenship, are viewed as foreign.

In the face of the desperate plight of refugees, virtually all moral and political philosophers, regardless of their general position on immigration controls, argue that states have a duty to grant asylum: people must not be turned back to countries where they would face persecution or severe human rights violations. Yet this consensus obscures a number of thorny ethical issues raised by the plight of the displaced. In this piece, I want to draw from recent writing in political and ethical theory to bring some of these issues into view. I start by considering what a refugee is, before turning to the question how the obligations of political communities to the displaced are grounded. I then move to consider what societies owe to refugees and the question of international justice in the allocation of asylum. I conclude with a discussion of the moral responsibilities of refugees themselves.

Reviews books by Steve Bruce; Mark Silk; and Robert Withnow on the relationship between religion and politics in modern America. (Abstract amended)

IT IS A CRUEL FACT OF INTERNATIONAL LIFE THAT NATIONS CONDUCT WARS AND PURSUE OTHER MILITARY AND FOREIGN POLICY OBJECTIVES WITHOUT GENERALLY HAVING TO ATTEND TO THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR ACTIONS. THIS PREMISE HAS BEEN CHALLENGED RECENTLY BY TWO CASES BROUGHT IN U.S. COURTS. IN EACH CASE, CIVILIANS BROUGHT SUIT AGAINST OFFICIALS OF THE U.S GOVERNMENT FOR THE HARM AND SUFFERING CAUSED BY THE U.S. SPONSORED CONTRA REBEL FORCES. THE PLAINTIFFS IN BOTH CASES WERE ASKING WHAT PREVIOUSLY HAS BEEN UNTHINKABLE: THAT A NATION BE HELD LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HUMAN CONSEQUENCES OF ITS PURSUIT OF FORIEGN POLICY OBJECTIVES. IN NEITHER CASE WERE THE CIVILIANS SUCCESSFUL. THIS ARTICLE WILL EXAMINE THE RATIONALES FOR THE JUDICIAL DEFERENCE DISPLAYED IN BOTH CAUSES, AND IT WILL OFFER AND ALTERNATIVE WAY FOR COURTS TO ADDRESS SUCH ISSUES.

THIS ARTICLE PRESENTS AN ANALYSIS OF U.S. REFUGEE/ASYLUM POLICY IN TERMS OF THE RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTS BETWEEN SUCH POLICIES AND HUMAN REGRETS CONDITIONS IN OTHER COUNTRIES. THE DATA EXPLORED SUGGESTS, AT BEST, A WEAK RELATIONSHIP. THE POSITION MAINTAINED HERE IS THAT U.S. POLICY OUGHT TO BE MUCH MORE SENSITIVE TO THE LEVEL OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN OTHER COUNTRIES IN MAKING REFUGEE /ASYLUM DECISIONS. THE 1980 REFUGEE ACT MANDATES THAT THE PARAMOUNT CONSIDERATION IS TO BE THE PLIGHT OF THE INDIVIDUAL AND NOT WHERE SHE COME FROM. THE ARGUMENT IN THIS ARTICLE IS TO HOLD THE UNITED STATES TO ITS OWN STANDARD.

There are no standardised serving/portion sizes defined for foods consumed in the European Union (EU). Typical serving sizes can deviate significantly from the 100 g/100 ml labelling specification required by the EU legislation. Where the nutritional value of a portion is specified, the portion size is determined by the manufacturers. Our objective was to investigate the potential for standardising portion sizes for specific foods, thereby ensuring complementarity across countries. We compared portion size for 156 food items measured using a food frequency questionnaire across the seven countries participating in the Food4me study. The probability of consuming a food and the frequency of consumption differed across countries for 93% and 58% of the foods, respectively. However, the individual country mean portion size differed from the average across countries in only 16% of comparisons. Thus, although dietary choices vary markedly across countries, there is much less variation in portion sizes. Our results highlight the potential for standardisation of portion sizes on nutrition labels in the EU.