Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Contents -- Preface -- List of Contributors -- Introduction -- Part I Natural Law and Civil Authority -- 1 The Rule of the State and Natural Law -- 2 The Moral Conservatism of Natural Rights -- 3 Pufendorf's Doctrine of Sovereignty and its Natural Law Foundations -- Part II The Struggle over Church and State -- 4 Natura naturans: Natural Law and the Sovereign in the Writings of Thomas Hobbes -- 5 Probability, Punishments and Property: Richard Cumberland's Sceptical Science of Sovereignty -- 6 The Prince and the Church in the Thought of Christian Thomasius -- Part III Natural Law and the Limits of Sovereignty -- 7 Civil Sovereigns and the King of Kings: Barbeyrac on the Creator's Right to Rule -- 8 Sovereignty and Resistance: The Development of the Right of Resistance in German Natural Law -- 9 From the Virtue of Justice to the Concept of Legal Order: The Signifcance of the suum cuique tribuere in Hobbes' Political Philosophy -- Part IV Natural Law and Sovereignty in Context -- 10 Natural Law and the Construction of Political Sovereignty in Scotland, 1660-1690 -- 11 Self-Defence in Statutory and Natural Law: The Reception of German Political Thought in Britain -- Part V Early Modern Thought and Modern Politics -- 12 Hobbes and Pufendorf on Natural Equality and Civil Sovereignty -- 13 Natural Law, Sovereignty and International Law: A Comparative Perspective -- 14 Property, Territory and Sovereignty: Justifying Political Boundaries -- 15 Pufendorf and the Politics of Recognition -- Index.

A lower percentage of product value is invested in research in the forest sector than in many other sectors of the economy. Moreover, while it has been possible to reach a stable funding environment for research in some parts of the sector - notably in forest products - other aspects of forestry research are increasingly unattractive to funding agencies. The funding environment for forestry research is changing. Increasingly, state funding for commercial or proprietary research is being withdrawn in the expectation that such research will be taken up by the private sector. State funding is being applied to the issues that governments rate as important, either as a result of perceived public concern or as a result of international agreements. Competitive bidding is increasingly being used as a mechanism to allocate funds. This process has tended to favour small disciplinary teams doing component research at the expense of multi-disciplinary teams working at the systems level. In the Developed World the task is to improve the perceived value of forestry research; to adapt smoothly to the new research agenda created by changed demands placed upon forests and to maintain a balanced and progressive programme. In the Developing World the task is to build a research-capacity, an essential component of soundly-based, locally adapted development solutions, where often none exists. Given that state funding for many aspects of forestry research is not likely to increase and may decline, new sources of funding must be found. It is proposed that the role of Foundations, the GEF, Climate Change mitigation funds, the private sector and the commercial exploitation of research products be reviewed.

Objectives: In light of recent health policy, to examine factors which influence the public's willingness to consent to share their health information in a national electronic health record (EHR). Design: Data were collected in a national telephone survey in 2008. Respondents were presented with vignettes that described situations in which their health information was shared and asked if they would consent to such sharing. The subset, consisting of the 18 vignettes that covered proving care, was reanalysed in depth using new statistical methods in 2016. Setting: Adult population of New Zealand accessible by telephone landline. Participants: 4209 adults aged 18+ years in the full data set, 2438 of which are included in the selected subset. Main outcome measures: For each of 18 vignettes, we measured the percentage of respondents who would consent for their information to be shared for 2 groups; for those who did not consider that their records contained sensitive information, and for those who did or refused to say. Results: Rates of consent ranged from 89% (95% CI 87% to 92%) for sharing of information with hospital doctors and nurses to 51% (47% to 55%) for government agencies. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to identify factors which had significant impact on consent. The role of the recipient and the level of detail influenced respondents' willingness to consent (p<0.0001 for both factors). Of the individual characteristics, the biggest impact was that respondents whose records contain sensitive information (or who refused to answer) were less willing to consent (p<0.0001). Conclusions: A proportion of the population are reluctant to share their health information beyond doctors, nurses and paramedics, particularly when records contain sensitive information. These findings may have adverse implications for healthcare strategies based on widespread sharing of information. Further research is needed to understand and overcome peoples' ambivalence towards sharing their information.