This chapter examines one of the most distinctive features of Bishop’s work: her frequent use of correctio. When using this rhetorical scheme, writers will correct, question, rephrase or offer alternatives to their words and phrases in the body of the text itself (rather than, say, in the process of redrafting). The first part of this chapter gives an account of: correctio’s history; its characterisation in early-modern and twentieth-century rhetorical manuals; its risks and rewards; and its indiscriminate approval by Bishop’s critics. The chapter then analyses its frequent use by three major influences on Bishop: George Herbert, William Wordsworth and Marianne Moore. The main part of this chapter then examines Bishop’s use of correctio in relation to visual art, nature writing, memory, the representation of consciousness, scepticism, and elegy.

Processes of national implementation of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) represent a relevant interpretive practice when it comes to this treaty. When adopting implementation legislation, states effectively offer their interpretation of the Rome Statute, sometimes diverging from the way that the ICC interprets this treaty. The chapter focuses of such examples of divergent interpretations, in order to establish whether divergent interpretations by states might influence the way the ICC interprets the Rome Statute. As an international treaty, the interpretation of the Rome Statute is governed by the rules of interpretation as enshrined in the VCLT. In light of this, divergent interpretations by states might need to be taken in consideration by the ICC in its interpretation, for example as subsequent agreement within the meaning of Article 31(3)(b) of the VCLT. Ultimately, while it remains necessary to distinguish between an interpretation within the scope of the existing law and modification of the text of a treaty, judges of the ICC may rely on the VCLT rule of interpretation in order to account for the interpretative practice of states.

Interpretation is part and parcel of every juridical endeavour. In international law, the law and methods pertaining to the process of interpretation continue to vex international legal theory and practice; in fact, increasingly so. The provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (VCLT) on treaty interpretation reflect three premises which can have broader implications for the practice of interpretation in international law. First, they reinforce the idea that interpretation is, or at least can be, a formal process based on legal rules.Second, this process determines the content of rules that are ‘in force’ and is thus legally and analytically distinct from the processes of identification, modification, amendment, and termination of rules. Third, these legal rules can have a general scope of application in the sense that they can apply regardless of the nature or subject-matter of the rule to be interpreted and irrespective of who performs the interpretation. That is to say, the VCLT envisages the possibility of a law of interpretation that forms essentially ‘a unity’

Japanese society is subject to centrifugal forces that tend to promote diversification in structural arrangements, lifestyles, and value orientations, while a range of centripetal forces drives it towards homogeneity and uniformity. This chapter endeavors to recapitulate these two forces in the context of Japan’s civil society, focusing on five key areas.

The first four investigate various aspects of centrifugal forces: the fragmentation of social relations, a significant development affecting the foundations of Japanese society over the past few decades; the rise of social movements in the 2010s despite this trend; the quiet growth of volunteer activities and the role of NPOs and NGOs as a backdrop for dissenting protests, and the shifting landscape of interest groups overall; and the viability of an emic notion similar to citizenship in analyzing the Japanese context.

The final section aims to establish an analytical framework for various forms of centripetal control and to synthesize their diverse characteristics as ‘friendly authoritarianism’ permeating Japanese society.

The major through line in the intellectual history of late antique Iraq and Iran is its eclecticism: to a rare if not unique extent for the premodern world, the scholars of these regions drew substantially on both Indian and Greco-Roman traditions during the Sasanian and early Islamic periods. As we have seen, this eclecticism is reflected not only in the scholarly productions of this era but also in its historiography, where we find episodes such as Šāpūr II’s resettlement of Roman and Indian physicians in Khuzestan, and the comparison of Indian and Greco-Roman astronomical texts at Khusrō I’s behest.

There are four different scenarios when the institutional context of an organization is relevant in the interpretation of customary international law. Based on these scenarios, the following observations about interpretation in the institutional context can be made. Firstly, the separate institutional sphere of an organization adds a layer of normativity and authority next to that of general international law. Therefore, it may happen that instruments created by the organization would have normative effect within the institutional framework, but not per se in general international law. Conversely, a rule of customary international law could be of uncontested validity but not have normative force automatically within the institutional framework. Secondly, within the institutional framework, conduct of the organization may not be readily distinguishable from the conduct of member states. This may then influence the identification of potentially new customary rules. Finally, it seems that the institutional context is conducive to the teleological method of interpretation.

When engaging in interpretation, Human Rights Bodies (HRBs) may follow specific methods of treaty interpretation – including those derived from Articles 31–31 VCLT – or not. Moreover, the interpretative pronouncements of HRBs may themselves be considered authoritative pronouncements for the purpose of subsequent interpretation of human rights treaties or other sources of human rights law, frequently under the framework of ’pronouncements of expert bodies’. Such pronouncements may then be considered by interpreters as examples of either subsequent practice in the interpretation of treaties within the meaning of Articles 31-32 VCLT, or as ‘subsidiary means’ for the determination of rules of international law in the sense of Article 38 ICJ Statute. In light of this, and given expertise and volume of interpretative pronouncements of HRBs they need to be taken seriously when it comes to the determination of content of human rights rules. However, at present it is not yet clear whether these pronouncements can be relied on as means of interpretation via the formal avenues available in international law.

Japanese society embraces a rich variety of cultural forms that reflect its tradition, stratification, and regional expanse. To examine the internal diversity of Japanese culture as thoroughly as possible, this chapter first looks at two manifestations of its duality and then analyzes mass culture, folk culture, and alternative culture as three major spheres of popular culture. After confirming the culture’s plurality, the end of the chapter turns to the Japanese cultural presence in the transnational context.