Over the course of the eighteenth century, Russian rulers released dozens of decrees about petitions. First, the decrees regulated the format of petitions, emphasizing their formulaic nature and moving them away from the personal appeals with supplication and abasement that were present in earlier centuries. These decrees recognized that petitions were essential to the administrative functioning of the imperial Russian state but saw them as akin to forms or applications. Second, the decrees stated firmly that petitioners should not approach the ruler directly. In part, these decrees reflect the rulers’ irritation at being endlessly bothered by personal requests, but Russia’s rulers also gave a more serious justification for the ban on personal appeals: they had established the rule of law, which meant that their subjects did not need to bother them personally and instead should clearly know other authorities—courts, governors—to address for aid. While efforts to change the format of petitions largely succeeded, efforts to curtail petitions directly to the ruler largely failed. That failure likely reflects several factors: inefficiencies in the judicial or administrative system, contradictory laws that still made space for petitions because they were useful, and because they held the promise of getting help quickly.

An account of human subjectivity is built up from an analysis of the fundamental human desire for God. In conversation with Karl Rahner and Blaise Pascal, it is argued that this desire does not have any conceivable conditions of satisfiability. This leads to an account of human beings as fundamentally distractible, fragmented, opaque to themselves and non-self-identical; however, none of these are viewed as essentially problematic, arising instead out of the basic human–God relation rather than from a fallen condition. A range of implications for ethics and social criticism are briefly suggested.

In this paper, we initiate the study of higher rank Baumslag–Solitar (BS) semigroups and their related C*-algebras. We focus on two rather interesting classes—one is related to products of odometers and the other is related to Furstenberg’s $\times p, \times q$ conjecture. For the former class, whose C*-algebras are studied in [32], we here characterize the factoriality of the associated von Neumann algebras and further determine their types; for the latter, we obtain their canonical Cartan subalgebras. In the rank 1 case, we study a more general setting that encompasses (single-vertex) generalized BS semigroups. One of our main tools in this paper is from self-similar higher rank graphs and their C*-algebras.

In the context of climate change, conflicting legal claims are being articulated and adjudicated about who is owed reparations. Vulnerable individuals and states, primarily from the Global South, have advanced arguments in various forums that they are owed reparations or compensation for the harms caused by excessive emissions of high-emitting states or corporations. Yet concurrently, fossil fuel companies are utilizing international investment law and arbitration to seek compensation for government policies that promote a transition away from fossil fuels.

Ageing populations and slower growth have compelled governments in mature welfare states to implement fiscal adjustments, but uncertainty persists about whether these measures have successfully curtailed the size of the welfare state. This letter documents that fiscal adjustments reduce social spending more effectively than previously thought. Using data from sixteen advanced economies between 1978 and 2018 and the narrative identification of adjustment plans, I estimate cumulative multipliers with local projections. I find that fiscal adjustments persistently lower social spending, including key components of social consumption and social investment. To explain why austerity does not shelter the welfare state, I present stylized facts about the timing and composition of adjustment plans. First, while public investment cuts concentrate at the beginning of the adjustment period, social consumption cuts accumulate over time. Second, large budget deficits and financial crises are frequent antecedents of the most ambitious fiscal reforms.

As part of a larger campaign to end diversity, equity, and inclusion, President Donald Trump’s recent Executive Order 14173 eliminated EO 11246 “Equal Employment Opportunity.” In this brief, we provided background on the often-misunderstood EO 11246 and discuss the potential implications of its reversal considering previous state legislation banning affirmative action and the current political context.

The expectation that those impacted by violations of public international law will receive a remedy has ballooned in recent years. Such expectations have shaped international legal discourse in unexpected ways and generated concrete action. In DRC v. Uganda (2022), the International Court of Justice awarded US$330 million in damages for wartime violations.1 International climate change talks are increasingly preoccupied with a controversial fund to address loss and damage.2 In 2024, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued its largest victims reparations order.3 These developments are celebrated as examples of realizing an individual’s international legal right to reparation. While an important starting point, this perspective fails to provide a full picture of these novel practices.

We study randomized generation of sequences of test inputs to a system using Prolog. Prolog is a natural fit to generate test sequences that have complex logical interdependent structure. To counter the problems posed by a large (or infinite) set of possible tests, randomization is a natural choice. We study the impact that randomization in conjunction with SLD resolution have on the test performance. To this end, this paper proposes two strategies to add randomization to a test-generating program. One strategy works on top of standard Prolog semantics, whereas the other alters the SLD selection function. We analyze the mean time to reach a test case and the mean number of generated test cases in the framework of Markov chains. Finally, we provide an additional empirical evaluation and comparison between both approaches.

Herbicide resistance poses an escalating challenge to successful weed management in contemporary cropping systems, prompting growing interest in integrated strategies to reduce reliance on herbicides. Although cover cropping has long been recognized for its potential to suppress weeds, it has recently gained renewed attention as a weed management tool and for its ability to help producers achieve broader goals of soil health and environmental sustainability. Although research on its efficacy in the midsouthern United States has accumulated, a meta-analytic synthesis has been lacking. This meta-analysis synthesized 746 effect sizes from 27 peer-reviewed studies (selected based on explicit reporting of weed suppression metrics, conducted in the midsouthern United States between 1991 and 2023) to assess cover crop weed suppression in the midsouthern region, which includes Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, eastern Oklahoma, Tennessee, and eastern Texas. Six key moderators and their two-way interactions were evaluated: tillage status of no-cover-crop controls, cover crop termination timing, weed control evaluation timing, cover crop type, weed functional group, and crop type, using a multivariate framework capturing study-level variation. The overall effect size was 36 (confidence interval [CI], 25–47], with most moderator levels showing positive effect sizes. Suppression was pronounced against no-till controls (mean difference [MD] = 43; CI, 30–55), while tilled controls exhibited moderated effects (MD = 27; CI, 14–39) due to the inherent weed suppression provided by tillage. Effects were greater for early evaluation timing (MD = 47; CI, 33–61) than late timing (MD = 34; CI, 20–48). Grass-legume mixtures provided the greatest suppression (MD = 70; CI, 56–84), while brassicas were ineffective (MD = 13; CI, 0–27). However, substantial two-way interactions among these moderators were prevalent, accompanied by high heterogeneity, indicating complex context specificity. Nonetheless, these findings highlight the weed suppression potential of cover crops and provide agroecologically informed quantitative insights into using cover crops for weed management in the region.

In the UK, some devolved governments such as in Scotland have taken a distinctive approach to implementing public service reforms. In this article, we explore the key enablers and constraints of outcome-based initiatives at the sub-national level. Drawing on a formative evaluation of the delivery of the Social Bridging Finance model, this study contributes to understanding results-oriented funding models and pluralist governance in welfare services beyond Scotland in three key ways. First, it emphasises the critical role of independent, multi-year grant funding in enabling more equitable and collaborative relationships between public bodies and the third sector. By reducing financial risk, such mechanisms challenge traditional state-led financing models. Second, it highlights the dual role of contractual agreements – supporting early sustainability discussions but revealing limitations when legal enforceability is weak. This points to the relevance of informal and relational accountability in outcome-based commissioning. Third, the study identifies the importance of collaboratively developed success criteria. The diverse experiences revealed in this study emphasise the need for flexibility, shared ownership and continuous learning – particularly given public sector responsibility for service continuity.

Patients with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) have increased risk of hepatoblastoma (HB). We report monozygotic twins with HB in a FAP family. To explore genetic alterations in the HBs of the twins, we carried out whole exome sequencing (WES), RNA-seq, and immunohistochemical analyses of the tumors. Additional multiregional digital PCR was performed to profile clonality of each tumor. To determine a pathogenic germline variant in APC, Sanger sequencing was applied for the twins, the father, and the siblings of the father. A pathogenic variant of the APC gene was identified in the father as well as the twins. The WES of the HBs in the twins identified somatic mutations, including an NRAS mutation in the tumor of the first infant (C1), and an ACVR2A mutation in the tumor of the second infant (C2). No somatic mutations were identified in the genes associated with the Wnt signaling pathway. However, accumulation of β-catenin was found in the C1 and C2 tumors by immunohistochemical staining, suggesting activation of the Wnt signaling pathway. Digital PCR analysis revealed that the NRAS mutation was found in multiregional specimens of C1 and those of C2. The ACVR2A mutation was found in multiregional specimens of C2, whereas the mutation was also identified in those of C1. The existence of a shared somatic mutation may suggest that microchimerism took place in the development of HBs through the utero-placental circulatory system. Importantly, the initiation of tumorigenesis is thought to occur during the fetal period after organ development of the liver.

David Phillips (2011) and Thomas Hurka (2014a, 2014b) argue that Sidgwick’s critique of deontology contains three serious flaws. First, it has no force against moderate deontologies composed of prima facie duties rather than unconditional duties. Second, Sidgwick’s preferred principles fail to meet the very criteria by which he rejects deontological principles. Third, Sidgwick’s employment of his key maxim of Rational Benevolence equivocates between all-things-considered and other-things-equal formulations. I defend Sidgwick against all three criticisms. (1) While some of Sidgwick’s arguments apply only to absolute deontology, others apply to moderate versions as well. (2) Although Sidgwick’s preferred principles do not fare perfectly against his criteria, they still fare better than the deontological principles. (3) The suggestion that Sidgwick relies on an all-things-considered formulation of Rational Benevolence is based on a misunderstanding of the structure of his argument. The upshot is that Sidgwick’s overarching line of argument is stronger than recent critics suggest.

The last decades have seen important progress in the economic analysis of institutions, with increasing concern about the need to ‘unbundle’ this concept and the diversity of situations it covers. It is so because of the complexity of the systems the concept intends to capture and the ambiguity of definitions often perceived as catch-all ideas without a clear connection to a research strategy. This essay contributes to the literature emphasising that overcoming these difficulties requires a theoretical framework identifying and characterising distinct institutional layers. The content of this framework is substantiated through the analysis of the nature and role of the long-ignored intermediate layer of ‘meso-institutions’. Meso-institutions designate devices and transmission mechanisms linking general rules, norms and beliefs established at the macro-institutional level with their perception, adaptation, and implementation (or challenge) by the actors populating the micro-level. Operationalising this framework relies on a research strategy that proceeds from a ‘substantive theory’ of institutions to the collection and processing of ‘empirical evidences’ through the development of ‘auxiliary theories’ designed to capture specific institutional objects. References to several empirical studies support the relevance of this approach.

Meritocracy is a central ideal in American workforce management, yet systemic biases and structural barriers often undermine its implementation. Executive orders (EO) 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity, and 14281, Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy, aim to reinforce meritocratic principles by eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and disparate impact protections. However, these orders operate under the flawed assumption that a meritocracy will naturally emerge without intervention, disregarding evidence that superfluous factors outside merit impact organizational decisions. This policy brief argues that evidence-based DEI practices and disparate impact protections are not antithetical to meritocracy but are, in fact, necessary for its achievement. We discuss the implications of these EOs, focusing on how they may harm employee and organizational functioning and undermine the very principles they seek to uphold. Finally, we propose actions I-O psychologists can take, including issuing unified definitions of key terms, setting standards of practice for improving merit-based decision making, publicizing the broad utility of DEI initiatives and disparate impact protections, and advancing related research. These recommendations offer a path to uphold fairness and excellence in workforce management.

This paper focuses on the epistemic significance of disagreement for a specific kind of contractualist (not contractarian) moral theory. I argue that a purely hypothetical version of contractualism excludes a prima facie attractive conciliationist view of disagreement simply because of the way it constructs the moral point of view. There is no room, in such an approach, for rational, hypothetical peer disagreement within the monological deliberative procedure itself. Attempts to supplement this monological procedure with a kind of post hoc appeal to actual disagreement undermine the basic rationale for adopting a hypothetical approach in the first place. An actual agreement approach to contractualism, by contrast, is well-positioned to take disagreement seriously. For such an approach, moral disagreement signals a failure to fully validate or constitute a binding norm, one that may produce – rather than merely result from – genuine moral indeterminacy. Furthermore, as each of our positions within contractualist discourse reflects a defeasible conviction about what could be the subject of genuine, intersubjective agreement among all affected, when we encounter disagreement that is not subject to clear defeaters, we do indeed have grounds to think our convictions may be mistaken, or that we must modify our credences in ways that reflect the risks we consciously run in defending and acting on convictions that do not enjoy justificatory completion.