Measurements in the infrared wavelength domain allow direct assessment of the physical state and energy balance of cool matter in space, enabling the detailed study of the processes that govern the formation and evolution of stars and planetary systems in galaxies over cosmic time. Previous infrared missions revealed a great deal about the obscured Universe, but were hampered by limited sensitivity.

SPICA takes the next step in infrared observational capability by combining a large 2.5-meter diameter telescope, cooled to below 8 K, with instruments employing ultra-sensitive detectors. A combination of passive cooling and mechanical coolers will be used to cool both the telescope and the instruments. With mechanical coolers the mission lifetime is not limited by the supply of cryogen. With the combination of low telescope background and instruments with state-of-the-art detectors SPICA provides a huge advance on the capabilities of previous missions.

SPICA instruments offer spectral resolving power ranging from R ~50 through 11 000 in the 17–230 μm domain and R ~28.000 spectroscopy between 12 and 18 μm. SPICA will provide efficient 30–37 μm broad band mapping, and small field spectroscopic and polarimetric imaging at 100, 200 and 350 μm. SPICA will provide infrared spectroscopy with an unprecedented sensitivity of ~5 × 10−20 W m−2 (5σ/1 h)—over two orders of magnitude improvement over what earlier missions. This exceptional performance leap, will open entirely new domains in infrared astronomy; galaxy evolution and metal production over cosmic time, dust formation and evolution from very early epochs onwards, the formation history of planetary systems.

Inter-state disputes on human rights issues have been a far from exceptional phenomenon. During the Cold War the human rights question deeply divided the countries belonging to the Western and the communist blocs. Relations between developed and developing countries quite often have been heavily strained by controversies on human rights. But even within a group of countries belonging to an alliance or a homogeneous regional organization, human rights issues from time to time have been the cause of serious difficulties; e.g., the human rights record of Greece and Portugal within NATO and that of Greece and Turkey within the Council of Europe. Hardly ever have such disputes been subjected to third party dispute settlement machinery, even if such machinery was available. Most human rights treaties have a so-called procedure for state complaints, although in most cases acceptance of such a procedure is optional for the state parties. Only under two treaties, the European Convention on Human Rights and the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, it is mandatory for any state party against which a complaint by another state party is made, to submit itself to such a procedure. In most cases the procedures are of a fact-finding and mediatory character.Again, only under two (regional) treaties, the European and the American Convention on Human Rights, the initiating of such a procedure may lead to a binding decision.

In my opinion, Slofstra's description of the recent developments in Dutch archaeology can be characterized as a rather subjective narratio of a small episode in the history of science by a participant observer. It is only in the last sentence of his paper that he – rather obligatorily – acknowledges his position. Primarily, the article is a compilation of personal experiences, memories and convictions based on a thorough study of the literature, but lacking interviews with the principal characters. It is very much a private account, even to such an extent that it would not be difficult for anyone involved in Dutch archaeology to point out the author. The paper tells us as much about Slofstra as about the history of archaeology and presents a very personal view on the development of our discipline: the disqualification of the cultural-historical approach persisting into the eighties, the myth of the deliverance by the ‘Historical-Anthropological Approach’, together with the uncritical reiteration of the greatness of Van Giffen, and the ‘conspiracy scenario’ towards the ‘academic establishment’ which can retard everything except demographical processes.

The merging of two independent populations of heterotrophs and autotrophs into a single population of mixotrophs has occurred frequently in evolutionary history. It is an example of a wide class of related phenomena, known as symbiogenesis. The physiological basis is almost always (reciprocal) syntrophy, where each species uses the products of the other species. Symbiogenesis can repeat itself after specialization on particular assimilatory substrates. We discuss quantitative aspects and delineate eight steps from two free-living interacting populations to a single fully integrated endosymbiotic one. The whole process of gradual interlocking of the two populations could be mimicked by incremental changes of particular parameter values. The role of products gradually changes from an ecological to a physiological one. We found conditions where the free-living, epibiotic and endobiotic populations of symbionts can co-exist, as well as conditions where the endobiotic symbionts outcompete other symbionts. Our population dynamical analyses give new insights into the evolution of cellular homeostasis. We show how structural biomass with a constant chemical composition can evolve in a chemically varying environment if the parameters for the formation of products satisfy simple constraints. No additional regulation mechanisms are required for homeostasis within the context of the dynamic energy budget (DEB) theory for the uptake and use of substrates by organisms. The DEB model appears to be closed under endosymbiosis. This means that when each free-living partner follows DEB rules for substrate uptake and use, and they become engaged in an endosymbiotic relationship, a gradual transition to a single fully integrated system is possible that again follows DEB rules for substrate uptake and use.

The pronouncement of the International Court of Justice on Namibia lends itself to commentaries of many kinds. Far-reaching conclusions, even too far-reaching for many people, can be drawn from it. The accuracy of these conclusions, however, will depend primarily on the definition of the context within which the Court made its pronouncement. It is my firm conviction that this context is determined by the characteristics of the Mandate “Agreement”, characteristics which are absolutely unique and which can, therefore, in my opinion, be used as a basis for an argument per analogiam only with the greatest caution.