We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Online ordering will be unavailable from 17:00 GMT on Friday, April 25 until 17:00 GMT on Sunday, April 27 due to maintenance. We apologise for the inconvenience.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This part explores the principles and mechanisms for the reparation of human rights violations and the enforcement of decisions rendered by international human rights bodies. It discusses the obligation of states to provide full reparation for harm suffered as a result of human rights violations, including restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction, and guarantees of nonrepetition. The sections examine the legal standards for determining and quantifying reparation, the procedural aspects of reparation processes, and the role of international and national bodies in monitoring and enforcing reparation awards. Additionally, this part focuses on the enforcement mechanisms and challenges in implementing international human rights decisions. It discusses various models of enforcement, including judicial review, hybrid monitoring, and political and diplomatic control. The part highlights the importance of effective enforcement in ensuring the realization of human rights and the accountability of states for human rights violations. By providing insights into the reparation and enforcement processes, this part emphasizes the critical role of comprehensive and effective mechanisms in achieving justice and reconciliation for victims of human rights violations.
Health care comprises a major segment of the US economy and is a critical influence upon citizens’ quality of life. The quality of health care and access to it are negatively affected by corruption. So too is citizen compliance with public health policies, a fact that became apparent during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stay-at-home orders, for example, were significantly less effective in states with more extensive corruption. Low levels of trust in government contributed to those disparities. Such effects are more pronounced in poorer areas and Black communities. Racial contrasts in vaccine equity – access to vaccinations and related services – were pronounced and, again, reflected levels of corruption. Particularly intractable problems of collective action posed by structural corruption and structural racism must be addressed if disparities in the quality of health care are to be reduced.
Executives, managers, and employees use legal knowledge with varying levels of sophistication which I term "pathways of legal strategy." There are five discrete pathways of legal strategy that firms use in their legal environment of business. The avoidance pathway focuses on circumvention of legal rules. Firms practicing conformance seek minimum compliance with legal obligations. Prevention firms apply business knowledge to avert legal wrongdoing. Value firms leverage legal knowledge to create and capture value. Firms pursuing a transformation strategy use legal knowledge to redefine the organization or an industry. Each of these pathways is analyzed for its distinct traits regarding the manager’s perception of the law, the level of legal knowledge in the organization, and the role of legal experts, and the pathway’s reinforcement of organizational goals. The pathways can help organizations identify strategic uses of legal knowledge, highlight any mismatches, and develop a clear trajectory in order to shift from one pathway to another. The first three pathways (avoidance, conformance, and prevention) will be addressed in this chapter.
This work offers a step-by-step guide on how to utilize the law as a source of value in organizations. Robert C. Bird demonstrates how legal knowledge can be a valuable asset for firms, providing them with a sustainable competitive advantage that is difficult for rivals to imitate. Bird presents a five-part framework that outlines how firms can use legal knowledge in competitive markets and how they can avoid misusing it. Chapters also highlight how firms can cultivate legal knowledge and apply novel risk tools to overcome unexpected legal threats. The book emphasizes the importance of ethical values in business decisions and shows how managers and lawyers can build an ethical practice of legal knowledge that benefits both business and society. With the help of numerous visuals, this book makes it easy for readers to leverage legal knowledge and apply it to specific business contexts.
In most experimental studies of tax evasion, participants are instructed that they may report any amount of income from zero up to the amount they actually earned or received. This amounts to an invitation to gamble. In contrast, real-world tax authorities unambiguously demand compliance. We develop two new settings for conducting tax experiments. Both involve an explicit demand for compliance. Thus, we can determine whether knowing that the experimental authority would regard evasion as wrongful disobedience will influence compliance decisions. We demonstrate that simply telling people that they are required to pay a “participation fee” analogous to a tax produces remarkably high compliance rates and less sensitivity to changes in economic variables than in the earlier experimental literature using invitation-to-gamble language. This suggests that many people pay taxes despite the financial attraction of non-compliance because they are strongly inclined towards obeying authority. Furthermore, we show that giving participants a week to make their reporting decisions at home without an authority figure physically present overcomes the inclination to obey for some people, significantly lowering compliance rates. However, the majority still complies, even after the audit rate falls from 25% to 1%, which would make noncompliance extremely attractive if it were viewed only as a simple matter of risk and expected return.
Edited by
Dharti Patel, Mount Sinai West and Morningside Hospitals, New York,Sang J. Kim, Hospital for Special Surgery, New York,Himani V. Bhatt, Mount Sinai West and Morningside Hospitals, New York,Alopi M. Patel, Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, New Jersey
There are many important principles related to ventilators, alarms, and safety features in the operating room and intensive care unit that are relevant to preparation for the American Board of Anesthesiology BASIX exam and anesthesiology training in general. The first part of this chapter is focused on ventilator management and begins with an overview of phase variables (trigger, limit, cycle). An introduction to non-invasive, controlled mechanical, and assisted mechanical modes of ventilation follows, along with relevant high-yield principles. The final section of the chapter provides an overview of alarm design and commonly tested safety features.
In this research paper we introduce and validate an enhanced method for the detection of sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate in milk. Sodium benzoate and potassium sorbate are widely employed as preservatives in the food industry; however, their use to restrict microbial growth in milk is prohibited. Our novel method achieved performance indicators in accordance with the criteria outlined by the International Conference on Harmonization. The extraction process involved sample dilution in acetonitrile (1:1 v/v), followed by subsequent centrifugation, filtration and injection into a high-performance liquid chromatography system with a photodiode array detector. The detection and quantification limits for sodium benzoate were determined to be 0.204 and 0.618 mg/l, respectively, while for potassium sorbate, these values were 0.108 and 0.328 mg/l, respectively. The accuracy ranged from 92.67 to 99.53%, with pH 4.0 selected as the optimal condition to ensure adequate resolution of the preservatives. The proposed method stands out due to its simplicity and speed, using a single reagent in modest quantities during sample preparation. This approach reduces toxicity and minimizes the production of pollutants during disposal. Furthermore, the novel method requires less raw material and energy consumption, aligning with the principles of green chemistry. Its lower quantitation limits render it more sensitive when compared to the official analysis. The preparation, separation, and simultaneous detection of these preservatives in a short period of time make this method suitable for integration into industrial workflows.
In this paper, we provide a systematic review of existing artificial intelligence (AI) regulations in Europe, the United States, and Canada. We build on the qualitative analysis of 129 AI regulations (enacted and not enacted) to identify patterns in regulatory strategies and in AI transparency requirements. Based on the analysis of this sample, we suggest that there are three main regulatory strategies for AI: AI-focused overhauls of existing regulation, the introduction of novel AI regulation, and the omnibus approach. We argue that although these types emerge as distinct strategies, their boundaries are porous as the AI regulation landscape is rapidly evolving. We find that across our sample, AI transparency is effectively treated as a central mechanism for meaningful mitigation of potential AI harms. We therefore focus on AI transparency mandates in our analysis and identify six AI transparency patterns: human in the loop, assessments, audits, disclosures, inventories, and red teaming. We contend that this qualitative analysis of AI regulations and AI transparency patterns provides a much needed bridge between the policy discourse on AI, which is all too often bound up in very detailed legal discussions and applied sociotechnical research on AI fairness, accountability, and transparency.
Unlike many core human rights treaties, the Statelessness Conventions are among the most poorly ratified in the world. Orthodox scholarship on human rights treaties primarily focuses on post-ratification implementation and their impact on state conduct. While it is important to examine post-ratification compliance, understanding why states agree to ratify human rights treaties is as crucial. Ratification nudges states towards better human rights practices and serves as a gateway for the implementation of international norms. This chapter addresses this gap in scholarship by examining the ratification status of the Statelessness Conventions and the ratification process of the 1954 Statelessness Convention, together with key actors and their influence, by the Philippines, Southeast Asia’s first State Party to the treaty, and its subsequent accession to the 1961 Reduction of Statelessness Convention. Both rationalist and non-rationalist explanations account for ratifications. While rational explanations push states to ratify treaties, socializing liberal and constructivist-oriented explanations, for example, also drive states to commit to treaties. Multi-dimensional and multi-perspectival orientations should therefore inform how and why ratification or accession campaigns should be undertaken, and perhaps, even how treaties themselves should be designed. This analysis serves as a basis for broader theoretical reflections on persuading states to ratify human rights treaties.
Given its role as a legal instrument not only to try superiors but also to prevent both them and their subordinates from committing grave international crimes, the correct understanding and proper application of the doctrine of superior responsibility is of paramount importance. This article aims to illuminate specific and some controversial aspects of the third element of the doctrine—the failure to adopt necessary and reasonable measures—and obtain a clearer and more comprehensive understanding on the superiors’ duties, its limits and main prerequisites under the doctrine. For this purpose, an interdisciplinary study was conducted to investigate whether basic principles and business aspects of corporate governance and compliance management may be applied for a better understanding and refinement of the doctrine. The underlying analysis in corporate governance and compliance covers American (U.S.), German, and international standards.
Chapter 2 explains how belligerent reprisals have come to be interpreted as tools to induce compliance with the laws of armed conflict. It does so by highlighting three cumulative processes. First, it looks at the role that post–World War II tribunals, the ICTY and the ICRC have played in stressing the procedural elements of belligerent reprisals, emphasizing the highly formalized set of steps to be taken before the adoption of the measure while downplaying the retaliatory act itself. Then, it claims that the main thrust of this proceduralization lies in the creation of a regulatory framework that attributes a specific legal meaning to the retaliatory conduct and, by so doing, allows for an assimilation of belligerent reprisals with the notion of countermeasures. In turn, this analogy leads to the attribution to belligerent reprisals of a sanctioning character that protects the primary norm from the risk of persistent non-compliance. The outcome of these three processes is the attribution to belligerent reprisals of a chiefly coercive purpose, interested in inducing compliance with the laws of armed conflict and markedly influenced by the enforcement paradigm.
The Conclusion draws on the findings of the book to analyse the main implications of a reciprocity-based understanding of belligerent reprisals. First, it distinguishes this formalization of belligerent reprisals from earlier theories stressing the law-making function of the measure. Then, it accounts for the continued relevance of belligerent reprisals even at a time when mechanisms monitoring and enforcing compliance with the laws of armed conflict gain momentum. Finally, it explains how a reciprocity-based interpretation of belligerent reprisals would affect follow-up reform of the mechanism – be it in the sense of fine-tuning its regulation, or in the sense of disposing of it altogether.
This book challenges the traditional understanding of belligerent reprisals as a mechanism aimed at enforcing the laws of armed conflict. By re-instating reciprocity at the core of belligerent reprisals, it construes them as tools designed to re-calibrate the legal relationship between parties to armed conflict and pursue the belligerents' equality of rights and obligations in both a formal and a substantive sense. It combines an inquiry into the conceptual issues surrounding the notion of belligerent reprisals, with an analysis of State and international practice on their purpose and function. Encompassing international and non-international armed conflicts, it provides a first comprehensive account of the role of reprisals in governing legal interaction during wartime, and offers new grounds to address questions on their applicability, lawfulness, regulation, and desirability. This title is part of the Flip it Open Programme and may also be available Open Access. Check our website Cambridge Core for details.
In the last ten years, secondary sanctions have played an important role for European regulators as well as for compliance officers working for economic operators. Even though such European practitioners are looking for guidance and experience from their interlocutors from the other side of the Atlantic, including from the US Office of Foreign Assets Control, secondary sanctions do not act in the leading role but are one of many risk factors to be considered by economic operators. Instead, prohibitive policies of European economic operators, including financial institutions, against certain governments, such as Iran and to a lesser degree Russia, are mostly based on risks unrelated to secondary sanctions. On this premise, the chapter will briefly describe the relevant regulatory framework and will then explain how the regulations are operationally implemented in international financial institutions. In doing this, the chapter will also touch on practical challenges for sanctions compliance officers, such as extraterritoriality and the EU Blocking Regulation.
The aim of this conceptual chapter is to define international secondary sanctions and to address the contemporary legal challenges they raise. It proposes to explain such complex legal mechanisms, to overcome the apparent definitional wanderings in their regard, and to identify concrete keys to tackle the legal problems encountered by public and private practitioners. To this end, the analysis begins with an explanation of the core concepts underlying secondary sanctions and focuses on the aim of (extraterritorial) secondary sanctions to extend their scope, what the author calls ‘the reach dilemma’. The unilateral and extraterritorial mechanics of secondary sanctions are then illustrated by three original figures, allowing the reader to grasp the complexity of the different levers involved. The study then addresses the additional difficulty arising from the apparent plurality of definitions of secondary sanctions and proposes an explanatory key enabling to retain only one working definition of secondary sanctions stricto sensu. Finally, the chapter goes on with the identification of the main difficulties currently facing public and private legal practices in this field and presents legal solutions that offer avenues for resolution, in the short, medium and long term.
In Europe, the integration process has domesticated international relations, safeguarded member-states’ democracies, and enabled collective action and supranational problem-solving. It has brought about the European Union (EU) and a democratic ‘surplus’. How has this been possible when the binding effect of EU law is grounded neither in the sovereign’s monopoly on power at the European level nor in the final decision-making authority of the EU? An answer to this puzzle is found in the fact that a public coercive framework has been established, which aims at solving the indeterminacy and assurance problems facing international cooperation. The enabling condition of sovereignty is replaced by those of co-legislation and a binding judicial process. The latter creates reasons for deference to legitimate authority and hence a compliance condition. However, since the Union falls short of meeting certain democratic standards, oversteps competences, and is plagued with inertia, there is a call for constitutional reform.
This chapter summarizes the findings from our study, based on the meta-analysis averaging across the effects from the six experiments. We found that increases in locally appropriate community policing practices led to no improvements in citizen–police trust, no greater citizen cooperation with the police, and no reduction in crime. Despite a strong commitment from leadership in each context at the outset, the police implemented the interventions unevenly and incompletely. Although citizens reported more frequent and robust exposure to the police in places where community policing was implemented, we have limited evidence of police action in response to citizen reports.
In Chapter 4, we conduct an in-depth exploration of norms at both the individual and group levels. We discuss how they develop, how they are classified, and the factors that encourage their acceptance by group members. We also discuss the collusive behavior and deviancy that can occur in groups and their connection to group norms.
This article examines how Indigenous Peoples who depend on World Heritage sites for their culture and livelihood can appeal to the Committee when State Parties fail to comply with their obligations. While scholars criticize the World Heritage Convention for the lack of participation of Indigenous Peoples, particularly in the inscription and management processes, the framework of the Convention also allows representation and visibility. Indeed, compliance mechanisms offer opportunities for Indigenous advocates to negotiate Land sovereignty and environmental protection. TWAIL, which places the worldview of Indigenous Peoples at the center of legal practice, is crucial to understanding the interactions between Indigenous Peoples and the 1972 UNESCO Convention. TWAILers highlight how international law historically denies sovereignty rights to Indigenous Peoples. Article 6(1) echoes this absence of sovereignty. This article examines three cases in which Indigenous advocates petition to protect Native Lands against environmental degradations and colonization: Kakadu, Wood Buffalo, and Uluru. Ultimately, the challenges of Indigenous activists in their quest to preserve nature and culture reveal that the absence of sovereignty prerogatives remains a substantial issue. While the Convention provides a venue for advocacy and international awareness, Indigenous Peoples still must negotiate Land autonomy and cultural sovereignty with the State.
International human rights as a legal regime is founded on the premise that the State is both the violator and the protector of the same set of rights. Universal positivism is the effort to eliminate the internal contradiction embedded within the heart of human rights law. This is done by creating international legal regimes that break through the sovereign veil of States for the benefit of the individuals within the States. This is a benevolent authoritarian move since international human rights treaties cannot be adjusted or addressed by the democratic will of its rights-holding subjects. Universal positivism’s focus on the State as the object of suspicion obscures the intrinsic dependency on the State for the actualizations of said rights, and how a democratic legal order will protect the individuals within the State in ways that international human rights cannot.