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.
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.
Volume I of The Cambridge History of International Law introduces the historiography of international law as a field of scholarship. After a general introduction to the purposes and design of the series, Part 1 of this volume highlights the diversity of the field in terms of methodologies, disciplinary approaches, and perspectives that have informed both older and newer historiographies in the recent three decades of its rapid expansion. Part 2 surveys the history of international legal history writing from different regions of the world, spanning roughly the past two centuries. The book therefore offers the most complete treatment of the historical development and current state of international law history writing, using both a global and an interdisciplinary perspective.
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
Edited by
Randall Lesaffer, KU Leuven & Tilburg University,Anne Peters, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law, Heidelberg
While political scientists regularly engage in spirited theoretical debates about elections and voting behavior, few have noticed that elected politicians also have theories of elections and voting. Here, we investigate politicians’ positions on eight central theoretical debates in the area of elections and voting behavior and compare politicians’ theories to those held by ordinary citizens. Using data from face-to-face interviews with nearly one thousand politicians in 11 countries, together with corresponding surveys of more than twelve thousand citizens, we show that politicians overwhelmingly hold thin, minimalist, “democratic realist” theories of voting, while citizens’ theories are more optimistic and policy oriented. Politicians’ theoretical tendencies—along with their theoretical misalignment from citizens—are remarkably consistent across countries. These theories are likely to have important consequences for how politicians campaign, communicate with the public, think about public policy, and represent their constituents.
Problem Management Plus (PM+) has been effective in reducing mental health problems among refugees at three-month follow-up, but there is a lack of research on its long-term effectiveness. This study examined the effectiveness of PM+ in reducing symptoms of common mental disorders at 12-month follow-up among Syrian refugees in the Netherlands.
Methods
This single-blind, parallel, controlled trial randomised 206 adult Syrians who screened positive for psychological distress and impaired functioning to either PM+ in addition to care as usual (PM+/CAU) or CAU alone. Assessments were at baseline, 1 week and 3 months after the intervention and 12 months after baseline. Outcomes were psychological distress (Hopkins Symptom Checklist [HSCL-25]), depression (HSCL-25 subscale), anxiety (HSCL-25 subscale), posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms (PCL-5), functional impairment (WHODAS 2.0) and self-identified problems (PSYCHLOPS).
Results
In March 2019–December 2022, 103 participants were assigned to PM+/CAU and 103 to CAU of which 169 (82.0%) were retained at 12 months. Intention-to-treat analyses showed greater reductions in psychological distress at 12 months for PM+/CAU compared to CAU (adjusted mean difference −0.17, 95% CI −0.310 to −0.027; p = 0.01, Cohen’s d = 0.28). Relative to CAU, PM+/CAU participants also showed significant reductions on anxiety (−0.19, 95% CI −0.344 to −0.047; p = 0.01, d = 0.31) but not on any of the other outcomes.
Conclusions
PM+ is effective in reducing psychological distress and symptoms of anxiety over a period up to 1 year. Additional support such as booster sessions or additional (trauma-focused) modules may be required to prolong and consolidate benefits gained through PM+ on other mental health and psychosocial outcomes.
Traditional approaches for evaluating the impact of scientific research – mainly scholarship (i.e., publications, presentations) and grant funding – fail to capture the full extent of contributions that come from larger scientific initiatives. The Translational Science Benefits Model (TSBM) was developed to support more comprehensive evaluations of scientific endeavors, especially research designed to translate scientific discoveries into innovations in clinical or public health practice and policy-level changes. Here, we present the domains of the TSBM, including how it was expanded by researchers within the Implementation Science Centers in Cancer Control (ISC3) program supported by the National Cancer Institute. Next, we describe five studies supported by the Penn ISC3, each focused on testing implementation strategies informed by behavioral economics to reduce key practice gaps in the context of cancer care and identify how each study yields broader impacts consistent with TSBM domains. These indicators include Capacity Building, Methods Development (within the Implementation Field) and Rapid Cycle Approaches, implementing Software Technologies, and improving Health Care Delivery and Health Care Accessibility. The examples highlighted here can help guide other similar scientific initiatives to conceive and measure broader scientific impact to fully articulate the translation and effects of their work at the population level.
This editorial considers the value and nature of academic psychiatry by asking what defines the specialty and psychiatrists as academics. We frame academic psychiatry as a way of thinking that benefits clinical services and discuss how to inspire the next generation of academics.
Declining labor force participation of older men throughout the 20th century and recent increases in participation have generated substantial interest in understanding the effect of public pensions on retirement. The National Bureau of Economic Research's International Social Security (ISS) Project, a long-term collaboration among researchers in a dozen developed countries, has explored this and related questions. The project employs a harmonized approach to conduct within-country analyses that are combined for meaningful cross-country comparisons. The key lesson is that the choices of policy makers affect the incentive to work at older ages and these incentives have important effects on retirement behavior.
This paper introduces DivFolio, a multiperiod portfolio selection and analytic software application that incorporates automated and user-determined divestment practices accommodating Environmental Social Governance (ESG) and portfolio carbon footprint considerations. This freely available portfolio analytics software tool is written in R with a GUI interface developed as an R Shiny application for ease of user experience. Users can utilize this software to dynamically assess the performance of asset selections from global equity, exchange-traded funds, exchange-traded notes, and depositary receipts markets over multiple time periods. This assessment is based on the impact of ESG investment and fossil-fuel divestment practices on portfolio behavior in terms of risk, return, stability, diversification, and climate mitigation credentials of associated investment decisions. We highlight two applications of DivFolio. The first revolves around using sector scanning to divest from a specialized portfolio featuring constituents of the FTSE 100. The second, rooted in actuarial considerations, focuses on divestment strategies informed by environmental risk assessments for mixed pension portfolios in the US and UK.
Globally, human rights violations experienced by persons with psychosocial, intellectual or cognitive disabilities continue to be a concern. The World Health Organization's (WHO) QualityRights initiative presents practical remedies to address these abuses. This paper presents an overview of the implementation of the initiative in Ghana.
Aims
The main objective of the QualityRights initiative in Ghana was to train and change attitudes among a wide range of stakeholders to promote recovery and respect for human rights for people with psychosocial, intellectual and cognitive disabilities.
Method
Reports of in-person and online training, minutes of meetings and correspondence among stakeholders of the QualityRights initiative in Ghana, including activities of international collaborators, were analysed to shed light on the implementation of the project in Ghana.
Results
In-person and online e-training on mental health were conducted. At the time of writing, 40 443 people had registered for the training, 25 416 had started the training and 20 865 people had completed the training and obtained a certificate. The team conducted 27 in-person training sessions with 910 people. The successful implementation of the project is underpinned by a committed partnership among stakeholders, strong leadership from the coordinating agency, the acceptance of the initiative and the outcome. A few challenges, both in implementation and acceptance, are discussed.
Conclusions
The exposure of the WHO QualityRights initiative to a substantial number of key stakeholders involved in mental healthcare in Ghana is critical to reducing human rights abuses for people with psychosocial, intellectual and cognitive disabilities.