Multilevel multicomponent complex adaptive systems are not reducible to the sum of the causal effects of independent variables. Causal inference, which has a privileged place in contemporary IR (and many other social sciences) cannot address systems effects, which arise from interdependent elements and operations (not the impact of independent variables on dependent variables). Systems effects explanations explain why by showing how. They identify mechanisms and processes of causation. They thus are able to establish causal efficacy; that is, show how processes produce – actually cause – outcomes (rather than merely identify some elements that are part of an unspecified causal process). Such an understanding leads us away from a “laws and theories” conception of science, which remains popular in Physics and Chemistry, towards a “models and mechanisms” understanding, which predominates in the life sciences (which, on their face, seem a much better model for the social sciences).

This chapter provides a concise but comprehensive overview of body focused repetitive behaviors (BFRBs), focusing on the two disorders recognized in the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual (DSM 5), hairpulling disorder (HPD), also known as trichotillomania, and skin picking disorder (SPD), also known as excoriation disorder. It addresses diagnostic issues, causation, demographics, course of the disorders, comorbidity, prevalence, emotional and interpersonal sequelae, and phenomenology. Furthermore, common misconceptions about BFRBs are addressed, providing the reader with a solid information base upon which to build effective treatment.

The chapter focuses on the treatment of causation in Book VII on tort law of the Chinese Civil Code. After some remarks on the role that legislation can play in governing causation, the chapter reviews in a comparative perspective the location, breadth and content of general and special provisions on causation in the CCC. The analysis will show that what the CCC says on causation, and, perhaps more importantly, what it does not say, demonstrate a deep awareness of the relentless dynamics underlying tort law discourses and practices. Provisions on causation in the CCC strike a well-balanced compromise between the need of providing clear statutory guidance and the opportunity of allowing courts with substantial room to maneuver in light of the specific circumstances of each case.

Chapter 1 introduces the distinction between cause-in-fact and cause-in-law and defines both. Under ’cause-in-fact’, this chapter introduces different approaches to determining causation based on non-quantitative approaches (e.g., sine qua non and weak necessity/strong sufficiency tests) vis-à-vis quantitative approaches (e.g., the Statistical Significance Test and Linear Regression Analysis). The chapter also discusses the benefits and drawbacks of each of these tests. Chapter 1 also introduces the concept of ’cause-in-law’ theories, but explains why they are less relevant for the purposes of the book. To this end, it argues that the quantitative methods that are inherent in the use of the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Analysis serve to delimit responsibility for injury.

The introduction sets out the different types of causal relationships that the law of the World Trade Organization (WTO) raises. It also defines both causation and non-attribution in the law of the WTO and discusses the fact that both are required in this legal context. The introduction foreshadows the contents of each of the five substantive chapters that follow. It explains the concept of the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Approach and discusses the advantages and disadvantages of taking an econometric approach to analysing causation. The introduction also explicates those causal questions in WTO law that fall outside the scope of the book as it explains why they do not fit with the concept of the Tripartite Non-attribution/Causal Link Approach. The introduction also explores some of the limitations of the book as well as containing a brief discussion of the sources and methodology of the book.

The allocation of liability for environmental harm in areas beyond national jurisdiction (ABNJ) is complicated by several factors relating to the nature of the activities undertaken and the nature of environmental harm itself. These include the range of actors involved in activities that may give rise to environmental harm, and features of cumulative environmental damage, arising over a course of time either out of a connected or unconnected set of activities involving multiple actors or from external natural causes. To address these issues, this chapter outlines legal approaches to causation and the challenges that complex causal pathways may present in ABNJ. It then discusses the general approach to allocating responsibility to states and international organizations under international law and national law, and the channeling of liability to operational entities which is the principal approach in sector-specific civil liability regimes. Finally, it explores the rules that structure the allocation of liability in relation to specific ABNJ regimes and activities.

This chapter discusses command responsibility as an IHL doctrine. It commences by discussing the concept of responsible command before addressing the scope of application of the doctrine of command responsibility and the elements of the doctrine of command responsibility. The underlying offence is then discussed. The criteria for the existence of a superior-subordinate relationship, the requirement for effective control, the criteria for the mens rea requirement and the criteria with regard to failure to adopt necessary and ressonable measures are considered. The chapter then discusses successor command responsibility and the issue of causation before concluding with analysis of the nature of command responsibility

Generations of Christians, Janet Soskice demonstrates, once knew God and Christ by hundreds of remarkable names. These included the appellations ‘Messiah’, ‘Emmanuel’, ‘Alpha’, ‘Omega’, ‘Eternal’, ‘All-Powerful’, ‘Lamb’, ‘Lion’, ‘Goat’, ‘One’, ‘Word’, ‘Serpent’ and ‘Bridegroom’. In her much-anticipated new book, Soskice argues that contemporary understandings of divinity could be transformed by a return to a venerable analogical tradition of divine naming. These ancient titles – drawn from scripture – were chanted and sung, crafted and invoked (in polyphony and plainsong) as they were woven into the worship of the faithful. However, during the sixteenth century Descartes moved from ‘naming’ to ‘defining’ God via a series of metaphysical attributes. This made God a thing among things: a being amongst beings. For the author, reclaiming divine naming is not only overdue. It can also re-energise the relationship between philosophy and religious tradition. This path-breaking book shows just how rich and revolutionary such reclamation might be.

In this chapter, we discuss whether there is a causal relationship between cannabis use and psychosis in terms of the criteria of causality proposed by Bradford-Hill. We conclude that the evidence for each of the criteria ranges from consistent in the context of strength, consistency, and temporality; strong in the context of biological gradient and experimental evidence; plausible in the context of biological plausibility and coherence. The association is not specific for psychosis but also includes depression and suicidal thoughts, and it is unclear whether the analogy criteira are appropriate. Thus, the epidemiological, experimental, and genetic evidence suggests that cannabis, particularly high potency cannabis, is a contributing factor to the incidence of psychosis in the population. In consequence, over the last 20 years there has been a shift in the argument from ‘whether there is a causal relationship between cannabis and psychosis’ to considering the magnitude of this relationship.

Does cannabis use play a causal role in subsequent violence? The available research suggests an association between cannabis use and risk of being a perpetrator of violence. Indeed, cannabis users are at increased risk of carrying out severe violence, including aggravated assault, sexual aggression, fighting, and robbery. There is also evidence on the association between cannabis use and subsequent victimization (e.g., intimate partner violence). Individuals with severe mental disorders also show an incremented risk of violence, considering their higher rate of cannabis use compared to the general population. Possible mechanisms underlying this association involve (1) the neurobiological effect of the substance after acute use, but also during abstinence and withdrawal, and (2) social factors, such as the violent/criminal lifestyles of cannabis users. However, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of the current literature. Most available studies are cross-sectional and retrospective, so it remains difficult to disentangle the direction of the association. Despite that, cannabis use may be a useful preventive intervention target, particularly among at-risk groups such as psychiatric patients.

After considering On Breaths’ “Gorgianic” style and the disputed attribution of this text to Hippocrates, this chapter argues that the author’s attribution of all diseases to pneuma is not as revolutionary as it initially appears. By relying on widely attested views about what pneuma tends to do within the body, this author is in fact remarkably conservative when constructing his own theories of pathogenesis. This chapter then turns to the more important question of why this author felt compelled to identify a single cause of all diseases. On the one hand, we can point to the same interest in remote and proximate causes that we see in On the Nature of the Human Being. At the same time, this author seems to be driven by a separate “cosmological impulse,” the belief that high-level commonalities, whatever their applicability, are inherently desirable and directly relevant to the medical art.

In On the Nature of the Human Being, Polybus claims that the humors, like everything else, are composed of four substances: the hot, the cold, the dry, and the wet. He also discusses humoral flux – the idea that a single humor, after gathering in one part of the body, can create a wide range of effects by flowing to different parts. This chapter argues that Polybus’s thinking about cosmological principles is closely tied to his interest in humoral flux. Both concepts are motivated by an interest in tracing diseases to their “source” (arche), and both ultimately establish a two-pronged approach to treatment, wherein doctors are expected to target both the proximate cause of a disease (i.e., a concentrated humor) and its remote cause (i.e., the factor(s) that initially caused that humor to separate out). This chapter further argues that an interest in individual differences does not preclude a coexisting interest in cosmological principles. Instead, Polybus presents his cosmological principles as a solution to the problem of individual variation, identifying the shared “nature” (phusis) of human beings as a high-level commonality that transcends individual differences.

The Conclusion summarizes the main theoretical propositions of the book, reviews the empirical results, and offers a critical reflection on the methodological approach. It also identifies several avenues that future research might want to consider. Based on the experience of this book, macro-theorizing has proven to be a fruitful complement to micro-approaches. Equally important, the interplay of factors and the idea of “chemical causation” (Mill) deserve more scholarly attention. The polysemic and multidimensional nature of the concepts has been a critical issue throughout the book. This holds particularly true for the role of ordinary citizens and the key concept of legitimation. Lastly, the chapter argues that future research might want to tackle the enormous task of systematizing autocratic political thought. While we have consolidated and almost canonical knowledge about the different theories of democratic rule, the autocratic pole is less explored. The conclusion contends that future projects that bring order into the rich reservoir of autocratic political thought will be a promising endeavor.

Susanne Staschen-Dielmann’s history episode is designed to offer learners deep understanding and command of a specific historical genre. Criteria-centred evaluation is one of the most challenging text types to master in history. It requires the ability to analyse and evaluate historical events from different perspectives in a nuanced way through a set of criteria. A series of tasks leads to students creating instructional videos for other students. In those videos, students explore aspects of society in the German Empire guided by the research question: ‘After unifying the German Reich with “blood and iron” in 1871, did Bismarck manage to unify German society as a nation?’ After sharing their findings on different social and political factions and analysing similarities and differences according to social, political, economic and ideological positions, learners collaboratively assess the degree of national unity or disunity in Germany under Bismarck, following the principles of criteria-centred evaluation.

The two major sources of error are chance (random error) and confounding bias (systematic error). After correcting for these two kinds of error, one can then assess or assert causation. These are the “Three Cs.”