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 firstname.lastname@example.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.
The COVID-19 pandemic forced many countries to apply restrictive measures. During the first wave Portugal went through a lockdown, and all the child and adolescents had to stay home and could only contact with the one’s they lived with for several months.
This study aimed to evaluate the impact of those restrictions on suicidal ideation in the pediatric population evaluated in a child and adolescent psychiatry emergency care of a tertiary referral hospital.
We conducted an exploratory retrospective study. All the data from discharge notes were collected between March 15th and June 15th of 2020 (n=59), and in the homologous period of the previous year (n=178). The referral after evaluation (primary care, child and adolescent psychiatry consultation, inpatient unit) was considered a measure of severity.
The demographic variables (sex, age) were homogeneous between the two groups (p ≥ 0,05). 17,4% (n=31) of the sample from 2019, and 16,9% (n=10) of the sample of 2020 had suicidal ideation, which was not statistically different between groups (p=1,000). The referral, after evaluation between groups were also not statistically different (p=0,186).
Even though the proportion of patients with suicidal ideation was homogenous during the two periods, the total number of patients evaluated in the emergency room were lower during the first wave of Covid-19 pandemic. We assume that the population had fear of seeking help in hospital facilities, but we also believe that the pause on school burdens and the reconnection between some families could have function as protective factors.
It remains unclear whether the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is having an impact on suicide rates (SR). Economic insecurity and mental disorders are risk factors for suicide, which may increase during the pandemic.
Data on suicide events in a major city in Germany, and the corresponding life years (LY) were provided by the local authorities. For the year 2020, periods without restrictions on freedom of movement and social contact were compared with periods of moderate and severe COVID-19 restrictions. To avoid distortions due to seasonal fluctuations and linear time trends, suicide risk during the COVID-19 pandemic was compared with data from 2010 to 2019 using an interrupted time series analysis.
A total of 643 suicides were registered and 6 032 690 LY were spent between 2010 and 2020. Of these, 53 suicides and 450 429 LY accounted for the year 2020.
In 2020, SR (suicides per 100 000 LY) were lower in periods with severe COVID-19 restrictions (SR = 7.2, χ2 = 4.033, p = 0.045) compared with periods without restrictions (SR = 16.8). A comparison with previous years showed that this difference was caused by unusually high SR before the imposition of restrictions, while SR during the pandemic were within the trend corridor of previous years (expected suicides = 32.3, observed suicides = 35; IRR = 1.084, p = 0.682).
SR during COVID-19 pandemic are in line with the trend in previous years. Careful monitoring of SR in the further course of the COVID-19 crisis is urgently needed. The findings have regional reference and should not be over-generalised.
Agent-relative reasons are an important feature of any nonconsequentialist moral theory. Many authors think that they cannot be accommodated within a value-first theory that understands all value as agent-neutral. In this paper, I offer a novel explanation of agent-relative reasons that accommodates them fully within an agent-neutral value-first view. I argue that agent-relative reasons are to be understood in terms of second-order value responses: when an agent acts on an agent-relative reason, she responds appropriately to the agent-neutral value of her own appropriate response to some agent-neutral value. This view helps reconcile important elements of deontology and consequentialism.
International ‘naming and shaming’ campaigns rely on domestic civil society organizations (CSOs) for information on local human rights conditions. To stop this flow of information, some governments restrict CSOs, for example by limiting their access to funding. Do such restrictions reduce international naming and shaming campaigns that rely on information from domestic CSOs? This article argues that on the one hand, restrictions may reduce CSOs’ ability and motives to monitor local abuses. On the other hand, these organizations may mobilize against restrictions and find new ways of delivering information on human rights violations to international publics. Using a cross-national dataset and in-depth evidence from Egypt, the study finds that low numbers of restrictions trigger shaming by international non-governmental organizations. Yet once governments impose multiple types of restrictions, it becomes harder for CSOs to adapt, resulting in fewer international shaming campaigns.
On 3 December 1971, for the third time since the partition of British India in 1947, Pakistan and India went to war. In the words of the political scientist Sumit Ganguly, Pakistan’s pre-emptive air strikes on Indian air bases ‘failed miserably on all counts’. India retaliated with a combination of its own air strikes, naval bombardments, and land operations using tanks, artillery, paratroopers and six infantry divisions. The fighting, most of which took place in East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh), showcased India’s military superiority over its neighbour and continued until 17 December when the Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi ordered a ceasefire. Pakistan’s President, Yahya Khan, recognising the resounding defeat of his forces, accepted the ceasefire, and the Indo-Pakistani War of 1971 ended.
The restrictions on the use of force at sea exist in different branches of international law: the law of the sea and environmental law, mainly applicable during peacetime, and international humanitarian law (IHL), as the law applicable in times of armed conflict. Different rules from these areas must be compared and analyzed to determine the common principles applicable to restricting the use of force at sea for the purposes of environmental protection. Taking into account the particular problems of protecting the marine environment in the context of the use of force, the law of the sea and international environmental law should be applied to restrict means and methods of using force at sea during armed conflict. The detailed concepts and approaches in the law of the sea and environmental law may complement IHL, and the precautionary principle of international environmental law should be triggered to address the lacunae in IHL protecting the marine environmental during armed conflict.
In a proceeding brought against the People’s Republic of China by the United States (in which Japan and the European Union joined), the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization (WTO) ruled that China violated its obligations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade 1994 (GATT)1 by imposing export restrictions on “rare earths,” minerals used in mobile phones, hybrid cars, and other high-tech products. In upholding the earlier decision of a WTO dispute settlement panel, the Appellate Body rejected China’s argument that export duties, quotas, and other restrictions could be justified by health and environmental concerns.
Article 43 EC prohibits not only restrictions on freedom of establishment on the part of the host State but also those restrictions that are attributable to the State of origin. This article focuses on the latter aspect, the prohibition on ‘exit restrictions’, which was at the centre in the European Court of Justice's recent judgment in Marks & Spencer.