An illusory interiority : interrogating the discourse/s of inclusion

It is generally accepted that the notion of inclusion derived or evolved from the practices of mainstreaming or integrating students with disabilities into regular schools. Halting the practice of segregating children with disabilities was a progressive social movement. The value of this achievement is not in dispute. However, our charter as scholars and cultural vigilantes (Slee & Allan, 2001) is to always look for how we can improve things; to avoid stasis and complacency we must continue to ask, how can we do it better? Thus, we must ask ourselves uncomfortable questions and develop a critical perspective that Foucault characterised as an ‘ethic of discomfort’ (Rabinow & Rose, 2003, p. xxvi) by following the Nietzscheian principle where one acts “counter to our time and thereby on our time… for the benefit of a time to come” (Nietzsche, 1874, p. 60 in Rabinow & Rose, 2003, p. xxvi). This paper begins with a fundamental question for those participating in inclusive education research and scholarship – when we talk of including, into what do we seek to include?

The ILC's Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts: Completion of the Second Reading

In 2001 the International Law Commission finally adopted on second reading the Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts with commentaries, bringing to an end nearly 50 years of ILC work on the subject. This article reviews the final group of changes to the text, focusing on the definitions of ‘injury’ and ‘damage’, assurances of non‐repetition in the light of the LaGrand case, procedural aspects of countermeasures and the controversy over measures taken in response to a breach by states which are not individually injured. The focus of debate now turns to the UNGA Sixth Committee, which will have to decide what to make of the Draft Articles. The ILC itself recommended an initial resolution taking note of the Articles, with subsequent consideration (after a period of years) of a possible diplomatic conference with a view to concluding a convention. This modest proposal allows for further reflection on the text and may help to avoid possibly divisive and inconclusive debate in the Sixth Committee. At the same time it allows time for better understanding of the many changes made as compared with the first reading text (1996).

Interactive architecture

This chapter explores the development of concepts of interactive environments by comparing two major projects that frame the period of this book. The Fun Palace of 1960 and the Generator of 1980 both proposed interactive environments responsive to the needs and behaviour of their users, but the contrast in terms of the available technology and what it enabled could not be more marked. The Fun Palace broke new architectural, organizational and social ground and was arguably the first proposition for cybernetic architecture; the Generator demonstrated how it could be achieved. Both projects are now acknowledged as seminal architectural propositions of the twentieth century, and both were designed by Cedric Price.