The validity of classical trajectory and perturbative quantal methods for electron-impact ionization from excited states in H-like ions

To test the validity of classical trajectory and perturbative quantal methods for electron-impact ionization of H-like ions from excited states, we have performed advanced close-coupling calculations of ionization from excited states in H, Li 2+ and B 4+ using the R -matrix with pseudo states and the time-dependent close-coupling methods. Comparisons with our classical trajectory Monte Carlo (CTMC) and distorted-wave (DW) calculations show that the CTMC method is more accurate than the DW method for H, but does not improve with n and grows substantially worse with Z , while the DW method improves with Z and grows worse with n .

Inner-shell photodetachment of excited 4S° and 6S° metastable bound states of Be-

The total cross sections for photodetachment of the metastable 1s ²2p^{3 4}S° and 1s2s2p^{3 6}S° excited bound states of the negative ion of beryllium are presented for a range of initial photon energies across and beyond the 1s detachment threshold. A multichannel close-coupling R-matrix approximation is used to compute the cross sections, with sophisticated configuration-interaction wavefunctions being used to represent the initial and final states. At present there are no other theoretical or experimental data available with which to compare the cross sections for these two photodetachment processes.

Trends in Approval Times for Genetically Engineered Crops in the United States and the European Union

Genetically engineered (GE) crops are subject to regulatory oversight to ensure their safety for humans and the environment. Their approval in the European Union (EU) starts with an application in a given Member State followed by a scientific step (risk assessment), and ends with a political decision-making step (risk management); and in the United States (US) it starts with a scientific (field trial) step and ends with a ‘bureaucratic’ decision-making step. We investigated trends for the time taken for these steps and the overall time taken for approving GE crops in the US and the EU (traders in these commodities). Results show that from 1996-2015 the overall time trend for approval in the EU decreased and then flattened off, with an overall mean completion-time of 1,763 days. In the US in 1998 there was a break in the trend of the overall approval time: Initially, from 1988 until 1997 the trend decreased with a mean approval time of 1,321 days; from 1998-2015, the trend almost stagnated with a mean approval time of 2,467 days.

The Extra-territorial Obligations of European States regarding Human Rights in the Context of Terrorism

This chapter focuses on the growing tendency of international human rights law to require states to protect the rights of non-nationals who are in the state unlawfully and of nationals and non-nationals who are outside the state, especially when any of these people are involved in terrorist or counter-terrorist activity. It reviews these additional obligations within a European context, focusing on EU law and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights and drawing on the case law of UK courts. Part 1 considers when a European state must grant asylum to alleged terrorists on the basis that otherwise they would suffer human rights abuses in the state from which they are fleeing. Part 2 examines whether, outside of asylum claims, a European state must not deport or extradite an alleged terrorist because he or she might suffer an abuse of human rights in the receiving state. Part 3 looks at whether a European state whose security forces are engaged in counter-terrorism activities abroad is obliged to protect the human rights of the individuals serving in those forces and/or the human rights of the alleged terrorists they are confronting. While welcoming the extension of state responsibility, the chapter notes that it is occurring in a way which introduces three aspects of relativity into the protection of human rights. First, European law protects only some human rights extra-territorially. Second, it protects those rights only when there is ‘a real risk’ of their being violated. Third, sometimes it protects those rights only when there is a real risk of their being violated ‘flagrantly’.