Indigenous rights in Chile: National identity and majority group support for multicultural policies

We examine support for policies affecting indigenous ethnic minorities in Chile. Specifically, we examine the role of national group definitions that include the largest indigenous group—the Mapuche—in different ways. Based on questionnaire data from nonindigenous Chilean students (N = 338), we empirically distinguish iconic inclusion, whereby the Mapuche are seen as an important part of Chile's history and identity on the one hand, from egalitarian inclusion, which represents the Mapuche as citizens of equal importance to the nonindigenous majority on the other. Both forms of inclusion positively predict support for indigenous rights, independent of participants' political affiliation, strength of national identification, and social distance. A second study (N = 277) replicates this finding whilst controlling for right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, blind patriotism, and constructive patriotism. It also finds iconic inclusion to be predictive of a pro-Mapuche position regarding the unrest over the issue of ancestral land in 2009. We conclude that understanding how national identity affects attitudes about minority rights necessitates appreciating the importance of particular meanings of nationality, and not only the strength of identification.

Cube, cylinder, core and pull-off strength relationships

This limited experimental investigation examined the relationships between the compressive strengths of cubes, cylinders, cores and the estimated compressive strengths derived from pull-off tests for a relatively low-strength structural-grade concrete (<35 N/mm2). Test specimens were cast and tested at 7, 14, 28, 56 and 84 days. The relationships of the trends of the test results to the trends of results of standard cube specimens and standard cylinder specimens were compared. It was found that the mean strength of each type of specimen tended to increase as a function of the natural logarithm of the specimen age. The mean strength of cylinders of length/diameter ratio 2.0 was found to be slightly greater (by about 7.5%) than the generally accepted value of 80% of the mean cube strength. Core results were corrected using correction factors defined in BS 6089 and the UK national annex to BS EN 12504-1. The mean corrected cube strength of cores taken from cubes was approximately 12% greater than the mean companion cube strength. The mean corrected cylinder strength of cores taken from cubes was approximately 5% greater than the mean companion cylinder strength. The potential cube and cylinder strengths of cores taken from slabs cured under different environmental conditions correlated well with companion cube and cylinder strengths respectively at 28 days. The pull-off test results gave a variable but, on average, slightly conservative estimate of the cube compressive strength of the relatively low-strength structural-grade concrete, using a simple general linear estimated compressive cube strength to tensile strength correlation factor of 10.

Sovereignty, Article 4(2) TEU and the Respect of National Identities: Swinging the Balance of Power in Favour of the Member States?

The question of whether and to what extent sovereignty has been transferred to the European Union (EU) from its Member States remains a central debate within the EU and is interlinked with issues such as Kompetenz-Kompetenz, direct effect and primacy. Central to any claim to sovereignty is the principle of primacy, which requires that Member States uphold EU law over national law where there is a conflict. However, limitations to primacy can traditionally be found in national jurisprudence and the Maastricht Treaty introduced a possible EU limitation with the requirement that the EU respect national identities of Member States. The Lisbon Treaty provided only minimal further support to the principle of primacy whilst simultaneously developing the provision on national identities, now found within Article 4(2) TEU. There are indications from the literature, national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice of the EU that the provision is gathering strength as a legal tool and is likely to have a wider scope than the text might indicate. In its new role, Article 4(2) TEU bolsters the Member States’ claim to sovereignty and the possibility to uphold aspects crucial to them in conflict with EU law and the principle of primacy. Consequently, it is central to the relationship between the constitutional courts of the Member States and the CJEU, and where the final elements of control remain in ‘hard cases’. However, it does so as part of EU law, thereby facilitating the evasion of direct fundamental conflicts and reflecting the concept of constitutional pluralism.