The Hidden World of Multilateralism? Treaty Commitments of Newly Democratized States in Europe

Why do new EU democracies engage in multilateralism? The dominant explanation proposes that new democracies use international treaties to lock in domestic reforms. This article offers a novel explanation as to why new EU democracies participate in multilateral treaties. We argue that ratifying a treaty serves three external signaling purposes (addressing recognition concerns; increasing strategic autonomy, and pleasing the EU). We test our argument through a mix of quantitative and qualitative methods. First, we apply event history analysis. Drawing on a new ratification data set comprising 76 multilateral treaties, we illustrate the prominent role of new EU democracies in multilateralism as compared to other new democracies. Second, to assess the importance of external signaling in the decision to ratify multilateral treaties, we examine parliamentary ratification debates in selected Central and Eastern European countries. Third, we compare parliamentary discussions across European and non-European new democracies to demonstrate the different motives driving their approaches toward multilateralism.

Earth system commitments due to delayed mitigation

As long as global CO₂ emissions continue to increase annually, long-term committed Earth system changes grow much faster than current observations. A novel metric linking this future growth to policy decisions today is the mitigation delay sensitivity (MDS), but MDS estimates for Earth system variables other than peak temperature (ΔT max) are missing. Using an Earth System Model of Intermediate Complexity, we show that the current emission increase rate causes a ΔT max increase roughly 3–7.5 times as fast as observed warming, and a millenial steric sea level rise (SSLR) 7–25 times as fast as observed SSLR, depending on the achievable rate of emission reductions after the peak of emissions. These ranges are only slightly affected by the uncertainty range in equilibrium climate sensitivity, which is included in the above values. The extent of ocean acidification at the end of the century is also strongly dependent on the starting time and rate of emission reductions. The preservable surface ocean area with sufficient aragonite supersaturation for coral reef growth is diminished globally at an MDS of roughly 25%–80% per decade. A near-complete loss of this area becomes unavoidable if mitigation is delayed for a few years to decades. Also with respect to aragonite, 12%–18% of the Southern Ocean surface become undersaturated per decade, if emission reductions are delayed beyond 2015–2040. We conclude that the consequences of delaying global emission reductions are much better captured if the MDS of relevant Earth system variables is communicated in addition to current trends and total projected future changes.

Sino-African State Trading in Services: Added-Value through Angola-Model loaning, GATS commitments or FTAs?

Paper presented by Charlotte Sieber-Gasser at the 5th Annual TRAPCA Conference, Arusha (Tanzania), 25-26 November 2010. Despite the increasing volume of trade between China and African countries, not one single conventional free trade agreement (FTA) or economic partnership agreement (EPA) has yet been signed between an African country and China. Initially, Sino-African trade relations were to a very large extent centred on investments secured through bilateral investment agreements (BITs). The more recent Chinese investments on the African continent, however, are more informally based on FDI contracts with the state at the receiving end and a government-owned private company as the investor, or loosely attached to loans commonly known under term ‘the Angola-Model’. This rather unusual basis for economic integration and development assistance, outside the trodden path of free trade agreements and ODA, requires further analysis in order to understand how the current legal framework between China and the African continent impacts economic development and national sovereignty, and what kind of distributive consequences it may have.

Effects of glucosamine, chondroitin, or placebo in patients with osteoarthritis of hip or knee: network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of glucosamine, chondroitin, or the two in combination on joint pain and on radiological progression of disease in osteoarthritis of the hip or knee. Design Network meta-analysis. Direct comparisons within trials were combined with indirect evidence from other trials by using a Bayesian model that allowed the synthesis of multiple time points. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Pain intensity. Secondary outcome was change in minimal width of joint space. The minimal clinically important difference between preparations and placebo was prespecified at -0.9 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale. DATA SOURCES: Electronic databases and conference proceedings from inception to June 2009, expert contact, relevant websites. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Large scale randomised controlled trials in more than 200 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee or hip that compared glucosamine, chondroitin, or their combination with placebo or head to head. Results 10 trials in 3803 patients were included. On a 10 cm visual analogue scale the overall difference in pain intensity compared with placebo was -0.4 cm (95% credible interval -0.7 to -0.1 cm) for glucosamine, -0.3 cm (-0.7 to 0.0 cm) for chondroitin, and -0.5 cm (-0.9 to 0.0 cm) for the combination. For none of the estimates did the 95% credible intervals cross the boundary of the minimal clinically important difference. Industry independent trials showed smaller effects than commercially funded trials (P=0.02 for interaction). The differences in changes in minimal width of joint space were all minute, with 95% credible intervals overlapping zero. Conclusions Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space. Health authorities and health insurers should not cover the costs of these preparations, and new prescriptions to patients who have not received treatment should be discouraged.

Sample size estimation: an overview with applications to orthodontic clinical trial designs

Proper sample size estimation is an important part of clinical trial methodology and closely related to the precision and power of the trial's results. Trials with sufficient sample sizes are scientifically and ethically justified and more credible compared with trials with insufficient sizes. Planning clinical trials with inadequate sample sizes might be considered as a waste of time and resources, as well as unethical, since patients might be enrolled in a study in which the expected results will not be trusted and are unlikely to have an impact on clinical practice. Because of the low emphasis of sample size calculation in clinical trials in orthodontics, it is the objective of this article to introduce the orthodontic clinician to the importance and the general principles of sample size calculations for randomized controlled trials to serve as guidance for study designs and as a tool for quality assessment when reviewing published clinical trials in our specialty. Examples of calculations are shown for 2-arm parallel trials applicable to orthodontics. The working examples are analyzed, and the implications of design or inherent complexities in each category are discussed.

Growth hormone receptor polymorphism and growth hormone therapy response in children: a bayesian meta-analysis

Recombinant human growth hormone (rhGH) therapy is used in the long-term treatment of children with growth disorders, but there is considerable treatment response variability. The exon 3-deleted growth hormone receptor polymorphism (GHR(d3)) may account for some of this variability. The authors performed a systematic review (to April 2011), including investigator-only data, to quantify the effects of the GHR(fl-d3) and GHR(d3-d3) genotypes on rhGH therapy response and used a recently established Bayesian inheritance model-free approach to meta-analyze the data. The primary outcome was the 1-year change-in-height standard-deviation score for the 2 genotypes. Eighteen data sets from 12 studies (1,527 children) were included. After several prior assumptions were tested, the most appropriate inheritance model was codominant (posterior probability = 0.93). Compared with noncarriers, carriers had median differences in 1-year change-in-height standard-deviation score of 0.09 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.01, 0.17) for GHR(fl-d3) and of 0.14 (95% CrI: 0.02, 0.26) for GHR(d3-d3). However, the between-study standard deviation of 0.18 (95% CrI: 0.10, 0.33) was considerable. The authors tested by meta-regression for potential modifiers and found no substantial influence. They conclude that 1) the GHR(d3) polymorphism inheritance is codominant, contrasting with previous reports; 2) GHR(d3) genotypes account for modest increases in rhGH effects in children; and 3) considerable unexplained variability in responsiveness remains.

Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials

Published evidence suggests that aspects of trial design lead to biased intervention effect estimates, but findings from different studies are inconsistent. This study combined data from 7 meta-epidemiologic studies and removed overlaps to derive a final data set of 234 unique meta-analyses containing 1973 trials. Outcome measures were classified as "mortality," "other objective," "or subjective," and Bayesian hierarchical models were used to estimate associations of trial characteristics with average bias and between-trial heterogeneity. Intervention effect estimates seemed to be exaggerated in trials with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) random-sequence generation (ratio of odds ratios, 0.89 [95% credible interval {CrI}, 0.82 to 0.96]) and with inadequate or unclear (vs. adequate) allocation concealment (ratio of odds ratios, 0.93 [CrI, 0.87 to 0.99]). Lack of or unclear double-blinding (vs. double-blinding) was associated with an average of 13% exaggeration of intervention effects (ratio of odds ratios, 0.87 [CrI, 0.79 to 0.96]), and between-trial heterogeneity was increased for such studies (SD increase in heterogeneity, 0.14 [CrI, 0.02 to 0.30]). For each characteristic, average bias and increases in between-trial heterogeneity were driven primarily by trials with subjective outcomes, with little evidence of bias in trials with objective and mortality outcomes. This study is limited by incomplete trial reporting, and findings may be confounded by other study design characteristics. Bias associated with study design characteristics may lead to exaggeration of intervention effect estimates and increases in between-trial heterogeneity in trials reporting subjectively assessed outcomes.

[Study protocol of the VISEP study. Response of the SepNet study group]

In the commentary by Zander et al. the authors appear concerned about the methods and results of our, at that time, unpublished sepsis trial evaluating hydroxyethyl starch (HES) and insulin therapy. Unfortunately, the authors' concerns are based on false assumptions about the design, conduct and modes of action of the compounds under investigation. For instance, in our study the HES solution was not used for maintenance of daily fluid requirements, so that the assumption of the authors that this colloid was used "exclusively" is wrong. Moreover, the manufacturer of Hemohes, the HES product we used, gives no cut-off value for creatinine, thus the assumption that this cut-off value was "doubled" in our study is also incorrect. Other claims by the authors such as that lactated solutions cause elevated lactate levels, iatrogenic hyperglycemia and increase O(2) consumption are unfounded. There is no randomized controlled trial supporting such a claim - this claim is neither consistent with our study data nor with any credible published sepsis guidelines or with routine practice worldwide. We fully support open scientific debate. Our study methods and results have now been published after a strict peer-reviewing process and this data is now open to critical and constructive reviewing. However, in our opinion this premature action based on wrong assumptions and containing comments by representatives of pharmaceutical companies does not contribute to a serious, unbiased scientific discourse.