On The Choice and Impacts of Innovative International Food Assistance Instruments

The rise of new food assistance instruments, including local and regional procurement, cash, and vouchers, has surpassed increase in understanding of the tradeoffs among and impacts of these options relative to traditional food aid. Response choices rarely appear to result from systematic response analyses. Further, impacts along multiple dimensions-timeliness, cost-effectiveness, local market effects, recipient satisfaction, food quality, impact on smallholder suppliers, etc.-may be competing or synergistic. No single food assistance tool is always and everywhere preferable. A growing body of evidence, including the papers in this special section, nonetheless demonstrates the clear value-added of new food assistance instruments. (C) 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The Catholic Doctrine of Transubstantiation: An Exposition and Defense

The purpose of this thesis is to offer both an exposition and defense for the Catholic Church's traditional understanding of eucharistic transubstantiation. I hope to show how a belief in such a doctrine is in no way irrational nor is it indefensible; butinstead, the doctrine of transubstantiation makes sense when it is viewed in light of what Catholic Christians believe about who the human being is, what the human desires, and the special way in which God personally works in human history. The method I am following investigates how the doctrine of transubstantiation coheres with and follows the other beliefs that Catholics hold; that is, beginning with certain presuppositions, there is a certain rational progression to the Catholic understanding of real presence.

Does Israel Follow the Law? A Critical Analysis of Israel's Application of the International Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Occupied Territories

Israel's occupation of territories it captured in 1967 has become one of the longest and most controversial occupations of the last fifty years. Eschewing the traditional political analysis of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, this paper aims to explore whether Israel has adequately applied international law in the occupied territories, in particular, the law of belligerent occupation. The two actors under assessment are the Israeli government, particularly its military which enforces and maintains the law in the territories, and the Supreme Court of Israel, which has the power of review over military actions in the territories. The particular issues of the occupation that are critically analyzed are the general legal framework that Israel established in the territories, Israel's civilian settlement policy in territories, and Israel's construction of a barrier in the West Bank. This paper concludes that Israel has incorrectly applied the legal framework of belligerent occupation by refusing to apply the Fourth Geneva Convention; it has wrongly concluded that the establishment of civilian settlements in the territories conform with international law; yet it has rightly concluded that the construction of the barrier in the West Bank is permissible under international law, in contrast to the conclusion of the much publicized International Court of Justice's Advisory Opinion on the 'Wall.' Along with these general assessments, the author will also provide some historical and political insight into why the Israeli government and the Supreme Court may have applied the law in the way that they did.