Scientific case for avoiding dangerous climate change to protect young people and nature

28 pages, 6 figures; version submitted to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Rabbits, stoats and the predator problem: Why a strong animal rights position need not call for human intervention to protect prey from predators

Animal rights positions face the ‘predator problem’: the suggestion that if the rights of nonhuman animals are to be protected, then we are obliged to interfere in natural ecosystems to protect prey from predators. Generally, rather than embracing this conclusion, animal ethicists have rejected it, basing this objection on a number of different arguments. This paper considers but challenges three such arguments, before defending a fourth possibility. Rejected are Peter Singer’s suggestion that interference will lead to more harm than good, Sue Donaldson and Will Kymlicka’s suggestion that respect for nonhuman sovereignty necessitates non-interference in normal circumstances, and Alasdair Cochrane’s solution based on the claim that predators cannot survive without killing prey. The possibility defended builds upon Tom Regan’s suggestion that predators, as moral patients but not moral agents, cannot violate the rights of their prey, and so the rights of the prey, while they do exist, do not call for intervention. This idea is developed by a consideration of how moral agents can be more or less responsible for a given event, and defended against criticisms offered by thinkers including Alasdair Cochrane and Dale Jamieson.

"Everything was designed to make sure that this thing endured" : Processus de légitimation et la Responsabilité de protéger

L’objet de cette thèse est la « Responsabilité de protéger » (RdP), son émergence et les processus de légitimation qui ont contribué à son acceptation dans les arènes de la politique globale. Le principe d’une intervention militaire à des fins humanitaires gagne en légitimité dans les années 1990, bien qu’il soit marqué par d’intenses polémiques dans la pratique. Les situations de conflits où les civils sont brutalement persécutés et les interventions demandées et organisées pour y répondre sont maintenant largement justifiées dans les termes de la RdP. Est donc apparu d’abord un changement normatif. Ce changement s’est cristallisé dans le rapport de la Commission internationale sur l’intervention et la souveraineté des États (CIISE) qui a forgé l’expression « responsabilité de protéger ». Le point de départ ici est cependant que la RdP marque un changement discursif dans la manière de parler et de justifier ces pratiques. Je montre comment les termes de la RdP en sont venus à être ceux qui dégagent le plus large consensus autour de la question de l’intervention à des fins humanitaires. La thèse centrale de cette recherche est que le relatif succès de la RdP tient au fait que les architectes de la CIISE et les entrepreneurs de la RdP ont déployé un sens pratique aiguisé du champ de la politique globale. Le procédé principal employé est de mettre en lumière les processus de légitimation activement mis en oeuvre pour stimuler ce changement discursif. J’avance que les agents ont su placer la RdP, et par extension le principe de l’intervention à des fins humanitaires, dans le domaine du non problématique en déployant un langage et des pratiques vus comme ne posant pas problème. Concrètement, il s’est agi de choisir les agents à qui serait accordée la reconnaissance de parler, mais qui seraient aussi en mesure de proposer une solution d’une manière considérée comme légitime dans les arènes de la politique globale. Traquer les processus de légitimation est un procédé analytique qui permet de comprendre le succès de la RdP, mais qui révèle également des éléments fondamentaux du fonctionnement formel et informel de la politique globale.

Oral vaccination with heat inactivated Mycobacterium bovis activates the complement system to protect against tuberculosis

Tuberculosis (TB) remains a pandemic affecting billions of people worldwide, thus stressing the need for new vaccines. Defining the correlates of vaccine protection is essential to achieve this goal. In this study, we used the wild boar model for mycobacterial infection and TB to characterize the protective mechanisms elicited by a new heat inactivated Mycobacterium bovis vaccine (IV). Oral vaccination with the IV resulted in significantly lower culture and lesion scores, particularly in the thorax, suggesting that the IV might provide a novel vaccine for TB control with special impact on the prevention of pulmonary disease, which is one of the limitations of current vaccines. Oral vaccination with the IV induced an adaptive antibody response and activation of the innate immune response including the complement component C3 and inflammasome. Mycobacterial DNA/RNA was not involved in inflammasome activation but increased C3 production by a still unknown mechanism. The results also suggested a protective mechanism mediated by the activation of IFN-γ producing CD8+ T cells by MHC I antigen presenting dendritic cells (DCs) in response to vaccination with the IV, without a clear role for Th1 CD4+ T cells. These results support a role for DCs in triggering the immune response to the IV through a mechanism similar to the phagocyte response to PAMPs with a central role for C3 in protection against mycobacterial infection. Higher C3 levels may allow increased opsonophagocytosis and effective bacterial clearance, while interfering with CR3-mediated opsonic and nonopsonic phagocytosis of mycobacteria, a process that could be enhanced by specific antibodies against mycobacterial proteins induced by vaccination with the IV. These results suggest that the IV acts through novel mechanisms to protect against TB in wild boar.

Failed states and the rule of law

The last decade has seen an emerging consensus that the rule of law is critical in both domestic and international affairs. ‘Failed’ states generate important issues for both the rule of law and, importantly, for their intersection or interaction. A ‘failed’ state almost inevitably involves a breakdown of the domestic rule of law. When international intervention occurs, it raises concerns over substantive issues. Among these is the application of international law and international norms, including among other, the conventions and treaties, the responsibility to protect and protection of civilians. Where international missions seek to assist the people of ‘failed’ states in rebuilding their nations, establishing the rule of law is often the primary or initial pursuit. Any such international assistance/intervention is more effective if it is clearly subject to the rule of law and provides an exemplar/demonstration of how power should be exercised

Points of convergence and divergence : normative, institutional and operational relationships between R2P and POC

As an international norm, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) has gained substantial influence and institutional presence—and created no small controversy—in the ten years since its first conceptualisation. Conversely, the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (PoC) has a longer pedigree and enjoys a less contested reputation. Yet UN Security Council action in Libya in 2011 has thrown into sharp relief the relationship between the two. UN Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 follow exactly the process envisaged by R2P in response to imminent atrocity crimes, yet the operative paragraphs of the resolutions themselves invoke only PoC. This article argues that, while the agendas of PoC and R2P converge with respect to Security Council action in cases like Libya, outside this narrow context it is important to keep the two norms distinct. Peacekeepers, humanitarian actors, international lawyers, individual states and regional organisations are required to act differently with respect to the separate agendas and contexts covered by R2P and PoC. While overlap between the two does occur in highly visible cases like Libya, neither R2P nor PoC collapses normatively, institutionally or operationally into the other.

Suspected child abuse and neglect reporting behaviour

Executuve Summary Background and Aims Child abuse and neglect is a tragedy within our community, with over 10,000 substantiated reports of abuse and neglect in Queensland in the past year. The considerable consequences of child abuse and neglect are far-reaching, substantial and can be fatal. The reporting of suspicions of child abuse or neglect is often the first step in preventing further abuse or neglect. In the State of Queensland, medical practitioners are mandated by law to report their suspicions of child abuse and neglect. However, despite this mandate many still do not report their suspicions. A 1998 study indicated that 43% of medical practitioners had, at some time, made a conscious decision to not report suspected abuse or neglect (Van Haeringen, Dadds & Armstrong, 1998). The aim of this study was to gain a better understanding of beliefs about reporting suspected child abuse and neglect and the barriers to reporting suspected abuse and neglect by medical practitioners and parents and students. The findings have the potential to inform the training and education of members of the community who have a shared responsibility to protect the wellbeing of its most vulnerable members. Method In one of the largest studies of reporting behaviour in relation to suspected child abuse and neglect in Australia, we examined and compared medical practitioners’ responses with members of the community, namely parents and students. We surveyed 91 medical practitioners and 214 members of the community (102 parents and 112 students) regarding their beliefs and reporting behaviour related to suspected child abuse and neglect. We also examined reasons for not reporting suspected abuse or neglect, as well as awareness of responsibilities and the appropriate reporting procedures. To obtain such information, participants anonymously completed a comprehensive questionnaire using items from previous studies of reporting attitudes and behaviour. Executive Summary Abused Child Trust Report August 2003 5 Findings Key findings include: • The majority of medical practitioners (97%) were aware of their duty to report suspected abuse and neglect and believed they had a professional and ethical duty to do so. • A majority of parents (82%) and students (68%) also believed that they had a professional and ethical duty to report suspected abuse and neglect. • In accord with their statutory duty to report suspected abuse and neglect, 69% of medical practitioners had made a report at some point. • Sixteen percent of parents and 9% of students surveyed indicated that they had reported their suspicions of neglect and abuse. • The most endorsed belief associated with not reporting suspected child abuse and neglect was that, ‘unpleasant events would follow reporting’. • Over a quarter of medical practitioners (26%) admitted to making a decision not to report their suspicions of child abuse or neglect on at least one occasion. • Compared with previous research, there has been a decline in the number of medical practitioners who decided not to report suspected abuse or neglect from 43% (Van Haeringen et al., 1998) to 26% in the current study. • Fourteen percent of parents and 15% of students surveyed had also chosen not to report a case of suspected abuse or neglect. • Attitudes that most strongly influenced the decision to report or not report suspected abuse or neglect differed between groups (medical practitioners, parents, or students). A belief that, ‘the abuse was a single incident’ was the best predictor of non-reporting by medical practitioners, while having ‘no time to follow-up the report’ or failing to be ‘convinced of evidence of abuse’ best predicted failure to report abuse by students. A range of beliefs predicted non-reporting by parents, including the beliefs that reporting suspected abuse was ‘not their responsibility’ and ‘knowing the child had retracted their statement’. Conclusions Of major concern is that approximately 25% of medical practitioners with a mandated responsibility to report, as well as some members of the general public, revealed that they have suspected child neglect or abuse but have made the decision not to report their suspicions. Parents and students perceived the general community as having responsibility for reporting suspicions of abuse or neglect. Despite this perception, they felt that lodging a report may be overly demanding in terms of time and they had the confidence in their ability to identify child abuse and neglect. An explanation for medical practitioners deciding not to report may be based upon their optimistic belief that suspected abuse or neglect was a single incident. Our findings may best be understood from the ‘inflation of optimism’ hypothesis put forward by the Nobel Laureate, Daniel Kahneman. He suggests that in spite of rational evidence, human beings tend to make judgements based on an optimistic view rather than engaging in a rational decision-making process. In this case, despite past behaviour of abuse or neglect being the best predictor of future behaviour, medical practitioners have taken an optimistic view, choosing to believe that their suspicion of child abuse or neglect represents a single incident. The clear implication of findings in the current research is the need for the members of the general community and medical practitioners to be better appraised of the consequences of their decision-making in relation to suspicionsof child abuse and neglect. Finally findings from parents and students relating to their reporting behaviour suggest that members of the larger community represent an untapped resourcewho might, with appropriate awareness, play a more significant role in theidentification and reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect.