How (In)Consistent is the Court of Justice in the Application of the Market Access Test?”

Invited panel speaker at a Jean Monnet Chair funded research workshop organised by the Europa Institute, School of Law, University of Edinburgh (9 December 2011), http://www.pol.ed.ac.uk/research_themes/index/jean_monnet_centre_of_excellence/principles_of_market_access_workshop

Identifying childhood deprivation:How well do national indicators of poverty and social exclusion in Ireland Perform?

In the context of the significance that the life-cycle has been afforded in social policy discussion in Ireland, current national measures of poverty and social exclusion have been criticised for failing to capture such phenomena accurately in relation to particular stages of the life-course. In this paper we have taken advantage of the inclusion of a special module on childhood deprivation in EU-SILC 2009 to create reliable measures of both household basic deprivation and childhood deprivation. Overall, our analysis leads us to the conclusion that those exposed to childhood deprivation are generally a sub-set of the children captured by population indicators. Adopting a multidimensional and dynamic perspective on household resources and deprivation enables us to capture the large majority of children exposed to childhood deprivation. Restricting our attention to childhood deprivation would lead us to miss out on a significant number of children living in households experiencing basic deprivation but not exposed to childhood deprivation. It would be unwise to assume that such deprivation has no consequences for children. While there is clearly a value in supplementing existing national measures with child specific indicators, it would not appear sensible to rely solely on the latter.

Economic globalization, inequality and body mass index:a cross-national analysis of 127 countries

This article investigates to what extent the worldwide increase in body mass index (BMI) has been affected by economic globalization and inequality. We used time-series and longitudinal cross-national analysis of 127 countries from 1980 to 2008. Data on mean adult BMI were obtained from the Global Burden of Metabolic Risk Factors of Chronic Diseases Collaborating Group. Globalization was measured using the Swiss Economic Institute (KOF) index of economic globalization. Economic inequality between countries was measured with the mean difference in gross domestic product per capita purchasing power parity in international dollars. Economic inequality within countries was measured using the Gini index from the Standardized World Income Inequality Database. Other covariates including poverty, population size, urban population, openness to trade and foreign direct investment were taken from the World Development Indicators (WDI) database. Time-series regression analyses showed that the global increase in BMI is positively associated with both the index of economic globalization and inequality between countries, after adjustment for covariates. Longitudinal panel data analyses showed that the association between economic globalization and BMI is robust after controlling for all covariates and using different estimators. The association between economic inequality within countries and BMI, however, was significant only among high-income nations. More research is needed to study the pathways between economic globalization and BMI. These findings, however, contribute to explaining how contemporary globalization can be reformed to promote better health and control the global obesity epidemic. © 2013 Copyright Taylor and Francis Group, LLC.

1987-1991. Joint Archaeological Project of the National Museum of Malta and the Universities of Bristol, Cambridge and Malta.

Malone, C.A.T. and S.K.F. Stoddart, Five Year Statement.1991: Cambridge University.

Considering Just-World Thinking in Counter-Terrorism Cases: Miscarriages of Justice in Northern Ireland

Recent literature has drawn a parallel between the discriminatory application of counterterrorism legislation to the Irish population in the United Kingdom during the Northern Ireland conflict and the targeting of Muslims after September 2001. Less attention has been paid to lessons that can be drawn from judicial decision making in terrorism-related cases stemming from the Northern Ireland conflict. This Article examines Northern Ireland Court of Appeal (“NICA”) jurisprudence on miscarriages of justice in cases regarding counterterrorism offenses. In particular, the Article focuses on cases referred after the 1998 peace agreements in Northern Ireland from the Criminal Cases Review Commission (“CCRC”), a relatively new entity that investigates potential wrongful convictions in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. Although the NICA’s human rights jurisprudence has developed significantly in recent years, the study of CCRC-referred cases finds that judges have retained confidence in the integrity of the conflict-era counterterrorism system even while acknowledging abuses and procedural irregularities that occurred. This study partially contradicts contentions that judicial deference to the executive recedes in a post-conflict or post-emergency period. Despite a high rate of quashed convictions, the NICA’s decisions suggest that it seeks to limit a large number of referrals and demonstrate a judicial predisposition to defend the justness of the past system’s laws and procedure. This perspective is consistent with what social psychologists have studied as “just-world thinking,” in which objective observers, although motivated by a concern with justice, believe—as a result of cognitive bias—that individuals “got what they deserved.” The Article considers other potential interpretations of the jurisprudence and contends that conservative decision making is particularly dangerous in the politicized realm of counterterrorism and in light of the criminalization of members of suspect communities.

Using Comparative Reasoning in Human Rights Adjudication:The Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights Compared

This article examines the relationship between the methods that the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) use to decide disputes that involve ‘human’ or ‘fundamental’ rights claims, and the substantive outcomes that result from the use of these particular methods. It has a limited aim: in attempting to understand the interrelationship between human rights methodology and human rights outcomes, it considers primarily the use of ‘comparative reasoning’ in ‘human’ and ‘fundamental’ rights claims by these courts. It is not primarily concerned with examining the extent to which the use of comparative reasoning is based on an appropriate methodology or whether there is a persuasive normative theory underpinning the use of comparative reasoning. The issues considered in this chapter do some of the groundwork, however, that is necessary in order to address these methodological and normative questions.