Contribution to collective harms and responsibility

In the present contribution, I discuss the claim, endorsed by a number of authors, that contributing to a collective harm is the ground for special responsibilities to the victims of that harm. Contributors should, between them, cover the costs of the harms they have inflicted, at least if those harms would otherwise be rights-violating. I raise some doubts about the generality of this principle before moving on to sketch a framework for thinking about liability for the costs of harms in general. This framework uses a contractualist framework to build an account of how to think about liability for costs on the basis of the presumably attractive thought that individual agents should have as much control over their liabilities as is compatible with others having like control. I then use that framework to suggest that liability on the basis of contribution should be restricted to cases in which the contributors could have avoided their contribution relatively costlessly, in which meeting the liability is not crippling for them, and in which such a liability would not have chilling effects, either on them or on third parties. This account of the grounds for contributory liability also has the advantage of avoiding a number of awkward questions about what counts as a contribution by shifting the issue away from often unanswerable questions about the precise causal genesis of some harm or other. Instead, control over conduct, which plausibly has some relation to the harm, becomes crucial. On the basis of this account, I then investigate whether a number of uses of the contributory principle are entirely appropriate. I argue that contributory liability is not appropriate for cases of collective harms committed by coordinated groups in the way that, for example, Iris Marion Young and Thomas Pogge have suggested and that further investigation of how members of such groups may be liable will be needed.

Civilian casualties – do we really care? The failure of the revolution in military affairs of non-lethal weapons in the U.S., Russia and Israel

Causing civilian casualties during military operations has become a much politicised topic in international relations since the Second World War. Since the last decade of the 20th century, different scholars and political analysts have claimed that human life is valued more and more among the general international community. This argument has led many researchers to assume that democratic culture and traditions, modern ethical and moral issues have created a desire for a world without war or, at least, a demand that contemporary armed conflicts, if unavoidable, at least have to be far less lethal forcing the military to seek new technologies that can minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage. Non-Lethal Weapons (NLW) – weapons that are intended to minimise civilian casualties and collateral damage – are based on the technology that, during the 1990s, was expected to revolutionise the conduct of warfare making it significantly less deadly. The rapid rise of interest in NLW, ignited by the American military twenty five years ago, sparked off an entirely new military, as well as an academic, discourse concerning their potential contribution to military success on the 21st century battlefields. It seems, however, that except for this debate, very little has been done within the military forces themselves. This research suggests that the roots of this situation are much deeper than the simple professional misconduct of the military establishment, or the poor political behaviour of political leaders, who had sent them to fight. Following the story of NLW in the U.S., Russia and Israel this research focuses on the political and cultural aspects that have been supposed to force the military organisations of these countries to adopt new technologies and operational and organisational concepts regarding NLW in an attempt to minimise enemy civilian casualties during their military operations. This research finds that while American, Russian and Israeli national characters are, undoubtedly, products of the unique historical experience of each one of these nations, all of three pay very little regard to foreigners’ lives. Moreover, while it is generally argued that the international political pressure is a crucial factor that leads to the significant reduction of harmed civilians and destroyed civilian infrastructure, the findings of this research suggest that the American, Russian and Israeli governments are well prepared and politically equipped to fend off international criticism. As the analyses of the American, Russian and Israeli cases reveal, the political-military leaderships of these countries have very little external or domestic reasons to minimise enemy civilian casualties through fundamental-revolutionary change in their conduct of war. In other words, this research finds that employment of NLW have failed because the political leadership asks the militaries to reduce the enemy civilian casualties to a politically acceptable level, rather than to the technologically possible minimum; as in the socio-cultural-political context of each country, support for the former appears to be significantly higher than for the latter.

Tapping into Floor Staff: Using the knowledge of floor staff to conduct formative evaluations of exhibits in a Canadian science centre

Most science centres in Canada employ science-educated floor staff to motivate visitorsto have fun while enhancing the educational reach of the exhibits. Although bright andsensitive to visitors’ needs, floor staff are rarely consulted in the planning,implementation, and modification phases of an exhibit. Instead, many developmentteams rely on costly third-party evaluations or skip the front-end and formativeevaluations all together, leading to costly errors that could have been avoided. This studywill seek to reveal a correlation between floor staff’s perception of visitors’ interactionswith an exhibit and visitors’ actual experiences. If a correlation exists, a recommendationcould be made to encourage planning teams to include floor staff in the formative andsummative evaluations of an exhibit. This is especially relevant to science centres withlimited budgets and for whom a divide exists between floor staff and management.In this study, a formative evaluation of one exhibit was conducted, measuring both floorstaff’s perceptions of the visitor experience and visitors’ own perceptions of the exhibit.Floor staff were then trained on visitor evaluation methods. A week later, floor staff andvisitors were surveyed a second time on a different exhibit to determine whether anincrease in accuracy existed.The training session increased the specificity of the motivation and comprehensionresponses and the enthusiasm of the staff, but not their ability to predict observedbehaviours with respect to ergonomics, learning indicators, holding power, and successrates. The results revealed that although floor staff underestimated visitors’ success ratesat the exhibits, staff accurately predicted visitors’ behaviours with respect to holdingpower, ergonomics, learning indicators, motivation and comprehension, both before andafter the staff training.

Ethical ramifications of corporatised legal practice

Ethical constraints applying to lawyers are largely found in formal restrictions in legislation - ethical duties arise as a result of a lawyer's service to the public - business ethics - corporatisation and the push for Multi-Disciplinary Practices (MDPs) - duty of confidentiality - avoiding conflicts of interest - the advent of MDP will add further pressures to lawyers juggling competing interests.

In whose interests? The best interests principle under ethical scrutiny

This paper critically examines the best interests principle and its role in making decisions about intensive care treatment. In current practice the best interests principle is sometimes relied upon to guide decision making in circumstances when the patient is incompetent, although it is intrinsically linked to inconsistent assumptions about what is meant by quality of life. This situation means that there is potential that moral errors will be made that may result in an unwanted extension of life for some individuals or the premature death of others.

It is difficult to justify such decision making on ethical grounds. A greater understanding of the best interests principle, and consequently the concept of quality of life, is needed in order to ensure that decision making about intensive care is ethically defensible. It is argued that an ideal theory of quality of life provides an appropriate framework for best interests decisions, and that the decision making process ought to, whenever possible, involve the patient's close family.

Black and white is always grey-the power of the police to conduct a strip search in Victoria

The performance of a strip search by a police officer is a serious interference with the liberty and dignity of an individual. However, it is considered by police to be an important part of their law enforcement armory and one that is increasingly necessary to utilise to assist in the investigation and prosecution of drug-related crimes. This article considers the troublesome issue of whether and in what circumstances the common law may extend to police the power to conduct a strip search. In addition, there is an examination of the statutes and regulations that purportedly give police in Victoria the power to strip search with particular attention given to ss 81 and 82 of the Drugs, Poisons and Controlled Substances Act 1981 (Vic).