Search Results

This chapter attempts to clarify the claim that there should be an absolute prohibition against torture. To clarify the claim, it is important to have a clear understanding of what we mean by torture. Treatment that destroys rational agency, and thereby undermines human dignity, defines the heart of human torture. George W. Bush's administration, in defining torture as prolonged physical or mental damage, offered a misleading and dangerous definition of torture. Given our acceptance of killing in self‐defense and of so‐called ticking‐bomb scenarios, we cannot in theory accept an absolute prohibition of torture. However, we still might believe it right to ban torture in practice. The limits of our motivation and of our understanding — our near‐invincible ignorance — might lead us to think it best to block, if we could, any policy that would allow torture. In this regard, it is important to see the weaknesses of Alan Dershowitz's and of Richard Posner's proposals for allowing a limited use of torture. Still, we cannot rule out that there could be exceptions that would allow for torture. But to act on these exceptions, we would need to know how to weigh the considerations for and against torture in particular exceptional situations. It is far from clear, however, that we know how to weigh the relevant considerations or even how to identify the exceptional situations. Given these limitations, it is perhaps best to enforce an absolute prohibition against torture, while hoping that anyone who, contrary to the ban, resorts to torture has correctly identified an exception. Much of moral importance is at stake; but we find ourselves in murky waters.

Examines and describes in detail the casuistical method of conflict resolution, noting the importance of principles, paradigms, presumptions, analogies, and “the particulars.” Casuistry is neither a technical loophole, nor a laxity born out of sympathy, nor anarchical relativism. These criticisms (which also include fear of the “abuse of casuistry” and of the “slippery slope”) are directly addressed. The chapter concludes that the process of casuistry achieves principled justice between the competing goods at issue in free exercise conflicts.

This chapter begins with a review of the ideas of locality and realism which provide the basis for the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox. The general conditions defining a local, realistic theory are stated, and then used to prove Bell's theorem, which yields — for any local, realistic theory — an inequality satisfied by certain linear combinations of correlations. It is shown that this inequality is violated by quantum theory and by experiment. The chapter ends with a discussion of possible experimental loopholes and the alternative Greenberger–Horne–Zeilinger (GHZ) state, which would, in principle, make the use of statistical correlations unnecessary.

High seas fishery for cod in the Barents Sea Loophole, a piece of international waters surrounded by the EEZs of Norway and Russia is the main focus of this chapter. Throughout most of the 1990s, vessels from a number of states targeted cod in this high seas without allocated quotas by the regional management regime. This chapter explores the interplay between efforts to accommodate this straddling stock problem within the existing regional framework and the partially parallel evolvement of the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement. In addition to the discussion of the regional regime and its adaptation to the Loophole challenge, the extent to which this specific regional dispute influenced state positions and outcomes at the New York negotiations is examined including the likely impact of the Fish Stocks Agreement on effective management of the Loophole fishery.

Experiments on Bell’s theorem, or Bell’s inequality, were carried out by John Clauser and Stuart Freeman, whose results agreed with quantum theory, and by Richard Holt and Frank Pipkin, whose results disagreed with quantum theory but agreed with local causality. However, it came to be accepted that quantum theory was right: local causality was not obeyed. The locality loophole, the detector loophole, and the freedom of choice loophole were introduced. Bell encouraged the plans of Alain Aspect, who wanted to perform experiments where information about the directions of the polarizer in one wing of the experiment would not have time to reach the other wing. Bell refined his ideas on quantum theory, introducing the ‘beable’, in contrast to the usual ‘observable’, and commenting on many-worlds theories and the de Broglie–Bohm interpretation. He made important contributions to elementary particle physics through his studies of shadow scattering, and models of quarks.

This chapter considers the feasibility of perfecting the FFA-GCA-Brady Law regime by extending the background check and waiting period requirement to sales at gun shows and ultimately to all secondary sales. In particular, it focuses on the proposed Gun Show Accountability Act (GSAA) that proponents put forward as a plan for “closing the gun show loophole”. Subjecting all firearms purchasers at gun shows to a background check ought to be a step foward regardless of whether the seller has a license and a place of business. But the logistics of implementing and enforcing a universal background check for all firearms purchasers are daunting. At a minimum, it would require a comprehensive gun registration program.

This chapter explores the legal remedies available to medical tourists in Europe when they experience an adverse event. It investigates Europeans' right to medical tourism services under the Maastricht Treaty. It then describes the ability of a plaintiff to have a judgment or award enforced when diversity jurisdiction is present. Under the Brussels Convention, parties to a contract may use a jurisdiction clause to override the default rules for jurisdiction determination. Consumer transactions are also consorted their own jurisdictional loophole. Both European Union (EU) medical tourism vendors (MTVs) and patients should be aware of the general default rule for identifying diversity jurisdiction. After an adverse medical outcome, unwary medical tourists and MTVs may find that they have accepted more liability than they have realized. It can be concluded that EU medical tourists should carefully read any contract they sign and ask appropriate questions.

Chapter 7 analyzes how international organizations negotiate the interpretation of legal obligations when changes occur in the international legal environment. It describes how the production of soft law and a truly global treaty – the NPT – affected the negotiation between the two existing international organizations in charge of verifying the legal obligations of their member-states with regard to the use of nuclear technologies and fissile materials: Euratom and the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. It shows that when opposite legal rules are inherited from a succession of treaties with overlapping jurisdiction, it is not always the newest and more general rules that survive the hard work of harmonization. In this case, European diplomats not only preserved Euratom’s exclusive control of nuclear activities in Europe after the NPT was signed, but they also convinced the IAEA to design a new global NPT safeguards system, which was adapted to the Euratom system. The outcome such a complex and sequential process of harmonization of opaque legal rules thus produced some loopholes in the global nonproliferation regime, as the goal of Euratom had never been to check nuclear proliferation in Europe.

Since Bell’s death, interest in his work and quantum foundations in general, and the amount of application of his work, have grown steadily. Work on Bell’s inequality has continued, each loophole has been closed independently, and in 2015 it seems that a loophole-free test will be achieved very soon. Also stimulated by Bell, discussion of fundamental aspects of quantum theory, a discussion which was scarcely tolerated in the days of the supremacy of the Copenhagen interpretation, is widespread and productive. Bell’s work has stimulated the conception and growth of quantum information theory, which encompasses quantum computation (or quantum computing), quantum cryptography (or quantum key distribution), and quantum teleportation, and there is now an enormous amount of work, both theoretical and practical.

Chapter 7 discusses the Bell theorem and its demonstration using Mermin’s machine. The Bell theorem proves that a theory based on local realism (one with hidden variables) must satisfy certain inequalities; quantum mechanics predicts these are violated. Mermin designed a gedanken experiment having a double-particle source and two detectors each having three settings, which can correspond to measurements along three spin orientations. A simple hidden-variable assumption is shown to violate quantum predictions. The CHSH inequality, a form of the general Bell inequality, is proved. This relation has been shown to be violated experimentally in quantum experiments, implying that quantum mechanics indeed has “spooky action at a distance.” Many experiments over the years had loopholes, ways used to explain away the data in order to preserve local reality, but recent experiments have been able to eliminate most of these.

This chapter is a self-contained introduction to Bell nonlocality. After a very quick historical motivation, the setting and the definition of nonlocality are given. Five classic examples of Bell tests are then introduced, including the CHSH and the GHZ tests. The remainder of the chapter is a critical reflection that contains two topics: a discussion of possible loopholes that should be avoided, and an elementary presentation of the main interpretations given to the phenomenon of nonlocality.

Who was Petronius Arbiter? The twentieth century’s most famous ancient novelist is one good answer. Of all the works of ancient prose fiction—by Apuleius, Xenophon, Chariton, Achilles Tatius, Longus, Heliodorus—only Petronius’s Satyrica resonated with the twentieth century, providing Eliot with the epigraph for The Waste Land and Fitzgerald with the ur-text for Gatsby—originally entitled “Trimalchio at West Egg”—and Fellini with his film. The fascination of the arbiter elegantiae—as Nero’s court called Petronius—on twentieth-century avant-gardists is quite puzzling. What sets this fragmented text apart from kindred others? Is the answer precisely that it is one of a kind? Why did Petronius’s scabrous text become modern experimentalists’ favorite ancient analogue? That Auerbach’s Mimesis identified Petronius as one of three authors who exemplify classical representation could also be adduced as evidence of Petronius’s newfound status in the modernist century.

Plato points out in the Republic that epic, antiquity’s most influential narrative form, alternates between diēgēsis and mimēsis. The poet either speaks narratively (diēgēsis) or imitates characters’ speech (mimēsis). (Indirect speech is rare in Homer.) The poet-narrator’s speech is kept clearly distinct from the characters’ because they are so linguistically homogeneous. Characters and narrator speak identically, so the individuality we expect in novelistic speech is impossible. Access to characters’ consciousness is limited to poetic diēgēsis of their actions and mimēsis of their words. Plato’s distinction is fundamental, but Lodge argues it is not “adequate to describe novelistic discourse.…[T]he relationship between mimēsis and diēgēsis in the novel is much more subtle and complicated…; we encounter in the novel a third kind of discourse[,] which…Bakhtin calls doubly-voiced or doubly-oriented.”

This chapter deals with the relationship between the Shuberts and Florenz Ziegfeld and their respective annual revue series. The myth that The Passing Show was an idea copied by the Shuberts from their rival is refuted, with special attention paid to the performing venues for each show. Ziegfeld’s connections to the theatrical Syndicate of Klaw and Erlanger and how this affected his interactions with the Shuberts is explored. The focus of the chapter, however, is the slow transformation of the relationship with the Shuberts from neutral to spiteful. The intense competition for stars, staff, and even theatrical techniques led to a powerful feud between the two camps, and the examination of a wide range of personal, legal, and professional documents brings this debate vividly back to life.