Auswahl der wissenschaftlichen Literatur zum Thema „International Human Rights Law Group (Washington, D.C.)“

The article is devoted to the study of theoretical and praxeological aspects of the formation of the globalist potential of the territorial community in the context of the formation and development of international cooperation of local self-government bodies. In domestic jurisprudence, the topic is investigated for the first time. The author claims that the formation and development of the institution of local self-government on the territory of states (at the national level) as a constitutional and legal phenomenon of society and the state, which: a) is a priori and organically connected with every person, his everyday life, his existential individual, group and collective interests and rights, b) regardless of their legal status (citizenship, foreignness, statelessness, bipatricy, refugee, etc.) and c) determined by the fact that it is in the conditions of the Ministry of Internal Affairs and within the territorial community that each person carries out his entire life cycle, d) the fundamental social space for human awareness and realization of its natural and other rights, freedoms and responsibilities within the framework of naturalistic jurisprudence, d') the fundamental and supporting space where the fertile population exists and functions and where it realizes its reproductive function, and this possesses local, regional, national, international and global influence on the fate of human civilization, as well as its (local self-government) international recognition as: a) an important object of international legal regulation, b) already actually recognized by states and their international community as an ordinary the subject-object of international contractual law, c) an established subject of international regulation and regulation by international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations and their institutions, d) the main and actually common behavioral and activity space of a person, arising in its conditions and within its limits community, without taking into account the effect of state borders, d') territorial human community, where local democracy is formed, arises, exists, functions and is implemented, which is an instrumental and existential form of social existence of a person, his groups and associations; e) an immanent element of democratic legal statehood; f) the social sphere, where the institutional basis of civil society is formed, exists and functions, based on the variety of existential interests of a person, his groups and associations; e) of the natural and primary collective community of human civilization - determined the formation in the community of the phenomenology of the globalization potential, when the primary collective social community, presenting the "microcosm", can speak on behalf of the entire human civilization, because, by and large, it concentrates the entire systemic a complex of existential attitudes and habits of a person in his everyday existence within the territorial human community, which includes a local system of protection of his rights and freedoms. It is proven that in the conditions of globalization, the role and importance of not only local self-government, but also its main representative subject - the territorial community, which: a) begins to possess new properties (international legal personality in the appropriate form and within the appropriate limits - partial, fragmentary, "imperfect", "unformed" international legal personality), b) forms a new quality (ordinary subject of international relations, quasi-subject of international public law), c) a new level of regulatory and legal regulation and regulation (within the international normmaking and at the level of international contract law), d) a qualitatively new volume of perception within the international system (acquisition of globalist potential), hence, the last conclusion can be perceived in two ways: on the one hand, as an organic part of the above processes, and on the other, - as a summary of all the above processes, their quintessence. Therefore, it is necessary to understand that the formation of the globalist potential of the territorial community is a complex multilevel and multifactorial process consisting of many elements - one of such essential elements is the phenomenology of international cooperation of local self-government bodies. The author proposes to understand the international cooperation of local self-government bodies, which appears as a sufficiently motivated and objectified, complex and multifactorial politicalnormative and socio-economic phenomenology, as a system of their communication links with: a) municipal and local self-government bodies of other levels of foreign states, b) their municipal and other national unions of a territorial and self-governing orientation, c) international associations of local authorities at the universal, regional and subregional levels, d) international intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with issues of local democracy and local development, d) the international community states represented by the UN and international organizations created by it and functioning under its auspices (local sustainable development, development of human settlements, organization of local self-government on the territories of UN member states, etc.), as well as d) with any foreign partners, including governmental structures of foreign states, international and national banking institutions and other international credit institutions, business structures, organizations of international civil society, foreign legal entities and individuals, etc. It is noted that the fundamental teleological dominant of such cooperation of local self-government bodies of Ukraine is the need to solve a range of specific and important issues related to the socio-economic, socio-cultural, socio-political, socio-ecological existence, functioning and development of the territorial community and its residents-members, development of the municipal (local) economy, improvement and improvement of its infrastructure.

Resumen: El presente artículo se encuentra dividido en cinco apartados que permiten que su lectura y comprensión sea mucho más amigable. Es interesante y entender que el tema del terrorismo es un tema de naturaleza dinámica y cambiante, en el artículo se estudiara los diferentes tipos de terrorismo que existe y el impacto que ha tenido en el establecimiento de los estados de seguridad pública, así como la afectación a los derechos humanos de las personas y los regímenes jurídicos en los cuales se tipifica esta figura. Abstract: This article is divides into five sections that allow its reading and understanding to be much more user-friendly. It is interesting to understand that the issue of terrorism is a dynamic and changing issue, the article will study the different types of terrorism that exist and the impact it has had on the establishment of states of publica security as well as the impact to the human rights of persons and the legal regimes in which this figure is typified. Fuentes de consulta: Arendt H. (2006) Sobre la revolución, Madrid: Alianza. Báez Corona, J. F. (2015). El realismo mágico jurídico (recreación legal de una ficción literaria con especial referencia a Latinoamérica). Justicia. (28), 15-31. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.17081/just.20.28.1032 Báez, J. (2021). Tradición contra innovación en los modelos de formación jurídica universitaria en México. Revista de Derecho. (56). 137-153. https://dx.doi.org/10.14482/dere.56.340 Bakke E. (2015) Terrorism and Conterterrorism studies, comparing theory and practice, Netherlands, Leiden University Press. Bobbio N. (2004) Estado, Gobierno y Sociedad por una teoría general de la política, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica. Caillois R. (1973) La cuesta de la guerra (trad.) Rufina Bórquez, México, Fondo de Cultura Económica. Coteño Muñoz A. (2018) “Terrorismo individual los atentados perpetrados por actores solitarios” Eunomía. Revista en Cultura de la Legalidad, número 15 Madrid, Universidad Carlos III. Donner, F. (2007) “Fight for God- But Do So with Kindness: Reflections on War, Peace, and Communal Identity in Early Islam”. In War and Peace in the Ancient World, Oxford. Blackwell. Durham M. (2000) The Christian right, the far right and the Boundaries of American Conservatism. Manchester: Manchester University Press. Dworkin R, (2013) “Foreword”, in Extreme Speech and Democracy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Essig, C. (2001). Terrorism: Criminal Act of Act of War? Implications for National Security in the 21st Century. Pennsylvania: US Army War College. Foucault, M. (2009) Historia de la sexualidad 1. La voluntad de saber, México, Siglo XXI. Friedman B, H., Harper J, Preble C. (2010) Terrorizing ourselves. Why U.S. Counterterrorism Policy is Failing and How to Fix It. Washington D.C. Instituto Cato. Gallego, C. (2012). El concepto de seguridad jurídica en el Estado social. Revistas jurídicas. Vol 2, Núm 9, Recuperado de http://juridicas.ucaldas.edu.co/downloads/Juridicas9(2)_6.pdf Griset, P. L., Mahan, S. (2003) Terrorism in perspective, United States of America. Sage Publications Inc. González Calleja, E. (2013). El Laboratorio del Miedo, Madrid, Crítica. Habermas J. (1998) Derechos humanos y soberanía popular. Las versiones liberal y republicana, en Rafael del Águila, Fernando Val, Madrid, Alianza Habermas J. (1994) La desobediencia civil, piedra de toque del Estado democrático de Derecho, en Ensayos políticos, Barcelona, Península. Heydar S. (2017) Islamic Peace Ethics. Legitimate and Illegitimate Violence in Contemporary Islamic Thought. United States of America, Baden-Baden: NomosAschendorff Verlag. Hoffman B., Howard R. (2011) Terrorism and counterterrorism: Understandin the new security environment readings and interpretations: 4a eth, United States of America, Mcgraw-Hill. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside Terrorism. New York: Columbia University Press. Jackson, R, et al., (2011) Terrorism. A Critical Introduction, New York, Palgrave Macmillian Jassies N. (2009) Mrinus Van Der Lubbe y el incendio del Reichstag. Trad., García Velasco C., España, Editorial Alikornio. Jellinek G (1954) Teoría Geenral de los Estados. Trad. Fernando de los Ríos. Buenos Aires, ed. Albatroz. Jenkins, B.M. (1975), "International Terrorism: A New Mode of Conflict", in Garitón D, y Schaerf C. Internactional Terrorism and World Security, Londres, Cromm Helm. Johnston, T. D. (1981). Selective costs and benefits in the evolution of learning. En J. S. Rosenblatt, R .A. Hinde, C. Beer y M. C. Busnel (Eds.). Advances of the study of behavior. New York: Academic Press Kilpatrick J (2020) Quand un état d’urgence temporarire devient permanent, le cas de la France. París, Transnational Institute. Khadduri, M. (1955) War and Peace in the Law of Islam. Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press. Kyrou, A. (2012). L’imaginaire des Anonymous, des luddites à V pour Vendetta. París Folis esssays Lasoen, K. (2018). “War of Nerves: The Domestic Terror Threat and the Belgian Army”. In Studies in Conflict & Terrorism, vol. 42, no. 11. Le Goff J. (1984) La Civilisation d l’occident médiéval, París, Foils Essay. Lillich, B. R. (1985) Paris Minimum Standards of Human Rights Norms in a State of Emergency, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 79, No. 4 Locke J. (1997), Segundo tratado sobre el gobierno civil, Madrid, Alianza. Loubet Del Bayle, J. L. (1992) La Police. Approche socio-politique. Paris, Montchrestien. Luhmann, N. (2005) El derecho de la sociedad, 2a ed., México, Herder, Universidad Iberoamericana. Majoran, A. (2015). The illusion of war: Is terrorism a criminal act or an act of war? International Politics Reviews, Vol.3 Issue 1 Martin J-C, (2006) Les règles internationales relatives à la lutte contre le terrorismo. París, edición Bruylant. Nateras González M, E. (2018) Colombia Las autodefensas en Michoacán, México: ¿rescate de la ciudadanía ante la violencia? Revista Opinión Jurídica, Universidad de Medellín, Vol. 17, Núm. 33 Placido A. P., y Perkins L K. (2010) Drug Trafficking violence in México implications for the United States. Washington D.C. U.S. Senate Caucus on International Narcotics Control Departmente of Justice Poczynok, I. (2019). Fuerzas armadas y contraterrorismo. Apuntes para renovar un “debate crónico” en la Argentina. Revista Relaciones Internacionales, Estrategia Y Seguridad, vol. 2, Núm. 14 Poland J. (2004) Understanding Terrorism: Groups, Strategies and responses. New York. Pretince Hall. Rawls J (1999) La justificación de la desobediencia civil, en Justicia como equidad. Materiales para una teoría de la justicia, Madrid, Tecnos. Reinares, F y García-Calvo, C. (2016) Estado Islámico en España. Madrid: Real Instituto Elcano. Rivas, P., y Rey, P. (2008) Las autodefensas y el paramilitarismo en Colombia (1964-2003), Bogotá, CON Fines. Rapoport, D. (2004). “The four waves of modern terrorism”. En Audrey, C. y James, L. Attacking Terrorism: Elements of a Grand Strategy. Washington D.C. George town University Press Rodley N. (1985) International Human Rights Law, dans Evans, M. D, International Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Reitberger M (2013) “License to kill: is legitimate authority a requirement for just war? in International Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, Vol. 5, Issue 1. Robespierre Maximilien (2005) Por la felicidad y por la libertad, discursos. España, El viejo topo. Rousseau J. J., (2013) Discurso sobre el origen y fundamento de la desigualdad entre los hombres, Madrid, Calpe. Tinnes J. (2020) Bibliography: Defining and Conceptualizing Terrorism Compiled PERSPECTIVES ON TERRORISM Volume 14, Issue 6, The Netherlands Universiteit Leiden. recuperado de https://www.universiteitleiden.nl/perspectives-on-terrorism/archives/2020#volume-xiv-issue-6 Toboso Buezo M. (2020) Colección Segmentos de Seguridad Terrorismo y antiterrorismo. España. Institut de Seguretat Pública de Catalunya.. Saint Thomas Aquinas (2003) On law, morality and Politics, translated by Regan Richard United States of America, Hackett publishing company. Sinai, J. (2008) “How to Define Terrorism”, Perspectives on Terrorism, Journal of the Terrorism Research Initiative and the Center for Terrorism and Security Studies, The Netherlands, Universiteit Leiden, Vol. 2, No.4, recuperado de http://www.terrorismanalysts.com/pt/index.php/pot/article/view/33/html Skinner, B. F. (1953) Science and human behavior. New York, The Macmillan Company. United States Department of State. (2004) Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003 Washington, DC: Office of the Secretary of State, Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism. Valadés D. (1974) La dictadura constitucional en América Latina, México, UNAM. Walther T C., Höhn A., (2020) El ejército alemán y sus graves problemas con la ultraderecha. DW noticiero recuperado de https://www.dw.com/es/el-ej%C3%A9rcito-alem%C3%A1n-y-sus-graves-problemas-con-la-ultraderecha/a-54044495 Wallace, D. (2008). Combatiendo el terrorismo bajo las leyes de la guerra. Military Review Hispan-American, Vol. 88, Issue 2 Weber M. (1986) El político y el científico. (trad) Francisco Rubio Llorente, Madrid, Alianza Editorial.

The Government of Indonesia is committed to advancing social and political rights through various means, by protecting, respecting and fulfilling the civil and political rights of every citizen. Likewise with the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women which has been ratified. These two aspects are interesting things to study, including: how are the laws related to these matters made and how are these laws complied with?—remembering that Indonesia is a large country consisting of many islands and different customs—Discrimination against women often occurs between married couples in marriage. This study aims to determine the responsibilities of husband and wife in marriage from the perspective of human rights and Kulawi customary law. The results of the study illustrate that the responsibilities of husband and wife in marriage in the perspective of Kulawi customary law are in line with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Woman. Women in the view of Kulawi customary law are given protection both legally, economically and socially. ___ Referensi Buku dengan penulis: Ali, A. (2009). Menguak Teori Hukum (Legal Theory) dan Teori Peradilan (Jurisprudence); Termasuk Interpretasi Undang-Undang. Jakarta: Kencana. Davidson, Scott. (1994). Hak Asasi Manusia: Sejarah, Teori dan Praktek dalam Pergaulan Internasional. Jakarta: Pustaka Utama Grafiti. Faisal, Sanapiah. (2005). Format-Format Penelitian Sosial: Dasar-Dasar dan Aplikasi. Jakarta: Rajagrafindo Perkasa. Irwansyah. (2020). Penelitian Hukum, Pilihan Metode dan Praktik Penulisan Artikel. Yogyakarta: Mirra Buana Media. Artikel jurnal: Kalalo, J. J. J., & Irwansyah, I. (2019). Dikotomi Politik Hukum Nasional dengan Politik Hukum Adat di Daerah Perbatasan. Amsir Law Journal, 1(1), 22-35. Kania, D. (2015). Hak Asasi Perempuan Dalam Peraturan Perundang-Undangan di Indonesia. Jurnal Konstitusi, 12(4), 716-734. Karim, K., & Syahril, M. A. F. (2021). Simplifikasi Pembagian Harta Gono-Gini Akibat Perceraian. Jurnal Litigasi Amsir, 9(1), 1-12. Laitupa, S., & Kartika, E. D. (2022). Eksistensi Hukum Internasional terhadap Hukum Nasional dalam Pembuatan Perjanjian Internasional. Amsir Law Journal, 3(2), 63-75. Miqat, N., & Bakhtiar, H. S. (2017). Harmonization of Uang Panaik as Customary Term in Bugis-Makassar Ethnic Group and Dowry in Indonesian Marriage System. JL Pol'y & Globalization, 67, 41. Miqat, N., Nur, R., Fattah, V., Sulilawati, S., & Purnamasari, I. (2021). Local Wisdom of Customary Law Community to Realize Food Sovereignty in Central Sulawesi. Jambura Law Review, 3(2), 277-294. Rahayu, N. (2012). Kesetaraan Gender dalam Aturan Hukum dan Implementasinya di Indonesia Gender Equality in the Rule of Law in Indonesian and Implementation. Jurnal Legislasi Indonesia, 9(1), 15-32. Rahayu, R. (2021). Perlindungan Hak Asasi Manusia Perempuan terhadap Kasus Kekerasan dalam Rumah Tangga di Indonesia dalam Perspektif Hukum Internasional. Jurnal HAM, 12(2), 261-272. Rakia, A. S. R., & Hidaya, W. A. (2022). Aspek Feminist Legal Theory dalam Peraturan Perundang-undangan di Indonesia. Amsir Law Journal, 4(1), 69-88. Syarifuddin, J. S., Karim, K., & Suardi, S. (2021). Legum Studia Penyelesaian Sengketa Harta Bersama. Jurnal Litigasi Amsir, 9(1), 70-76. Ulil, A., Lazuardi, S., & Putri, D. C. (2020). Arsitektur Penerapan Omnibus Law melalui Transplantasi Hukum Nasional Pembentukan Undang-Undang. Jurnal Ilmiah Kebijakan Hukum, 14(1), 1-18.

The Indonesian National Army Unites Building Villages (INAUBV) program as a social responsibility program carried out by the INA organization can be oriented as well as the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program carried out by companies. This study aims to understand and analyze the implementation of the INAUBV program from the perspective of the CSR concept. The research was conducted in Sukoharjo Regency in 2021-2023. The research method is a case study. Sampling used purposive sampling. Research data used primary and secondary data. Data collection through observation, in-depth interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and documentation. The research results concluded that according to the perspective of the CSR concept, the implementation of the INAUBV program meets the following principles: (a) Accountability, as a form of organizational (INA) responsibility for community problems; (b) Transparency, involving related agencies and the community in program implementation and reporting; (c) Ethical behavior, trying to establish harmonious relationships with various parties, including society; (d) Respect for stakeholder needs, involving relevant agencies and the community; (e) Respect for legal regulations, because it is carried out based on the INA Law; (f) Respect for international behavioral norms by adopting CSR programs; (g) Respect for human rights, increasing equitable development, because it prioritizes disadvantaged areas

The Indonesian National Army Unites Building Villages (INAUBV) program as a social responsibility program carried out by the INA organization can be oriented as well as the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) program carried out by companies. This study aims to understand and analyze the implementation of the INAUBV program from the perspective of the CSR concept. The research was conducted in Sukoharjo Regency in 2021-2023. The research method is a case study. Sampling used purposive sampling. Research data used primary and secondary data. Data collection through observation, in-depth interviews, Focus Group Discussions (FGD), and documentation. The research results concluded that according to the perspective of the CSR concept, the implementation of the INAUBV program meets the following principles: (a) Accountability, as a form of organizational (INA) responsibility for community problems; (b) Transparency, involving related agencies and the community in program implementation and reporting; (c) Ethical behavior, trying to establish harmonious relationships with various parties, including society; (d) Respect for stakeholder needs, involving relevant agencies and the community; (e) Respect for legal regulations, because it is carried out based on the INA Law; (f) Respect for international behavioral norms by adopting CSR programs; (g) Respect for human rights, increasing equitable development, because it prioritizes disadvantaged areas

Abstract SYNTHESIS OF THE FIRST INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM FOR RESEARCH IN COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY Introduction At the beginning of the development of the social sciences there was a considerable vogue for comparative research. A long period of empirical studies and almost total preoccupation with methodological problems followed. Once again, however, psychology, political science, sociology, and above all anthropology, have taken up the thread of this tradition, and the bibliography in these fields is becoming ever more abundant. The study of deviance, of various manifestations of criminality, and of social reaction against crime are, however, noticeably missing in the picture, even though there is nothing in the nature of criminology which precludes the development of comparative research. To many research workers in criminology, the time seemed ripe to take up the comparative tradition once again. Two imperatives were considered : the generalization of norms of deviance which are tied to the standard of living set by industrial civilization, thus putting the problem of criminality in a global light ; and, second, the development and standardization of methods of studying these phenomena, drawing on the experience of allied disciplines. The response of the participants in this Symposium and the results of their discussions were not unexpected. A consensus was arrived as to the problems it was thought important to study, and agreement was reached about the strategies of research to be undertaken. Priorities, however, were not established since too much depends on the availability of research teams, funds, etc. But the broad, overall look at the main problems in comparative criminology will, hopefully, open a new chapter in the history of crimino-logical research and in our continuing search for knowledge of man and society. The brief resume which follows should give the reader an idea of the extent of the problems tackled. The detailed proceedings of the Symposium will be published at a later date, in mimeographed form. Sectors of research proposed In a sense, this Symposium was prepared by all the participants. The organizers had requested that each person invited prepare a memorandum setting out the problems in comparative criminology which he considered to be most important. The compilation of their replies, reported to the plenary session at the opening of the Symposium, produced the following results : Summary of suggestions for research activities Note : In all that follows, it should be understood that all of these topics should be studied in a cross-cultural or international context. 1) Definitions and concepts : a) Social vs legal concept of deviance ; b) Distinction between political and criminal crimes ; c) The law : a moral imperative or a simple norm ; d) The concepts used in penal law : how adequate ? e.g. personality of criminal ; e) Who are the sinners in different cultures and at different times. 2) Procedures : a) Working concepts of criminal law and procedure ; b) Differentiating between factors relating to the liability-finding process and the sentencing process ; c) Behavioural manifestations of the administration of criminal justice ; d) Judicial decisions as related to the personality of the judges and of the accused ; e) Sentencing in the cross-national context (2 proposals) ; f) In developing countries, the gap between development of the legal apparatus and social behaviour ; g) Determination of liability ; h) The problem of definition and handling of dangerous offenders ; i) Decision-making by the sentencing judges, etc. (2 proposals) ; ;) Medical vs penal committals ; k) Law-enforcement, policing. 3) Personnel : a) Professionalization in career patterns ; b) Criteria for personnel selection ; c) Greater use of female personnel. 4) Causation. Situations related to criminality : a) How international relations and other external factors affect crime ; 6) Hierarchy of causes of crime ; c) Migrants. Minorities in general ; d) Relation to socio-economic development in different countries ; e) A biological approach to criminal subcultures, constitutional types, twin studies, etc. ; f) Cultural and social approach : norms of moral judgment, ideals presented to the young, etc. ; g) Effect of social change : crime in developing countries, etc. (6 proposals) ; h) Effects of mass media, rapid dissemination of patterns of deviant behaviour (2 proposals). 5) Varieties of crime and criminals : a) Traffic in drugs ; b) Prison riots ; c) Violence particularly in youth (7 proposals) ; d) Dangerousness ; e) Relation to the rights of man (including rights of deviants); f) Female crime (2 proposals) ; g) Prostitution ; i) The mentally ill offender ; ;) Cultural variations in types of crime ; k) Organized crime ; /) Use of firearms ; m) Gambling ; n) Victims and victimology. 6) Treatment : evaluation : a) Social re-adaptation of offenders ; b) Statistical research on corrections, with possible computerization of data ; c) Comparisons between prisons and other closed environments ; d) Extra-legal consequences of deprivation of liberty ; e) Rehabilitation in developing countries ; f ) Criteria for evaluation of programs of correction ; g) Biochemical treatment (2 proposals) ; i) Differential treatment of different types of offense. Evaluation ; /) Prisons as agencies of treatment ; k) Effects of different degrees of restriction of liberty ; /) Environments of correctional institutions ; m) Study of prison societies ; n) Crime as related to the total social system. 7) Research methodology : a) Publication of what is known regarding methodology ; b) Methods of research ; c) Culturally-comparable vs culturally-contrasting situations ; d) Development of a new clearer terminology to facilitate communication ; e) Actual social validity of the penal law. 8) Statistics : epidemiology : a) Need for comparable international statistics ; standardized criteria (3 proposals) ; b) Difficulties. Criminologists must collect the data themselves. 9) Training of research workers : Recruiting and training of « com-paratists ». 10) Machinery : Committee of co-ordination. Discussions The discussions at the Symposium were based on these suggestions, the main concentration falling on problems of manifestations of violence in the world today, the phenomenon of student contestation, and on human rights and the corresponding responsibilities attached thereto. Although the participants did not come to definite conclusions as to the respective merits of the problems submitted for consideration, they did discuss the conditions under which comparative studies of these problems should be approached, the techniques appropriate to obtaining valid results, and the limitations on this type or work. Four workshops were established and studied the various problems. The first tackled the problems of the definition of the criteria of « danger » represented by different type of criminals ; the problem of discovering whether the value system which underlies the Human Rights Declaration corresponds to the value system of today's youth; the problem of the treatment of criminals ; of female criminality ; and, finally, of violence in the form of individual and group manifestations. The second workshop devoted its main consideration to the revolt of youth and to organized crime, also proposing that an international instrument bank of documentation and information be established. The third workshop considered problems of theory : how the police and the public view the criminal ; the opportunity of making trans-cultural comparisons on such subjects as arrest, prison, etc. ; and the role of the media of information in the construction of value systems. The fourth workshop blazed a trail in the matter of methodology appropriate to research in comparative criminology. The period of discussions which followed the report of the four workshops gave rise to a confrontation between two schools of thought within the group of specialists. The question arose as to whether the problem of student contestation falls within the scope of the science of criminology. Several experts expressed the opinion that criminologists ought not to concern themselves with a question which really belongs in the realm of political science. On the other hand, the majority of the participants appeared to feel that the phenomenon of student contestation did indeed belong in the framework of criminological research. One of the experts in particular took it upon himself to be the spokesman of this school of thought. There are those, he said, who feel that criminology should confine itself and its research to known criminality, to hold-ups, rape, etc. However, one should not forget that penal law rests on political foundations, the legality of power, a certain moral consensus of the population. Today, it is exactly this « legitimate » authority that is being contested. Is it not to be expected, therefore, that criminology should show interest in all sociological phenomena which have legal and criminal implications ? Contestation and violence have consequences for the political foundations of penal law, and therefore are fit subjects for the research of the criminologist. International Centre {or Comparative Criminology The First International Symposium for Research in Comparative Criminology situated itself and its discussions within the framework and in the perspectives opened by the founding of the International Centre for Comparative Criminology. The Centre is sponsored jointly by the University of Montreal and the International Society for Criminology, with headquarters at the University of Montreal. As one of the participants emphasized, criminologists need a place to retreat from the daily struggle, to meditate, to seek out and propose instruments of research valid for the study of problems common to several societies. Viewing the facts as scientists, we are looking for operational concepts. Theoreticians and research workers will rough out the material and, hopefully, this will inspire conferences and symposiums of practitioners, jurists, sociologists, penologists, and other specialists. Above all, it will give common access to international experience, something which is lacking at present both at the level of documentation and of action. A bank of instruments of method- ology in the field of comparative criminology does not exist at the present time. The Centre will undertake to compile and analyse research methods used in scientific surveys, and it will establish such an instrument bank. It will also gather and analyse information pertaining to legislative reforms now in progress or being contemplated in the field of criminal justice. Through the use of computers, the Centre will be able to put these two projects into effect and make the results easily accessible to research workers, and to all those concerned in this field. The participants at the Symposium were given a view of the extent of the problems envisaged for research by the future Centre. It is hoped that this initiative will be of concrete use to research workers, private organizations, public services and governments at many levels, and in many countries.

The study aimed to develop a Philippine peace framework in its sociopolitical-psychological perspectives. The international framework of peace with dimensions of substantive, processual, and personal peace values and spheres were used as springboard to describe the Philippine peace. Concepts of positive peace and negative peace emerged in Philippine peace efforts. Library search and document analysis were employed as methods of investigation. Peace philosophy model focused on the peace thinking of the respondents as analyzed by the authors in the literatures reviewed. Peace spheres span from the influence of a universalist to inward-oriented concept of peace; also from individual to group level of human organizations within the nation. In the process of analysis, the acronym DEFERENCE and FIST were formed. Interestingly, deference means “respect” while, in antithesis, the word fist is associated with fight. Literally, deference is a means to avoid fistfight (or may denote any form of fight, for that matter). In the present study, DEFERENCE stands for Discipline and order, Emotional stability/positive affect, Freedom from fear and want, Equality based on social justice, universal Respect, Equitability, Non-direct and structural violence, Care for the environment, Empowerment and stewardship, and education. FIST, on the other, represents Family-oriented values, Interdependence and solidarity, Spirituality and Trust. These peace values comprised the socio-politicalpsychological Philippine peace framework in the educational, organizational and political settings under study.ReferencesAga, N. B. (2019). Culture of peace and organizational commitment of employees from the lens of accreditation and stewardship. Southeast Asian Journal of Educational Management 1 (1).Arcenas, W. P. & Radislao, M. J. (2013). Peace and justice education in a private Catholic college. Development Education Journal on Multidisciplinary Research.Arviola, Jr. S. A. (2008). Community-based peace-building program: The case of Bual zone of peace, Philippines. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review, 8(2), 51-59.Armarlo, E.S. & Maramba, D.A. (Eds.). (1995). Alay sa Kalinaw. UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines.Bernardo, A. B. I., & Ortigas, C. D. (Eds.). (2000). Building peace: Essays on psychology and the culture of peace. De La Sale University Press.Datu, JA. D., Valdez, JP. M., & King, R. B. (2018). Exploring the association between peace of mind and academic engagement: Cross-sectional and cross-lagged panel studies in the Philippine context. J Happiness Stud. 19,1903–1916. https://doi.org/.1007/s10902-017-9902-x Du, E. C., Gamba, C. Z., Chan, S. C., & Cagas, RR. L. (2017). Bangsamoro peace framework agreement and basic law as perceived by the people in Northern Mindanao. Capitol University Press. Progressio Journal on Human Development(2014).8. Ferrer, M. C. (1997). Peace matters: A Philippine peace compendium. UP Center for Integrative and Development Studies Peace, Conflict Resolution and Human Rights Program. Galtung, J. (1967, September). Theories of peace: A synthetic approach to peace thinking. https://www.transcend.org/files/Galtung_Book_unpub_Theories_of_Peace_A_SyntheticApproach_to_PeaceThinking_1967.pdfGogoi, R.(n.d.). Peace: A theoretical framework. https://www.ukessays.com/essays/politics/concepts-peace-2383.phpGutang, A. B. (2013, April). Peace Concept Among the Tri-People in Davao City: Basis for Peace Building Model. Thesis. University of Southeastern University.Macapagal, ME. J.& Galace, J. (2009). Social psychology of People Power II in the Philippines. peace and conflict. Journal of Peace Psychology, 9(3), https://doi.org/10.1207/ s15327949pac0903_3Matsuo, M. (2007). Concept of peace in peace studies: A short historical sketch. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Concept-of-Peacein-Peace-Studies-%3A-A-Short-Sketch-Matsuo/85b15d3c83bd06d9362ae57554e6061a2e6524baOrtiz, W. P. (2017May). Ang paghahanap ng nalandangan at paghahasik ng kapayapaan para sa bayan. Saliksik E-Journal. 6(1). Departamento ng Filipino at Panitikan ng Pilipinas Unibersidad ng Pilipinas.Roberts, N. (2014March 31). Philippines: Mindanao: The political psychology of peace. 2011 World Development Report on Conflict, Security and Development, Philippine Daily Inquirer.Salazar-Clemena, RM. (2000). Psychology and a culture of peace: Enriching relationships and establishing balance. In A. B. I. Bernardo, &C. D. Ortigas (Eds.), Building peace: Essays on psychology and the culture of peace. De La Sale University Press.Santos, Jr., S. M. (2002). Peace advocate. De La Salle University Press.Yan, M. T. (2000). The dynamics of psychology in the Mindanao peace process. In A. B. I. Bernardo & C. D. Ortigas (Eds.), Building peace: Essays on psychology and the culture of peace. De La Sale University Press.Yu, R. T. (2010). Haraya ng bata: Kapayapaan sa paningin at panulat ng batang Filipino. Malay, 23(1), 149-170

Introduction Daffodil Day, usually held in spring, raises funds for cancer awareness and research using this symbol of hope. On that day, people who donate money to this good cause are usually given a yellow daffodil pin to wear. When I lived in Auckland, New Zealand, on the last Friday in August most people walking around the city centre proudly wore a cheerful yellow flower. So many people generously participated in this initiative that one almost felt obliged to join the cause in order to wear the ‘uniform’ – the daffodil pin – as everyone else did on that day. To donate and to wear a daffodil is the social expectation, and operating in social environment people often endeavour to meet the expectation by doing the ‘appropriate things’ defined by societies or communities. After all, who does not like to receive a beam of acceptance and appreciation from a fellow daffodil bearer in Auckland’s Queen Street? States in international society are no different. In some ways, states wear ‘uniforms’ while executing domestic and foreign affairs just as human beings do within their social groups. States develop the understandings of desirable behaviour from the international community with which they interact and identify. They are ‘socialised’ to act in line with the expectations of international community. These expectations are expressed in the form of international norms, a prescriptive set of ideas about the ‘appropriate behaviour for actors with a given identity’ (Finnemore and Sikkink 891). Motivated by this logic of appropriateness, states that comply with certain international norms in world politics justify and undertake actions that are considered appropriate for their identities. This essay starts with examining how international norms can be spread to different countries through the process of ‘state socialisation’ (how the countries are ‘talked into’ wearing the ‘uniform’). Second, the essay investigates the idea of ‘cultural match’: how domestic actors comply with an international norm by interpreting and manipulating it according to their local political and legal practices (how the countries wear the ‘uniform’ differently). Lastly, the essay probes the current international normative community and the liberal values embedded in major international norms (whether states would continue wearing the ‘uniform’). International Norms and State Socialisation: Why Do States Wear the ‘Uniforms’? Norm diffusion is related to the efforts of ‘norm entrepreneurs’ using various platforms to convince a critical mass of states to embrace new norms (Finnemore and Sikkink 895-896). Early studies of norm diffusion tend to emphasise nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) as norm entrepreneurs and advocates, such as Oxfam and its goal of reducing poverty and hunger worldwide (Capie 638). In other empirical research, intergovernmental organisations (IGOs) were shown to serve as ‘norm teachers,’ such as UNESCO educating developing countries the value of science policy organisations (Finnemore 581-586). Additionally, states and other international actors can also play important roles in norm diffusion. Powerful states with more communication resources sometimes enjoy advantages in creating and promoting new norms (Florini 375). For example, the United States and Western European countries have often been considered as the major proponents of free trade. Norm emergence and state socialisation in a normative community often occurs during critical historical periods, such as wars and major economic downturns, when international changes and domestic crises often coincide with each other (Ikenberry and Kupchan 292). For instance, the norm entrepreneurs of ‘responsible power/state’ can be traced back to the great powers (mainly the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union) and their management of international order at the end of WWII (see Bull). With their negotiations and series of international agreements at the Cairo, Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conference in the 1940s, these great powers established a post-World War international society based on the key liberal values of international peace and security, free trade, human rights, and democracy. Human beings are not born to know what appropriate behaviour is; we learn social norms from parents, schools, peers, and other community members. International norms are collective expectations and understanding of how state governments should approach their domestic and foreign affairs. States ‘learn’ international norms while socialising with a normative community. From a sociological perspective, socialisation summarises ‘how and to what extent diverse individuals are meshed with the requirement of collective life’ at the societal level (Long and Hadden 39). It mainly consists of the process of training and shaping newcomers by the group members and the social adjustment of novices to the normative framework and the logic of appropriateness (Long and Hadden 39). Similarly, social psychology defines socialisation as the process in which ‘social organisations influence the action and experience of individuals’ (Gold and Douvan 145). Inspired by sociology and psychology, political scientists consider socialisation to be the mechanism through which norm entrepreneurs persuade other actors (usually a norm novice) to adhere to a particular prescriptive standard (Johnston, “Social State” 16). Norm entrepreneurs can change novices’ behaviour by the methods of persuasion and social influence (Johnston, “Treating International Institutions” 496-506). Socialisation sometimes demands that individual actors should comply with organisational norms by changing their interests or preferences (persuasion). Norm entrepreneurs often attempt to construct an appealing cognitive frame in order to persuade the novices (either individuals or states) to change their normative preferences or adopt new norms. They tend to use language that can ‘name, interpret and dramatise’ the issues related to the emerging norm (Finnemore and Sikkink 987). As a main persuasive device, ‘framing’ can provide a singular interpretation and appropriate behavioural response for a particular situation (Payne 39). Cognitive consistency theory found in psychology has suggested the mechanism of ‘analogy’, which indicates that actors are more likely to accept new ideas that share some similarities to the extant belief or ideas that they have already accepted (see Hybel, ch. 2). Based on this understanding, norm entrepreneurs usually frame issues in a way that can associate and resonate with the shared value of the targeted novices (Payne 43). For example, Finnemore’s research shows that when it promoted the creation of state science bureaucracies in the 1960s, UNESCO associated professional science policy-making with the appropriate role of a modern state, which was well received by the post-war developing countries in Latin America, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia (Finnemore 565-597). Socialisation can also emanate actors’ pro-norm behaviour through a cost-benefit calculation made with social rewards and punishments (social influence). A normative community can use the mechanism of back-patting and opprobrium to distribute social reward and punishment. Back-patting – ‘recognition, praise and normative support’ – is offered for a novice’s or member’s cooperative and pro-norm behaviour (Johnston, “Treating International Institutions” 503). In contrast, opprobrium associated with status denial and identity rejection can create social and psychological costs (Johnston 504). Both the reward and punishment grow in intensity with the number of co-operators (Johnston 504). A larger community can often create more criticism towards rule-breakers, and thus greatly increase the cost of disobedience. For instance, the lack of full commitment from major powers, such as China, the United States, and some other OECD countries, has arguably made global collective action towards mitigating climate change more difficult, as the cost of non-compliance is relatively low. While being in a normative environment, novice or emerging states that have not yet been socialised into the international community can respond to persuasion and social influence through the processes of identification and mimicking. Social psychology indicates that when one actor accepts persuasion or social influence based on its desire to build or maintain a ‘satisfying self-defining relationship’ to another actor, the mechanism of identification starts to work (Kelman 53). Identification among a social group can generate ‘obligatory’ behaviour, where individual states make decisions by attempting to match their perceptions of ‘who they are’ (national identity) with the expectation of the normative community (Glodgeier and Tetlock 82). After identifying with the normative community, a novice state would then mimic peer states’ pro-norm behaviour in order to be considered as a qualified member of the social group. For example, when the Chinese government was deliberating over its ratification of the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety in 2003, a Ministry of Environmental Protection brief noted that China should ratify the Protocol as soon as possible because China had always been a country ‘keeping its word’ in international society, and non-ratification would largely ‘undermine China’s international image and reputation’ (Ministry of Environmental Protection of PRC). Despite the domestic industry’s disagreement with entering into the Protocol, the Chinese government’s self-identification as a ‘responsible state’ that performs its international promises and duties played an important role in China’s adoption of the international norm of biosafety. Domestic Salience of International Norms: How Do States Wear the ‘Uniforms’ Differently? Individual states do not accept international norms passively; instead, state governments often negotiate and interact with domestic actors, such as major industries and interest groups, whose actions and understandings in turn impact on how the norm is understood and implemented. This in turn feeds back to the larger normative community and creates variations of those norms. There are three main factors that can contribute to the domestic salience of an international norm. First, as the norm-takers, domestic actors can decide whether and to what extent an international norm can enter the domestic agenda and how it will be implemented in policy-making. These actors tend to favour an international norm that can justify their political and social programs and promote their interests in domestic policy debates (Cortell and Davis, “How Do International Institutions Matter?” 453). By advocating the existence and adoption of an international norm, domestic actors attempt to enhance the legitimacy and authority of their current policy or institution (Acharya, “How Ideas Spread” 248). Political elites can strengthen state legitimacy by complying with an international norm in their policy-making, and consequently obtain international approval with reputation, trust, and credibility as social benefits in the international community (Finnemore and Sikkink 903). For example, when the UN General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), only four states – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States – voted against the Declaration. They argued that their constitutional and national policies were sufficiently responsive to the type of Indigenous self-determination envisioned by UNDRIP. Nevertheless, given the opprobrium directed against these states by the international community, and their well-organised Indigenous populations, the four state leaders recognised the value of supporting UNDRIP. Subsequently all four states adopted the Declaration, but in each instance state leaders observed UNDRIP’s ‘aspirational’ rather than legal status; UNDRIP was a statement of values that these states’ policies should seek to incorporate into their domestic Indigenous law. Second, the various cultural, political, and institutional strategies of domestic actors can influence the effectiveness of norm empowerment. Political rhetoric and political institutions are usually created and used to promote a norm domestically. Both state and societal leaders can make the performative speech act of an international norm work and raise its importance in a national context by repeated declarations on the legitimacy and obligations brought by the norm (Cortell and Davis, “Understanding the Domestic Impact” 76). Moreover, domestic actors can also develop or modify political institutions to incorporate an international norm into the domestic bureaucratic or legal system (Cortell and Davis, “Understanding the Domestic Impact” 76). These institutions provide rules for domestic actors and articulate their rights and obligations, which transforms the international norm’s legitimacy and authority into local practices. For example, the New Zealand Government adopted a non-nuclear policy in the 1980s. This policy arose from the non-nuclear movement that was leading the development of the Raratonga Treaty (South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone) and peace and Green party movements across Europe who sought to de-nuclearise the European continent. The Lange Labour Government’s 1984 adoption of an NZ anti-nuclear policy gained impetus because of these larger norm movements, and these movements in turn recognised the normative importance of a smaller power in international relations. Third, the characteristics of the international norm can also impact on the likelihood that the norm will be accepted by domestic actors. A ‘cultural match’ between international norm and local values can facilitate norm diffusion to domestic level. Sociologists suggest that norm diffusion is more likely to be successful if the norm is congruent with the prior values and practices of the norm-taker (Acharya, “Asian Regional Institutions” 14). Norm diffusion tends to be more efficient when there is a high degree of cultural match such that the global norm resonates with the target country’s domestic values, beliefs or understandings, which in turn can be reflected in national discourse, as well as the legal and bureaucratic system (Checkel 87; Cortell and Davis, “Understanding the Domestic Impact” 73). With such cultural consistency, domestic actors are more likely to accept an international norm and treat it as a given or as ‘matter-of-fact’ (Cortell and Davis, “Understanding the Domestic Impact” 74). Cultural match in norm localisation explains why identical or similar international socialisation processes can lead to quite different local developments and variations of international norms. The debate between universal human rights and the ‘Asian values’ of human rights is an example where some Asian states, such as Singapore and China, prioritise citizen’s economic rights over social and political rights and embrace collective rights instead of individual rights. Cultural match can also explain why one country may easily accept a certain international norm, or some aspect of one particular norm, while rejecting others. For example, when Taiwanese and Japanese governments adapted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples into their local political and legal practice, various cultural aspects of Indigenous rights have been more thoroughly implemented compared to indigenous economic and political rights (Gao et al. 60-65). In some extreme cases, the norm entrepreneurs even attempt to change the local culture of norm recipients to create a better cultural match for norm localisation. For example, when it tried to socialise India into its colonial system in the early nineteenth century, Britain successfully shaped the evolution of Indian political culture by adding British values and practices into India’s social, political, and judicial system (Ikenberry and Kupchan 307-309). The International Normative Community: Would States Continue Wearing ‘Uniforms’? International norms evolve. Not every international norm can survive and sustain. For example, while imperialism and colonial expansion, where various European states explored, conquered, settled, and exploited other parts of the world, was a widely accepted idea and practice in the nineteenth century, state sovereignty, equality, and individual rights have replaced imperialism and become the prevailing norms in international society today. The meanings of the same international norm can evolve as well. The Great Powers first established the post-war international norms of ‘state responsibility’ based on the idea of sovereign equality and non-intervention of domestic affairs. However, the 1980s saw the emergence of many international organisations, which built new standards and offered new meanings for a responsible state in international society: a responsible state must actively participate in international organisations and comply with international regimes. In the post-Cold War era, international society has paid more attention to states’ responsibility to offer global common goods and to promote the values of human rights and democracy. This shift of focus has changed the international expectation of state responsibility again to embrace collective goods and global values (Foot, “Chinese Power” 3-11). In addition to the nature and evolution of international norms, the unity and strength of the normative community can also affect states’ compliance with the norms. The growing size of the community group or the number of other cooperatives can amplify the effect of socialisation (Johnston, “Treating International Institutions” 503-506). In other words, individual states are often more concerned about their national image, reputation and identity regarding norm compliance when a critical mass of states have already subscribed into the international norm. How much could this critical mass be? Finnemore and Sikkink suggest that international norms reach the threshold global acceptance when the norm entrepreneurs have persuaded at least one third of all states to adopt the new norm (901). The veto record of the United Nation Security Council (UNSC) shows this impact. China, for example, has cast a UNSC veto vote 17 times as of 2022, but it has rarely excised its veto power alone (Security Council Report). For instance, though being sceptical of the notion of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, which prioritises human right over state sovereignty, China did not veto Resolution 1973 (2011) regarding the Libyan civil war. The Resolution allowed the international society to take ‘all necessary measure to protect civilians’ from a failed state government, and it received wide support among UNSC members (no negative votes from the other 14 members). Moreover, states are not entirely equal in terms of their ‘normative weight’. When Great Powers act as norm entrepreneurs, they can usually utilise their wealth and influence to better socialise other norm novice states. In the history of promoting biological diversity norms which are embedded in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the OECD countries, especially France, UK, Germany, and Japan, have been regarded as normative leaders. French and Japanese political leaders employed normative language (such as ‘need’ and ‘must’) in various international forums to promote the norms and to highlight their normative commitment (see e.g. Chirac; Kan). Additionally, both governments provided financial assistance for developing countries to adopt the biodiversity norms. In the 2011 annual review of CBD, Japan reaffirmed its US$12 million contribution to assisting developing countries (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 9). France joined Japan’s commitment by announcing a financial contribution of €1 million along, with some additional funding from Norway and Switzerland (Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity 9). Today, biological diversity has been one of the most widely accepted international environmental norms, which 196 states/nations have ratified (United Nations). While Great Powers can make more substantial contributions to norm diffusion compared to many smaller powers with limited state capacity, Great Powers’ non-compliance with the normative ‘uniform’ can also significantly undermine the international norms’ validity and the normative community’s unity and reputation. The current normative community of climate change is hardly a unified one, as it is characterised by a low degree of consensus. Major industrial countries, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia, have not yet reached an agreement concerning their individual responsibilities for reducing greenhouse emissions. This lack of agreement, which includes the amount of cuts, the feasibility and usefulness of such cuts, and the relative sharing of cuts across various states, is complicated by the fact that large developing countries, such as China, Brazil, and India, also hold different opinions towards climate change regimes (see Vidal et al.). Experts heavily criticised the major global powers, such as the European Union and the United States, for their lack of ambition in phasing out fossil fuels during the 2022 climate summit in Egypt (COP27; Ehsan et al.). In international trade, both China and the United States are among the leading powers because of their large trade volume, capacity, and transnational network; however, both countries have recently undermined the world trade system and norms. China took punitive measures against Australian export products after Australia’s Covid-19 inquiry request at the World Health Organisation. The United States, particularly under the Trump Administration, invoked the WTO national security exception in Article XXI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to justify its tariffs on steel and aluminium. Lastly, norm diffusion and socialisation can be a ‘two-way path,’ especially when the norm novice state is a powerful and influential state in the international system. In this case, the novices are not merely assimilated into the group, but can also successfully exert some influence on other group members and affect intra-group relations (Moreland 1174). As such, the novices can be both targets of socialisation and active agents who can shape the content and outcome of socialisation processes (Pu 344). The influence from the novices can create normative contestation and thus influence the norm evolution (Thies 547). In other words, novice states can influence international society and shape the international norm during the socialisation process. For example, the ‘ASEAN Way’ is a set of norms that regulate member states’ relationships within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN). It establishes a diplomatic and security culture characterised by informality, consultation, and dialogue, and consensus-building in decision-making processes (Caballero-Anthony). From its interaction with ASEAN, China has been socialised into the ‘ASEAN Way’ (Ba 157-159). Nevertheless, China’s relations with the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) also suggest that there exists a ‘feedback’ process between China and ARF which resulted in institutional changes in ARF to accommodate China’s response (Johnston, “The Myth of the ASEAN Way?” 291). For another example, while the Western powers generally promote the norm of ‘shared responsibility’ in global environment regimes, the emerging economies, such as the BRICS countries (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), have responded to the normative engagement and proposed a ‘Common but Differentiated Responsibilities’ regime where the developing countries shoulder less international obligations. Similarly, the Western-led norm of ‘Responsibility to Protect’, which justifies international humanitarian intervention, has received much resistance from the countries that only adhere to the conventional international rules regarding state sovereignty rights and non-intervention to domestic affairs. Conclusion International norms are shared expectations about what constitutes appropriate state behaviour. They are the ‘uniforms’ for individual states to wear when operating at the international level. States comply with international norms in order to affirm their preferred national identities as well as to gain social acceptance and reputation in the normative community. When the normative community is united and sizable, states tend to receive more social pressure to consistently wear these normative uniforms – be they the Geneva Conventions or nuclear non-proliferation. Nevertheless, in the post-pandemic world where liberal values, such as individual rights and rule of law, face significant challenges and democracies are in decline, the future success of the global normative community may be at risk. Great Powers are especially responsible for the survival and sustainability of international norms. The United States under President Trump adopted a nationalist ‘America First’ security agenda: alienating traditional allies, befriending authoritarian regimes previously shunned, and rejecting multilateralism as the foundation of the post-war global order. While the West has been criticised of failing to live up to its declared values, and has suffered its own loss of confidence in the liberal model, the rising powers have offered their alternative version of the world system. Instead of merely adapting to the Western-led global norms, China has created new institutions, such as the Belt and Road Initiatives, to promote its own preferred values, and has reshaped the global order where it deems the norms undesirable (Foot, “Chinese Power in a Changing World Order” 7). Great Power participation has reshaped the landscape of global normative community, and sadly not always in positive ways. Umberto Eco lamented the disappearance of the beauty of the past in his novel The Name of the Rose: ‘stat rosa pristina nomine, nomina nuda tenemus’ ('yesterday’s rose endures in its name, we hold empty names'; Eco 538). If the international community does not want to witness an era where global norms and universal values are reduced to nominalist symbols, it must renew and reinvigorate its commitment to global values, such as human rights and democracy. It must consider wearing these uniforms again, properly. References Acharya, Amitav. “How Ideas Spread: Whose Norms Matter? Norm Localisation and Institutional Change in Asian Regionalism.” International Organisations 58.2 (2004): 239-275. Acharya, Amitav. “Asian Regional Institutions and the Possibilities for Socializing the Behavior of States.” Asian Development Bank Working Paper Series on Regional Economic Integration 82 (June 2011). Ba, Alice D. “Who’s Socializing Who? Complex Engagement in Sino-ASEAN Relations.” The Pacific Review 19.2 (2006): 157-179. Hedley Bull. The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York: Palgrave, 2002. Caballero-Anthony, Mely. “The ASEAN Way and The Changing Security Environment: Navigating Challenges to Informality and Centrality.” International Politics, June 2022. Capie, David. “Localization as Resistance: The Contested Diffusion of Small Arms Norms in Southeast Asia.” Security Dialogue 36.6 (2008): 637–658. Checkel, Jeffrey T. “Norms, Institutions, and National Identity in Contemporary Europe.” International Studies Quarterly 43.1 (1999): 83-114. Chirac, Jacques. Statement by the President of the French Republic to the International Conference on ‘Biodiversity: Science and Governance’, UNESCO, 24-28 Jan. 2005. <https://cbd.int/kb/record/statement/9026?RecordType=statement>. Cortell, Andrew P., and James W. Davis, Jr. “How Do International Institutions Matter? The Domestic Impact of Intentional Rules and Norms.” International Studies Quarterly 40.4 (1996): 451-478. Cortell, Andrew P., and James W. Davis, Jr. “Understanding the Domestic Impact of International Norms: A Research Agenda.” International Studies Review 2.1 (2000): 65-87. Eco, Umberto. The Name of the Rose. London: Penguin, 2014. Finnemore, Martha, and Kathryn Sikkink. “International Norm Dynamics and Political Change.” International Organization 52.4 (1998): 887-917. Finnemore, Martha. “International Organizations as Teachers of Norms: The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization and Science Policy.” International Organization 47.4 (1993): 565-597. Florini, Ann. “The Evolution of International Norms.” International Studies Quarterly 40.3 (1996): 363-389. Foot, Rosemary. “Chinese Power and the Idea of a Responsible State.” The China Journal 45 (2001): 1-19. ———. “Chinese Power and the Idea of a Responsible State in a Changing World Order.” The Centre of Gravity Series, Australian National University, Feb. 2018. Gao, Xiang, et. al. “The Legal Recognition of Indigenous Interests in Japan and Taiwan.” Asia Pacific Law Review 24.1: 60-82. Glodgeier, James M., and Philip E. Tetlock. “Psychology and International Relations Theory.” Annual Review of Political Science 4 (2001): 67-92. Gold, Martin, and Elizabeth Douvan. A New Outline of Social Psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1997. Hybel, Alex R. How Leaders Reason: U.S. Intervention in the Caribbean Basin and Latin America. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990. Ikenberry, Gilford J., and Charles A. Kupchan. “Socialization and Hegemonic Power.” International Organization 44.3 (1990): 283-315. Johnston, Alastair I. “The Myth of the ASEAN Way? Explaining the Evolution of the ASEAN Regional Forum.” Imperfect Unions: Security Institutions over Time and Space. Eds. Helga Haftendorn, Robert O. Keohane, and Celeste A. Wallander. Oxford: Oxford UP, 1999. 287-324. ———. “Treating International Institutions as Social Environments.” International Studies Quarterly 45.4 (2001): 487–515. ———. Social States: China in International Institution, 1980-2000. Princeton: Princeton UP, 2008. Kan, Naoto. Statement by the Prime Minister of Japan at the opening of the High Level Segment of the Tenth Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan, 27 Oct. 2010. <https://www.mofa.go.jp/announce/pm/kan/address101027.html>. Kelman, Herbert C. “Compliance, Identification and Internalisation: Three Processes of Attitude Change.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 2.1 (1958): 51-60. Long, Theodore E., and Jeffrey K. Hadden. “A Preconception of Socialization.” Sociological Theory 3.1 (1985): 39-49. Masood, Ehsan, et al. “COP27 Climate Talks: What Succeeded, What Failed and What’s Next.” Nature 29 Nov. 2022. <https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-03807-0>. Ministry of Environmental Protection of the People’s Republic of China. Shewu duoyangxing lvyue jianbao 生物多样性履约简报 [Brief of Implementing Convention on Biological Diversity] 4 (2003). Moreland, Richard L. “Social Categorization and the Assimilation of ‘New’ Group Members.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48.5 (1985): 1173-1190. Payne, Rodger A. “Persuasion, Frames and Norm Construction.” European Journal of International Relations 7.1 (2001): 37-61. Pu, Xiaoyu. “Socialisation as a Two-way Process: Emerging Powers and the Diffusion of International Norms.” The Chinese Journal of International Politics 5.4 (2012): 341-367. Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity. The Convention on Biological Diversity: Year in Review 2011. 2011 <https://www.cbd.int/doc/reports/cbd-report-2011-en.pdf>. Secrity Council Report. "The Veto." 16 Dec. 2020. <https://www.securitycouncilreport.org/un-security-council-working-methods/the-veto.php>. Thies, Cameron G. “Sense and Sensibility in the Study of State Socialisation: A Reply to Kai Alderson.” Review of International Studies 29.4 (2003): 543-550. United Nations. “Convention on Biological Diversity, Key International Instrument for Sustainable Development.” <https://www.un.org/en/observances/biological-diversity-day/convention>. Vidal, John, Allegra Stratton, and Suzanne Goldenberg. “Low Targets, Goals Dropped: Copenhagen Ends in Failure.” The Guardian, 19 Dec. 2009. <http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/dec/18/copenhagen-deal>.

…love is queered not when we discover it to be resistant to or more than its known forms, but when we see that there is no world that admits how it actually works as a principle of living. Lauren Berlant – “Love, A Queer Feeling” As the sun beats down on a very dusty Musgrave Park, the crowd is hushed in respect for the elder addressing us. It is Pride Fair Day and we are listening to the story of how this place has been a home for queer and black people throughout Brisbane’s history. Like so many others, this park has been a place of refuge in times when Boundary Streets marked the lines aboriginal people couldn’t cross to enter the genteel heart of Brisbane’s commercial district. The street names remain today, and even if movements across territory are somewhat less constrained, a manslaughter trial taking place nearby reminds us of the surveillance aboriginal people still suffer as a result of their refusal to stay off the streets and out of sight in homes they don’t have. In the past few years, Fair Day has grown in size. It now charges an entry fee to fence out unwelcome guests, so that those who normally live here have been effectively uninvited from the party. On this sunny Saturday, we sit and talk about these things, and wonder at the number of spaces still left in this city for spontaneous, non-commercial encounters and alliances. We could hardly have known that in the course of just a few weeks, the distance separating us from others would grow even further. During the course of Brisbane’s month-long Pride celebrations in 2007, two events affected the rights agendas of both queer and black Australians. First, The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Report, Same Sex, Same Entitlements, was tabled in parliament. Second, the Federal government decided to declare a state of emergency in remote indigenous communities in the Northern Territory in response to an inquiry on the state of aboriginal child abuse. (The full title of the report is “Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle”: Little Children are Sacred, and the words are from the Arrandic languages of the Central Desert Region of the Northern Territory. The report’s front cover also explains the title in relation to traditional law of the Yolngu people of Arnhem Land.) While the latter issue has commanded the most media and intellectual attention, and will be discussed later in this piece, the timing of both reports provides an opportunity to consider the varying experiences of two particularly marginalised groups in contemporary Australia. In a period when the Liberal Party has succeeded in pitting minority claims against one another as various manifestations of “special interests” (Brett, Gregg) this essay suggests there is a case to be made for queer and black activists to join forces against wider tendencies that affect both communities. To do this I draw on the work of American critic, Lauren Berlant, who for many years has offered a unique take on debates about citizenship in the United States. Writing from a queer theory perspective, Berlant argues that the conservative political landscape in her country has succeeded in convincing people that “the intimacy of citizenship is something scarce and sacred, private and proper, and only for members of families” (Berlant Queen 2-3). The consequence of this shift is that politics moves from being a conversation conducted in the public sphere about social issues to instead resemble a form of adjudication on the conduct of others in the sphere of private life. In this way, Berlant indicates how heteronormative culture “uses cruel and mundane strategies both to promote change from non-normative populations and to deny them state, federal, and juridical supports because they are deemed morally incompetent to their own citizenship” (Berlant, Queen 19). In relation to the so-called state of emergency in the Northern Territory, coming so soon after attempts to encourage indigenous home-ownership in the same region, the compulsion to promote change from non-normative populations currently affects indigenous Australians in ways that resonate with Berlant’s argument. While her position reacts to an environment where the moral majority has a much firmer hold on the national political spectrum, in Australia these conservative forces have no need to be so eloquent—normativity is already embedded in a particular form of “ordinariness” that is the commonsense basis for public political debate (Allon, Brett and Moran). These issues take on further significance as home-ownership and aspirations towards it have gradually become synonymous with the demonstration of appropriate citizenship under the Coalition government: here, phrases like “an interest rate election” are assumed to encapsulate voter sentiment while “the mortgage belt” has emerged as the demographic most keenly wooed by precariously placed politicians. As Berlant argues elsewhere, the project of normalization that makes heterosexuality hegemonic also entails “material practices that, though not explicitly sexual, are implicated in the hierarchies of property and propriety” that secure heteronormative privilege (Berlant and Warner 548). Inhabitants of remote indigenous communities in Australia are invited to desire and enact normal homes in order to be accepted and rewarded as valuable members of the nation; meanwhile gay and lesbian couples base their claims for recognition on the adequate manifestation of normal homes. In this situation black and queer activists share an interest in elaborating forms of kinship and community that resist the limited varieties of home-building currently sanctioned and celebrated by the State. As such, I will conclude this essay with a model for this alternative process of home-building in the hope of inspiring others. Home Sweet Home Ever since the declaration of terra nullius, white Australia has had a hard time recognising homes it doesn’t consider normal. To the first settlers, indigenous people’s uncultivated land lacked meaning, their seasonal itinerancy challenged established notions of property, while their communal living and wider kinship relations confused nuclear models of procreative responsibility and ancestry. From the homes white people still call “camps” many aboriginal people were moved against their will on to “missions” which even in name invoked the goal of assimilation into mainstream society. So many years later, white people continue to maintain that their version of homemaking is the most superior, the most economically effective, the most functional, with government policy and media commentators both agreeing that “the way out of indigenous disadvantage is home ownership.”(The 1 July broadcast of the esteemed political chat show Insiders provides a representative example of this consensus view among some of the country’s most respected journalists.) In the past few months, low-interest loans have been touted as the surest route out of the shared “squalor” (Weekend Australian, June 30-July1) of communal living and the right path towards economic development in remote aboriginal communities (Karvelas, “New Deal”). As these references suggest, The Australian newspaper has been at the forefront of reporting these government initiatives in a positive light: one story from late May featured a picture of Tiwi Islander Mavis Kerinaiua watering her garden with the pet dog and sporting a Tigers Aussie Rules singlet. The headline, “Home, sweet home, for Mavis” (Wilson) was a striking example of a happy and contented black woman in her own backyard, especially given how regularly mainstream national news coverage of indigenous issues follows a script of failed aboriginal communities. In stories like these, communal land ownership is painted as the cause of dysfunction, and individual homes are crucial to “changing the culture.” Never is it mentioned that communal living arrangements clearly were functional before white settlement, were an intrinsic part of “the culture”; nor is it acknowledged that the option being offered to indigenous people is land that had already been taken away from them in one way or another. That this same land can be given back only on certain conditions—including financially rewarding those who “prove they are doing well” by cultivating their garden in recognisably right ways (Karvelas, “New Deal”)— bolsters Berlant’s claim that government rhetoric succeeds by transforming wider structural questions into matters of individual responsibility. Home ownership is the stunningly selective neoliberal interpretation of “land rights”. The very notion of private property erases the social and cultural underpinnings of communal living as a viable way of life, stigmatising any alternative forms of belonging that might form the basis for another kind of home. Little Children Are Sacred The latest advance in efforts to encourage greater individual responsibility in indigenous communities highlights child abuse as the pivotal consequence of State and Local government inaction. The innocent indigenous child provides the catalyst for a myriad of competing political positions, the most vocal of which welcomes military intervention on behalf of powerless, voiceless kids trapped in horrendous scenarios (Kervalas, “Pearson’s Passion”). In these representations, the potentially abused aboriginal child takes on “supericonicity” in public debate. In her North American context, Berlant uses this concept to explain how the unborn child figures in acrimonious arguments over abortion. The foetus has become the most mobilising image in the US political scene because: it is an image of an American, perhaps the last living American, not yet bruised by history: not yet caught up in the processes of secularisation and centralisation… This national icon is too innocent of knowledge, agency, and accountability and thus has ethical claims on the adult political agents who write laws, make culture, administer resources, control things. (Berlant, Queen 6) In Australia, the indigenous child takes on supericonicity because he or she is too young to formulate a “black armband” view of history, to have a point of view on why their circumstance happens to be so objectionable, to vote out the government that wants to survey and penetrate his or her body. The child’s very lack of agency is used as justification for the military action taken by those who write laws, make the culture that will be recognized as an appropriate performance of indigeneity, administer (at the same time as they cut) essential resources; those who, for the moment, control things. However, and although a government perspective would not recognize this, in Australia the indigenous child is always already bruised by conventional history in the sense that he or she will have trouble accessing the stories of ancestors and therefore the situation that affects his or her entry into the world. Indeed, it is precisely the extent to which the government denies its institutional culpability in inflicting wounds on aboriginal people throughout history that the indigenous child’s supericonicity is now available as a political weapon. Same-Sex: Same Entitlements A situation in which the desire for home ownership is pedagogically enforced while also being economically sanctioned takes on further dimensions when considered next to the fate of other marginalised groups in society—those for whom an appeal for acceptance and equal rights pivots on the basis of successfully performing normal homes. While indigenous Australians are encouraged to aspire for home ownership as the appropriate manifestation of responsible citizenship, the HREOC report represents a group of citizens who crave recognition for already having developed this same aspiration. In the case studies selected for the Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report, discrimination against same-sex couples is identified in areas such as work and taxation, workers’ compensation, superannuation, social security, veterans’ entitlements and childrearing. It recommends changes to existing laws in these areas to match those that apply to de facto relationships. When launching the report, the commissioner argued that gay people suffer discrimination “simply because of whom they love”, and the report launch quotes a “self-described ‘average suburban family’” who insist “we don’t want special treatment …we just want equality” (HREOC). Such positioning exercises give some insight into Berlant’s statement that “love is a site that has perhaps not yet been queered enough” (Berlant, “Love” 433). A queer response to the report might highlight that by focussing on legal entitlements of the most material kind, little is done to challenge the wider situation in which one’s sexual relationship has the power to determine intimate possessions and decisions—whether this is buying a plane ticket, getting a loan, retiring in some comfort or finding a nice nursing home. An agenda calling for legislative changes to financial entitlement serves to reiterate rather than challenge the extent to which economically sanctioned subjectivities are tied to sexuality and normative models of home-building. A same-sex rights agenda promoting traditional notions of procreative familial attachment (the concerned parents of gay kids cited in the report, the emphasis on the children of gay couples) suggests that this movement for change relies on a heteronormative model—if this is understood as the manner in which the institutions of personal life remain “the privileged institutions of social reproduction, the accumulation and transfer of capital, and self-development” (Berlant and Warner 553). What happens to those who do not seek the same procreative path? Put another way, the same-sex entitlements discourse can be seen to demand “intelligibility” within the hegemonic understanding of love, when love currently stands as the primordial signifier and ultimate suturing device for all forms of safe, reliable and useful citizenly identity (Berlant, “Love”). In its very terminology, same-sex entitlement asks to access the benefits of normativity without challenging the ideological or economic bases for its attachment to particular living arrangements and rewards. The political agenda for same-sex rights taking shape in the Federal arena appears to have chosen its objectives carefully in order to fit existing notions of proper home building and the economic incentives that come with them. While this is understandable in a conservative political environment, a wider agenda for queer activism in and outside the home would acknowledge that safety, security and belonging are universal desires that stretch beyond material acquisitions, financial concerns and procreative activity (however important these things are). It is to the possibilities this perspective might generate that I now turn. One Size Fits Most Urban space is always a host space. The right to the city extends to those who use the city. It is not limited to property owners. (Berlant and Warner, 563) The affective charge and resonance of a concept like home allows an opportunity to consider the intimacies particular to different groups in society, at the same time as it allows contemplation of the kinds of alliances increasingly required to resist neoliberalism’s impact on personal space. On one level, this might entail publicly denouncing representations of indigenous living conditions that describe them as “squalor” as some kind of hygienic short-hand that comes at the expense of advocating infrastructure suited to the very different way of living that aboriginal kinship relations typically require. Further, as alternative cultural understandings of home face ongoing pressure to fit normative ideals, a key project for contemporary queer activism is to archive, document and publicise the varied ways people choose to live at this point in history in defiance of sanctioned arrangements (eg Gorman-Murray 2007). Rights for gay and lesbian couples and parents need not be called for in the name of equality if to do so means reproducing a logic that feeds the worst stereotypes around non-procreating queers. Such a perspective fares poorly for the many literally unproductive citizens, queer and straight alike, whose treacherous refusal to breed banishes them from the respectable suburban politics to which the current government caters. Which takes me back to the park. Later that afternoon on Fair Day, we’ve been entertained by a range of performers, including the best Tina Turner impersonator I’ll ever see. But the highlight is the festival’s special guest, Vanessa Wagner who decides to end her show with a special ceremony. Taking the role of celebrant, Vanessa invites three men on to the stage who she explains are in an ongoing, committed three-way relationship. Looking a little closer, I remember meeting these blokes at a friend’s party last Christmas Eve: I was the only girl in an apartment full of gay men in the midst of some serious partying (and who could blame them, on the eve of an event that holds dubious relevance for their preferred forms of intimacy and celebration?). The wedding takes place in front of an increasingly boisterous crowd that cannot fail to appreciate the gesture as farcically mocking the sacred bastion of gay activism—same-sex marriage. But clearly, the ceremony plays a role in consecrating the obvious desire these men have for each other, in a safe space that feels something like a home. Their relationship might be a long way from many people’s definition of normal, but it clearly operates with care, love and a will for some kind of longevity. For queer subjects, faced with a history of persecution, shame and an unequal share of a pernicious illness, this most banal of possible definitions of home has been a luxury difficult to afford. Understood in this way, queer experience is hard to compare with that of indigenous people: “The queer world is a space of entrances, exits, unsystematised lines of acquaintance, projected horizons, typifying examples, alternate routes, blockages, incommensurate geographies” (Berlant and Warner 558). In many instances, it has “required the development of kinds of intimacy that bear no necessary relation to domestic space, to kinship, to the couple form, to property, or to the nation” (ibid) in liminal and fleeting zones of improvisation like parties, parks and public toilets. In contrast, indigenous Australians’ distinct lines of ancestry, geography, and story continue through generations of kin in spite of the efforts of a colonising power to reproduce others in its own image. But in this sense, what queer and black Australians now share is the fight to live and love in more than one way, with more than one person: to extend relationships of care beyond the procreative imperative and to include land that is beyond the scope of one’s own backyard. Both indigenous and queer Australians stand to benefit from a shared project “to support forms of affective, erotic and personal living that are public in the sense of accessible, available to memory, and sustained through collective activity” (Berlant and Warner 562). To build this history is to generate an archive that is “not simply a repository” but “is also a theory of cultural relevance” (Halberstam 163). A queer politics of home respects and learns from different ways of organising love, care, affinity and responsibility to a community. This essay has been an attempt to document other ways of living that take place in the pockets of one city, to show that homes often exist where others see empty space, and that love regularly survives beyond the confines of the couple. In learning from the history of oppression experienced in the immediate territories I inhabit, I also hope it captures what it means to reckon with the ongoing knowledge of being an uninvited guest in the home of another culture, one which, through shared activism, will continue to survive much longer than this, or any other archive. References Allon, Fiona. “Home as Cultural Translation: John Howard’s Earlwood.” Communal/Plural 5 (1997): 1-25. Berlant, Lauren. The Queen of America Goes to Washington City: Essays on Sex and Citizenship. Durham: Duke University Press, 1997. ———. “Love, A Queer Feeling.” Homosexuality and Psychoanalysis. Eds. Tim Dean and Christopher Lane. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 2001. 432-51. ———, and Michael Warner. “Sex in Public.” Critical Inquiry 24.2 (1998): 547-566. Brett, Judith. Australian Liberals and the Moral Middle Class: From Alfred Deakin to John Howard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. ———, and Anthony Moran. Ordinary People’s Politics: Australians Talk About Politics, Life and the Future of Their Country. Melbourne: Pluto Press, 2006. Gorman-Murray, Andrew. “Contesting Domestic Ideals: Queering the Australian Home.” Australian Geographer 38.2 (2007): 195-213. Gregg, Melissa. “The Importance of Being Ordinary.” International Journal of Cultural Studies 10.1 (2007): 95-104. Halberstam, Judith. In a Queer Time and Place: Transgender Bodies, Subcultural Lives. New York and London: NYU Press, 2005 Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Report. 2007. 21 Aug. 2007 http://www.hreoc.gov.au/human_rights/samesex/report/index.html>. ———. Launch of Final Report of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission’s Same-Sex: Same Entitlements Inquiry (transcript). 2007. 5 July 2007 . Insiders. ABC TV. 1 July 2007. 5 July 2007 http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2007/s1966728.htm>. Karvelas, Patricia. “It’s New Deal or Despair: Pearson.” The Weekend Australian 12-13 May 2007: 7. ———. “How Pearson’s Passion Moved Howard to Act.” The Australian. 23 June 2007. 5 July 2007 http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21952951-5013172,00.html>. Northern Territory Government Inquiry Report into the Protection of Aboriginal Children from Sexual Abuse. Ampe Akelyernemane Meke Mekarle: Little Children Are Sacred. 2007. 5 July 2007 http://www.nt.gov.au/dcm/inquirysaac/pdf/bipacsa_final_report.pdf>. Wilson, Ashleigh. “Home, Sweet Home, for Mavis.” The Weekend Australian 12-13 May 2007: 7. Citation reference for this article MLA Style Gregg, Melissa. "Normal Homes." M/C Journal 10.4 (2007). echo date('d M. Y'); ?> <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0708/02-gregg.php>. APA Style Gregg, M. (Aug. 2007) "Normal Homes," M/C Journal, 10(4). Retrieved echo date('d M. Y'); ?> from <http://journal.media-culture.org.au/0708/02-gregg.php>.

Photo 190773207 / Transplant Medicine © Victor Moussa | Dreamstime.com ABSTRACT Xenotransplant research offers hope to individuals waiting for vital organ transplants. Nascent first-in-human xenotransplantation research trials present unique ethical challenges which may translate into obligations for researchers and special considerations for institutional review boards (IRBs). Contextual vulnerability is an important consideration in reviewing proposed subject selection methods. Some recipients are uniquely prone to receiving an unfair offer to enroll in an experimental clinical trial when excluded from allograft waitlists due to psychosocial or compliance evaluations. These exclusions represent an allocational injustice. Enrolling research subjects subjectively excluded from allotransplantation into xenotransplant research is not a mechanism of fair access but rather an exploitation of an unjustly option-constrained vulnerable group by the clinical transplant system. Carefully considering contextual vulnerability can help researchers and IRBs clarify eligibility criteria for xenograft clinical trials. A requirement for simultaneous allograft co-listing can safeguard the interests of vulnerable potential subjects. INTRODUCTION In the United States, the supply of allogeneic, or human-derived, organs and tissues from living donors and cadavers available for transplant into critically ill individuals is inadequate.[i] Physicians refer only half of potentially eligible patients for transplant evaluation, and the clinical transplant team ultimately waitlists less than 30 percent.[ii] Waitlists are lengthy for those who make it through the evaluation process, and many individuals die while waiting for a transplant.[iii] In contrast to allogeneic transplants, xenotransplantation, from the prefix, xeno- meaning foreign, is the process of taking live organs or tissues from an animal for surgical placement into a human recipient. Xenografts are typically sourced from porcine animals (domestic pigs) or non-human primates (baboons) and range from simple tissues like corneas to complex vital organs like hearts, lungs, or kidneys. Scientists have explored xenotransplantation methods for decades, but research with vital organ xenotransplants has been in largely haphazard and non-controlled studies, which demonstrated only short-duration survival for recipients.[iv] Recent advances using gene modification and improved immunosuppression in single-patient attempts to transplant porcine organs into brain-dead human recipients have presented more realistic human-environment models; however, these modified xenografts have still functioned only for very short durations.[v] The limited bioethics discourse on xenotransplantation centers primarily on the ethical use of high-order animals and the risks of zoonotic infectious disease spread.[vi] Bioethics pays insufficient attention to the potential for exploitation of vulnerable individuals in need of a transplant amid growing interest in phase I clinical trials in living human subjects. Clinician-investigators in contemporary literature repeatedly recommend that these trials enroll subjects who are medically eligible for, but effectively excluded or outright denied access to, an allograft.[vii] The Food & Drug Administration (FDA) recommends xenotransplants be limited to subjects with serious or life-threatening diseases for whom adequately safe and effective alternative therapies are not available.[viii] The ethically salient difference between the investigator and the regulatory recommendations is why alternatives are not available to potential subjects: because transplant centers have subjectively denied access or because there is a clinical contraindication that proves prohibitively risky. In a notable single-patient emergency use authorization, physician-investigators offered a genetically modified porcine heart to a living male recipient after denying him access to the waitlist for a human-donor heart, citing a history of non-compliance.[ix] This case suggests that a person denied access to a transplant waitlist due to subjective compliance criteria is an appropriate research subject. The physician-investigators failed to acknowledge how offering a xenotransplant to a contextually vulnerable subject is potentially unfair. Contextual vulnerability is a specific feature of a research environment that increases a subject’s risk of harm. Bioethics discourse must address this vulnerability within the transplant research environment. This paper describes the current transplant system’s use of subjective evaluation criteria, particularly psychosocial support and compliance. Subjective evaluation criteria perpetuate discriminatory medical biases rather than advance the transplant system’s goal of additional life-years gained. Researchers designing controlled human subject trials and institutional review boards (IRBs) reviewing and approving proposed protocols must consider how disparate waitlisting practices unjustly preclude some patients from a fair opportunity to access an allograft and impacts their participation in research. It is unethical for physician-investigators to intentionally take advantage of this vulnerability, creating an exploitative and unethical transaction.[x] Protocol inclusion criteria requiring proof of simultaneous allograft listing is a feasible procedural safeguard to protect research subjects’ interests. I. Injustices in Organ Allocation Solid organ allocation systems are varied but aim for equity and efficiency in granting individuals with similar claims a fair opportunity to access the scarce resource. Allocation decisions attempt to maximize the common good of additional life-years gained.[xi] The federal oversight of allograft allocation in the US uses objective clinical metrics like blood type, immune compatibility, body size, and geographic distance to match organs to recipients to increase both graft and patient survival.[xii] Transplant centers additionally use their own evaluations to waitlist patients. Although variation exists between transplant center criteria across more objective measurements, such as lab values and concurrent diseases, significant inconsistencies arise in how they incorporate subjective factors like compliance with medical recommendations, psychosocial support, and intellectual disability into the review process.[xiii] Only 7 percent of renal transplant programs use formal criteria for subjective psychosocial assessments, while no pediatric solid organ transplant programs use formal, explicit, or uniform review to assess developmental delays and psychosocial support.[xiv] Failing to establish uniform definitions and inconsistently applying evaluation criteria in the review of potential transplant candidates introduce bias into listing practices.[xv] The center they present to and the variable evaluative criteria the center uses may discount an individual’s claim to a fair opportunity to access a scarce resource. Labeling a patient non-compliant can preclude both a referral to and placement on a waitlist for potentially suitable recipients. Compliance considerations presuppose that graft longevity will be jeopardized by an individual’s failure to adhere to pre- and post-transplant regimens. It is necessary to distinguish individuals who are intentionally non-adherent to treatment regimens and demonstrate willful disregard for medical recommendations from those who are involuntarily non-adherent due to barriers that limit full participation in care plans. The former would not be offered a spot on the waitlist for an allograft, nor would investigators offer them a spot in a xenotransplantation research study. Significant and repeated refusals to participate in treatment plans would confound the ability of researchers to collect necessary data and perform the safety monitoring required by early-phase clinical trials. Enrolling subjects who are medically eligible for a traditional transplant but denied access requires a population that is suitably compliant to participate in a clinical trial reliably and safely yet judged not worthy of receipt of a standard allograft during the evaluation process. The latter population is most disadvantaged by compliance judgments and unsubstantiated outcome predictions. Multi-center research studies have found that moderate non-adherence to immunosuppression regimens is not directly associated with poor kidney transplant outcomes.[xvi] Nor are intellectual and developmental disabilities, conditions for which transplant centers may categorically refuse evaluation, clear indicators of an individual’s ability to comply with treatment regimens.[xvii] Large cohort studies of both pediatric kidney and liver transplant recipients found no correlation between intellectual disability and graft or patient survival.[xviii] Rather, it is the perpetuation of medical biases and quality-of-life judgments that presumptively label specific populations poor transplant candidates or label their support systems insufficient, notwithstanding data demonstrating their ability to achieve successful transplant outcomes.[xix] Variability in compliance assessments and psychosocial support criteria allows medical biases to persist and disproportionately impedes waitlist access to patients from underserved populations.[xx] Low-income Medicaid patients are 2.6 times more likely to be labelled non-compliant as privately insured patients.[xxi] Additionally, the medical records of Black patients are 2.5 times more likely to contain negative descriptors like non-compliant, non-adherent, aggressive, unpleasant, and hysterical than those of white patients.[xxii] The higher prevalence of stigmatizing, compliance-based language in the medical records of minority, economically disadvantaged, and disabled persons decreases the likelihood that they will be recommended for a transplant, referred for an evaluation, placed on a waiting list, or ultimately receive a transplant.[xxiii] These populations are at heightened risk of being used in ethically inappropriate ways by xenograft research that capitalizes on this precluded access. II. Defining Vulnerability Subjective evaluation criteria in allograft waitlisting disproportionately impact some populations. This precluded access to waitlists increases their vulnerability to experience harm in experimental xenotransplant research. Fair subject selection requires the development of specific and appropriate inclusion and exclusion criteria designed to address and minimize known subject vulnerabilities.[xxiv] This process begins with physician-investigators designing research trials and IRB review of proposed trials in which some or all potential subjects are vulnerable.[xxv] The literature has no consensus on defining vulnerability in the clinical or research setting.[xxvi] Prominent guidelines such as the Common Rule and the Declaration of Helsinki focus on a categorical, consent-based approach to assessing vulnerability. The capacity to provide freely given consent is a necessary prerequisite for ethical human subject research. Still, consent alone is insufficient to establish ethical permissibility or assure that a research transaction is fair.[xxvii] Harm can occur even with informed consent if it results from coercion, undue influence, or exploitation.[xxviii] Subjects have limited ability to avoid exploitation and act as an autonomous moral agents under such circumstances. Categorical assessments label groups whose members share salient features, such as prisoners or children, as vulnerable. This shared characteristic may compromise their capacity for free consent and autonomous ability to protect their interests. Although widely used, broad categorizations create monolithic views of populations but lack clarity as to why a particular feature makes one vulnerable or what a given characteristic decidedly renders one vulnerable to.[xxix] Individuals broadly vulnerable in society, such as the severely economically disadvantaged or incarcerated, are not necessarily vulnerable as research subjects in a given proposed trial.[xxx] Categorical vulnerability is insufficient to recognize that research-related harm is specific to a particular subject potentially participating in a given protocol at a definite time and place. III. Assessing for Contextual Vulnerability Ensuring ethical consent, therefore, requires more than an accounting of capacity, competency, and freedom from coercion. This requires looking beyond voluntariness to ask whether the research offer is fair. Contextual vulnerability recognizes and addresses how some subjects are at a heightened risk of being used in ethically inappropriate ways due to research-specific situations and environments.[xxxi] Contextual vulnerability derives from a specific feature of the research environment that increases a subject’s risk of harm rather than an intrinsic categorical condition of that subject. Accounting for contextual vulnerabilities is necessary because it is ethically unsound for a competent subject to give voluntary consent to an offer that is nonetheless unfair or exploitative.[xxxii] Potential subjects excluded from accessing an allograft are contextually vulnerable in a research environment that may view their diminished range of choice as an opportunity for experimental research enrollment. Proposals to exploit or take advantage of this vulnerability places these individuals at a heightened risk of research-related harm. IV. Exploitative Transactions in Xenotransplant Research In the landmark single-patient case in Maryland, a genetically modified porcine heart was offered to the subject only because he was denied access to the allograft waitlist due to a history of noncompliance with a recommended medical regimen.[xxxiii] Physician-investigators did not define how they evaluated compliance, nor did they elaborate on how this claim demonstrated the subject’s clear and convincing contraindication to receive a conventional cardiac allograft. The subject was presented with a so-called Hobson’s choice, in which there is the illusion of free choice but ultimately there is no real choice as only one outcome, the acceptance of the experimental xenograft, is permitted; access to other choices, such as pursuing standard of care waitlisting, have been removed.[xxxiv] This case set a precedent for researchers and IRBs to view individuals denied access to conventional allografts as an appropriate subject population without acknowledgment of how this transaction is consensually exploitative. Consensual exploitation occurs when researchers intentionally and wrongfully take advantage of a subject’s vulnerability.[xxxv] In the cardiac xenotransplant case, the application of subjective evaluation criteria created a unique contextual vulnerability specific to transplant waitlist practices. Investigators took advantage of the subject’s diminished ability to access the heart transplant waitlist to obtain consent for the xenotransplant procedure. Researchers have no obligation to repair unjust conditions that they bear no responsibility for causing.[xxxvi] The wrongfulness in this case is how subjective compliance-based waitlisting criteria precluded the subject from accessing the heart transplant waitlist and denied him fair consideration in accessing the standard clinical option. Then, the transplantation team exploited this disadvantage they were morally responsible for creating. The subject agreed to the terms for an experimental and high-risk xenograft from a place of vulnerability due to the diminished range of choice specifically constructed by the policy and actions of the transplant center. The options offered by the physician-investigators to the patient were manipulated to promote the research system’s interests through the production of new scientific knowledge, not necessarily the subject’s conception of his own good.[xxxvii] V. Recommendation for Simultaneous Allograft Listing Ethical research design calls for assessments of which vulnerabilities and in which contexts researchers and IRBs ought to offer additional safeguards. Subjects should be clinically suitable to produce robust, reliable, and generalizable scientific knowledge and be presented with a fair research offer. Researchers and IRBs can achieve this through an inclusion criterion requiring that a subject has previously been placed on and maintains a spot on a waitlist for a conventional allograft. Investigators and IRBs must ensure that subjects are selected based on scientific rationale, not because they are easy to recruit due to a compromised or vulnerable position.[xxxviii] Evidence of simultaneous allograft listing would provide verification that a researcher expects a potential subject to survive the burdens of an experimental xenotransplant procedure. Individuals of advanced age or with severe life-limiting comorbidities separate from their end-stage organ failure are less likely to survive after receiving an allograft or a research xenograft. These subjects would not produce valuable data in service to the study’s endpoints or knowledge generalizable to broader patient populations. Requiring evidence of simultaneous allograft listing fulfills the ethical requirement that subjects who withdraw consent are not worse off than if they had not pursued research enrollment.[xxxix] If a subject withdraws consent before receiving a xenograft, their continued place on a waitlist ensures that their fair opportunity claim to an allograft has been maintained. Simultaneous allograft waitlisting excludes contextually vulnerable subjects clinically suitable to receive a graft but denied access to a waitlist. This inclusion criteria provides an additional safeguard against unfairly capitalizing on a subject’s marginalized status. Requiring simultaneous allograft listing will narrow the potential subject population to those clinically suitable and well situated to receive a fair opportunity to enroll in research: individuals listed for an allograft but significantly unlikely to receive or to benefit from that allograft. This potential subject population includes individuals with broadly reactive antibodies who are unlikely to match to a donor organ and individuals with anatomical contraindications who face prohibitive risks with standard allografts or bridging therapies.[xl] This subject population aligns with the FDA recommendation to enroll subjects for whom safe and effective alternatives are not available.[xli] These individuals have not had their claim to a fair opportunity transgressed by a subjective evaluation process, nor has their interest in accessing a scarce resource been unjustly discounted.[xlii] Neither the individual nor the transplant clinicians are responsible for creating a clinical or statistical disadvantage to receiving a standard allograft. An offer of research enrollment extended to this population has not been manipulated to favor one party over the other, but rather appropriately considers the interests of both parties.[xliii] Researchers have an interest in identifying subjects capable of producing scientifically valuable knowledge. Potential subjects have an interest in exploring alternatives to the high morbidity of a traditional allograft. This subject population retains the autonomous choice to pursue a standard-of-care allograft or to enroll in xenograft research. Having few treatment options available does not inexorably undermine the voluntariness of research consent or increase vulnerability.[xliv] The consent transaction is not exploitative or unfair because the transplant system is not responsible for creating this diminished range of choice. Simultaneous allograft listing represents an eligibility criterion that responds to and limits the products of subjective decisions from unjustly impacting trial enrollment. VI. Counterargument: Is Something Better Than Nothing? Some may argue that for medically exigent individuals in need of a transplant, any option to participate in research is better than no option. Autonomy and dignity, however, are not advanced when an inability to access the standard of care compels a subject’s decision to pursue experimental research. An offer of research enrollment that is unfair or exploitative remains unethical regardless of whether the subject stands to benefit. Nor should benefit be expected in early-phase research. The goals of phase I research are primarily to collect short-term safety, toxicity, dosing, and pharmacologic data, not to provide efficacious treatment.[xlv] Expanding access to experimental research trials cannot be conflated with fair access to equitable health care.[xlvi] Broadened access alone does not produce a more ethical research environment. Excluding contextually vulnerable subjects from research should not be the end goal, but rather a necessary interim to call attention to the need to redress biases and existing injustices in transplant access. Research that targets a population’s vulnerability serves to enable the continuation of unjust systems. CONCLUSION In summary, the urgent and significant clinical need for transplantable organs cannot undermine the requirements of ethical research design and conduct. Fair subject selection is a requirement of ethical clinical research.[xlvii] Potential subjects enrolled in upcoming xenograft research must be selected for their ability to answer the scientific objectives of a proposed study and must have the capacity to provide freely given informed consent within a fair research environment. Denying access to allotransplants for subjective psychosocial or compliance-based claims creates contextual vulnerability specific to transplant research that perpetuates the unfairness of the organ allocation system. Ethical research that produces valuable scientific knowledge cannot exploit the rights or interests of subjects in the process. A look beyond categorical vulnerability to contextual vulnerability highlights this currently overlooked area of exploitation. - [i] “Organ Donation Statistics,” Health Resources and Services Administration, accessed April 18, 2022, https://www.organdonor.gov/learn/organ-donation-statistics. [ii] Schold, J.D. et al., “Barriers to Evaluation and Wait Listing for Kidney Transplantation,” Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology 6, no. 7 (2011): 1760-67. [iii] Abouna, G.M. “Ethical Issues in Organ Transplantation,” Medical Principles and Practice 12, no. 1 (2003): 54-69. [iv] Anderson, M. “Xenotransplantation: A Bioethical Evaluation,” Journal of Medical Ethics 32, no. 4 (2006): 205-8. [v] Lambert, J. “What Does the First Successful Test of a Pig-to-Human Kidney Transplant Mean?,” ScienceNews, October 22, 2021, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/xenotransplantation-pig-human-kidney-transplant.; Koplon, S. “Xenotransplantation: What It Is, Why It Matters and Where It Is Going,” UAB News, February 17, 2022, https://www.uabmedicine.org/-/xenotransplantation-what-it-is-why-it-matters-and-where-it-is-going. [vi] Anderson, supra; Daar, A.S. “Ethics of Xenotransplantation: Animal Issues, Consent, and Likely Transformation of Transplant Ethics,” World Journal of Surgery 21, no. 9 (1997): 975-82.; Kim, M.K., et al., “The International Xenotransplantation Association Consensus Statement on Conditions for Undertaking Clinical Trials of Xenocorneal Transplantation,” Xenotransplantation 21, no. 5 (2014): 420-30. [vii] Abouna, supra; Pierson, R.N., et al., “Pig-to-Human Heart Transplantation: Who Goes First?,” American Journal of Transplantation 20, no. 10 (2020): 2669-74. [viii] Food and Drug Administration, Source Animal, Product, Preclinical, and Clinical Issues Concerning the Use of Xenotransplantation Products in Humans (Silver Spring, MD, 2016), 43, https://www.fda.gov/media/102126/download. [ix] Wang, W., et al., “First Pig-to-Human Heart Transplantation,” Innovation (Camb) 3, no. 2 (2022): 100223. [x] Carse, A.L. and Little, M.O. “Exploitation and the Enterprise of Medical Research,” in Exploitation and Developing Countries, ed. J. S. Hawkins and E. J. Emanuel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008), 206-45. [xi] Halpern, S.D. and Goldberg, D.“Allocating Organs to Cognitively Impaired Patients,” New England Journal of Medicine 376, no. 4 (2017): 299-301. [xii] “How We Match Organs,” United Network for Organ Sharing, accessed April 18, 2022, https://unos.org/transplant/how-we-match-organs/. [xiii] UW Medicine Harborview Medical Center – UW Medical Center University of Washington Physicians, Selection Criteria: Kidney Transplant Recipient (Seattle, WA, 2019), 1-3, https://www.uwmedicine.org/sites/stevie/files/2020-11/UW-Medicine-Kidney-Selection-Criteria-UH2701.pdf; Penn Medicine, Kidney Transplant Selection Criteria (Philadelphia, PA: Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania), 1-2. https://www.pennmedicine.org/media/documents/instructions/transplant/kidney_transplant_selection_criteria.ashx. [xiv] Dudzinski, D.M. “Shifting to Other Justice Issues: Examining Listing Practices,” American Journal of Bioethics 4, no. 4 (2004): 35-37.; Richards, C.T., et al., “Use of Neurodevelopmental Delay in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Listing Decisions: Inconsistencies in Standards Across Major Pediatric Transplant Centers,” Pediatric Transplant 13, no. 7 (2009): 843-50. [xv] Dudzinski, supra. [xvi] Israni, A.K., et al., “Electronically Measured Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications and Kidney Function after Deceased Donor Kidney Transplantation,” Clinical Transplantation 25, no. 2 (2011): 124-31. [xvii] National Council on Disability, Organ Transplant Discrimination against People with Disabilities (Washington, DC, 2019), 25-35, https://ncd.gov/sites/default/files/NCD_Organ_Transplant_508.pdf.; Halpern and Goldberg, supra. [xviii] Wightman, A., et al., “Prevalence and Outcomes of Renal Transplantation in Children with Intellectual Disability,” Pediatric Transplantation 18, no. 7 (2014): 714-19.; Wightman, A., et al., “Prevalence and Outcomes of Liver Transplantation in Children with Intellectual Disability,” Journal of Pediatric Gastroenterology and Nutrition 62, no. 6 (2016): 808-12. [xix] Richards et al., supra; Godown, J., et al., “Heart Transplantation in Children with Down Syndrome,” Journal of the American Heart Association 11, no. 10 (2022): e024883. [xx] Silverman, H. and Odonkor, P.N. “Reevaluating the Ethical Issues in Porcine-to-Human Heart Xenotransplantation,” Hastings Center Report 52, no. 5 (2022): 32-42. [xxi] Sun, M., et al., “Negative Patient Descriptors: Documenting Racial Bias in the Electronic Health Record,” Health Affairs 41, no. 2 (2022): 203-11. [xxii] Ibid. [xxiii] Dudzinski, supra; Garg, P.P., et al., “Reducing Racial Disparities in Transplant Activation: Whom Should We Target?,” American Journal of Kidney Diseases 37, no. 5 (2001): 921-31. [xxiv] Emanuel, E.J., et al., “What Makes Clinical Research Ethical?,” JAMA 283, no. 20 (2000): 2701-11. [xxv] 45 C.F.R. 46.111(b). [xxvi] Hurst, S.A. “Vulnerability in Research and Health Care; Describing the Elephant in the Room?,” Bioethics 22, no. 4 (2008): 191-202. [xxvii] The Nuremberg Code, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law 2, no. 10: 181-2 (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949); Kipnis, K. “Vulnerability in Research Subjects: A Bioethical Taxonomy. Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants.,” in Ethical and Policy Issues in Research Involving Human Participants, (Bethesda, MD: National Bioethics Advisory Commission, August 2001), G1-G13. [xxviii] Dickert, N. and Grady, C. “Incentives for Research Participants,” in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, ed. E. J. Emanuel et al. (Oxford University Press, 2008), 386-96. [xxix] Gordon, B.G. “Vulnerability in Research: Basic Ethical Concepts and General Approach to Review,” Ochsner Journal 20, no. 1 (2020): 34-38. [xxx] Kipnis, supra. [xxxi] Hurst, supra. [xxxii] Lamkin, M. and Elliott, C. “Avoiding Exploitation in Phase I Clinical Trials: More Than (Un)Just Compensation,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 46, no. 1 (2018): 52-63.; Jansen, L.A. “A Closer Look at the Bad Deal Trial: Beyond Clinical Equipoise,” Hastings Center Report 35, no. 5 (2005): 29-36. [xxxiii] Wang et al., supra; Silverman and Odonkor, supra. [xxxiv] Silverman and Odonkor, supra. [xxxv] Carse and Little, supra. [xxxvi] Wertheimer, A. “Exploitation in Clinical Research,” in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, ed. E. J. Emanuel et al. (Oxford University Press, 2008), 201-210. [xxxvii] Brock, D.W. “Philosophical Justifications of Informed Consent in Research,” in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, ed. E. J. Emanuel et al. (Oxford University Press, 2008), 606-612. [xxxviii] Council for International Organizations of Medical Sciences, International Ethical Guidelines for Health-Related Research Involving Humans (Geneva: World Health Organization, 2016), https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/WEB-CIOMS-EthicalGuidelines.pdf. [xxxix] Ibid. [xl] Pierson et al., supra. [xli] Food and Drug Administration, supra. [xlii] Hurst, supra. [xliii] Kipnis, supra. [xliv] Hawkins, J.S. and Emanuel, E.J. “Introduction: Why Exploitation?,” in Exploitation and Developing Countries, ed. J. S. Hawkins and E. J. Emanuel (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universiy Pres, 2008), 1-20. [xlv] Muglia, J.J. and DiGiovanna, J.J. “Phase 1 Clinical Trials,” Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 2, no. 4 (1998): 236-41. [xlvi] Dresser, R. “The Role of Patient Advocates and Public Representatives in Research,” in The Oxford Textbook of Clinical Research Ethics, ed. E. J. Emanuel et al. (Oxford University Press, 2008), 231-41. [xlvii] MacKay, D. and Saylor, K.W. “Four Faces of Fair Subject Selection,” The American Journal of Bioethics 20, no. 2 (2020): 5-19.