Explore the vast range of titles available.

Beginning with the negotiations that concluded with the unanimous adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide on December 9, 1948, and extending to the present day, the United States, Soviet Union/Russia, China, United Kingdom, and France have put forth great effort to ensure that they will not be implicated in the crime of genocide. If this were to fail, they have also ensured that holding any of them accountable for genocide will be practically impossible. By situating genocide prevention in a system of territorial jurisdiction; by excluding protection for political groups and acts constituting cultural genocide from the Genocide Convention; by controlling when genocide is meaningfully named at the Security Council; and by pointing the responsibility to protect in directions away from any of the P-5, they have achieved what can only be described as practical impunity for genocide. The Politics of Genocide is the first book to explicitly demonstrate how the permanent member nations have exploited the Genocide Convention to isolate themselves from the reach of the law, marking them as \"outlaw states.\"

During the last two decades there was great attention for improved performance in the public sector. We know how important a good judicial system is: it permits to keep the peaceful coexistence between the citizens of a nation and, above all, the rights and duties that are necessary for each. In this paper our aim is to examine the Italian judicial efficiency, to check any territorial differences. For this purpose we use a two stage data envelopment analysis (DEA) model. In the first stage we evaluate performance of the 140 Ordinary Courts by mean of DEA, while in the second stage we explore determinant of efficiency/inefficiency using fractional regression model. Before doing this, we will prepare the reader presenting the basic concepts of efficacy and efficiency, explaining the method DEA and its various applications and finally we will also talk about the literature on the efficiency of the judiciary, which is a topic in Italy, despite the numerous ISTAT data, it did not find the right recognition. A bit will also be carried out on the international literature on the subject. At the end of all this will be shown in practical terms what has been done.

Judicial independence did not only become more visible in the recent case law of the Court of justice but has also been analysed as a systemic parameter of the Union. This article discusses a sample of three cases, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, Achmea, and L.M., to assess the notion of judicial independence as applying regarding the national judges in the judicial system of the Union. Judicial independence, as a notion of EU law, is primarily a constitutional requirement presumably deferent to Member States' standards and pursuing the proper functioning of the Union's judicial system, namely its effectiveness. However, the recent case law testifies the emergence of a common EU standard of judicial independence, which does not only apply as a minimum standard throughout the Union but also affects the national legal orders. Ultimately, the analyses of the paper point out a curious harmony regarding judicial independence between the principles of effectiveness of Union law and of effective judicial protection under that law without clarifying their articulation.

[...]mental health services should be scaled up as an essential component of universal health coverage and should be fully integrated into the global response to other health priorities, including non-communicable diseases, maternal and child health, and HIV/AIDS. [...]barriers and threats to mental health need to be addressed; these include the lack of awareness of the value of mental health in social and economic development, the lack of attention to mental health promotion and protection across sectors, the severe demand-side constraints for mental health care caused by stigma and discrimination, and the increasing threats to mental health due to global challenges such as climate change and growing inequality. [...]mental health needs to be protected by public policies and developmental efforts; these intersectoral actions should be undertaken by each country's leaders to engage a wide range of stakeholders within and beyond health, including sectors in education, workplaces, social welfare, gender empowerment, child and youth services, criminal justice and development, and humanitarian assistance. [...]investments in research and innovation should grow and harness novel approaches from diverse disciplines such as genomics, neuroscience, health services research, clinical sciences, and social sciences, both for implementation research on scaling up mental health interventions and for discovery research to advance understanding of causes and mechanisms of mental disorders and develop effective interventions to prevent and treat them.

Since 1999, more than 600 000 people have died from opioid overdoses in the USA and Canada, and the current rate of mortality in each country exceeds even that of the worst year of the HIV/AIDS epidemic. The Commission's analysis of the crisis focused on seven domains: (1) the North American opioid crisis as a case study in multi-system regulatory failure, (2) opioids' dual nature as both a benefit and a risk to health, (3) building integrated, well supported, and enduring systems of care for people with substance use disorders, (4) maximising the benefits and minimising the adverse effects of the involvement of the criminal justice system with people who are addicted to opioids, (5) creating healthy environments that can yield long-term declines in the incidence of addiction, (6) stimulating greater innovation in the response to the opioid crisis, and (7) preventing the North American opioid crisis from spreading globally. The Commission therefore recommends curtailing pharmaceutical product promotion, insulating medical education from pharmaceutical industry influence, closing the so-called revolving door between regulators and industry, making post-approval drug monitoring and risk mitigation a function of government, and firewalling bodies with formal power over prescribing from industry influence. [...]a major investment in

BackgroundIn the ‘age of austerity’, multiple changes to social security spending were introduced. Family-friendly policies were replaced with harsher provisions presented as socially fair. The cumulative financial impacts of these policy changes are poorly understood. We used systematic approaches to locate and review complex social security policy changes to address the question: What welfare policy changes between 2010 and 2020 in Britain had adverse impacts on the financial wellbeing of parents, and what were the inequalities in financial impacts across population groups?MethodsApproaches from critical reviews of theory and systematic reviews of evidence on complex social determinants of health were adapted to identify relevant literature. Policy documents, commentaries, and studies were located through database searches, contact with experts and parliamentarians, advanced Google searches, searches of organisational websites, and citation searches. Publications containing policy information and evidence were systematically screened for inclusion/exclusion, data was extracted, and results were synthesised narratively.ResultsWe identified over 40 policy changes likely to have adverse impacts. We categorised them into six groups. First, abolition of a policy and removal of financial support. Second, reductions or freezes to payments. Third, changes or limits to conditions under which payments were made (e.g., Two-child policy). Fourth, new obligations and punitive actions against claimants. Fifth, reducing accessibility of application systems (e.g., online only). Sixth, changing eligibility start points or waiting days. We then assessed potential inequalities in impacts relating to the categories. Looking across the policy changes, the incomes and living conditions of many thousands of the poorest families in society appear to have been adversely affected, mostly the ‘working poor’. Available evidence suggests impacts are more likely to be experienced by women due to caring responsibilities and likelihood of being a single parent. Intersections between socioeconomic position, sex, ethnicity, education, health, disability, parental and working status may increase potential adverse impacts.ConclusionWhile many policy makers, public, and researchers alike may be ‘lost’ in the complex waves of policy changes over time, these changes continue to be collectively responsible for an increasing proportion of parents and children in Britain being pushed into poverty. Increases in harmful manifestations of impoverishment via key health and wellbeing determinants such as food poverty, fuel poverty, rent arrears, and adverse health outcomes, including mental illness, are also likely to grow overtime. Ultimately, costs spread to wider society as demand for health, mental health, social care, criminal justice, and other publicly funded services increase.

Despite growing interest in understanding how social factors drive poor health outcomes, many academics, policy makers, scientists, elected officials, journalists, and others responsible for defining and responding to the public discourse remain reluctant to identify racism as a root cause of racial health inequities. In this conceptual report, the third in a Series on equity and equality in health in the USA, we use a contemporary and historical perspective to discuss research and interventions that grapple with the implications of what is known as structural racism on population health and health inequities. Structural racism refers to the totality of ways in which societies foster racial discrimination through mutually reinforcing systems of housing, education, employment, earnings, benefits, credit, media, health care, and criminal justice. These patterns and practices in turn reinforce discriminatory beliefs, values, and distribution of resources. We argue that a focus on structural racism offers a concrete, feasible, and promising approach towards advancing health equity and improving population health.

For individuals experiencing intimate partner violence (IPV), formal services, including community agencies, health services, or the criminal justice system, are critical resources. Understanding the specific barriers that hinder or prevent survivors from seeking help from formal services could reveal important implications for the development of services for IPV as well as for members of other organizations who encounter survivors. The authors conducted a systematic review of the literature to identify barriers to help-seeking from formal services for survivors. Ten electronic databases were searched for key terms related to IPV, help seeking from formal services, and barriers to help seeking. Articles were included in the review if they were U.S.-based, contained samples that were adults who had experienced IPV, and discussed barriers to seeking help from formal services. An initial search yielded 1,155 articles and after screening, 29 articles were included in the review. Data were extracted to reveal the state of the literature regarding help-seeking barriers for survivors. Six barriers to help seeking were identified as follows: (1) lack of awareness, (2) access challenges, (3) consequences of disclosure, (4) lack of material resources, (5) personal barriers, and (6) system failures. These findings demonstrate the need for continued education surrounding available services for IPV as well as the continued development of resources that can mitigate personal barriers that survivors may face. Furthermore, these findings illuminate the necessity to increase the access of services, particularly for non-English speakers, immigrants and refugees, individuals with disabilities, men, and LGBTQIA identified individuals.

IMPORTANCE:It is important to understand the magnitude and distribution of the economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence to inform clinical practice, research, and other decision makers. Decision makers choosing approaches to address this epidemic need cost information to evaluate the cost effectiveness of their choices. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the economic burden of prescription opioid overdose, abuse, and dependence from a societal perspective. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Incidence of fatal prescription opioid overdose from the National Vital Statistics System, prevalence of abuse and dependence from the National Survey of Drug Use and Health. Fatal data are for the US population, nonfatal data are a nationally representative sample of the US civilian noninstitutionalized population ages 12 and older. Cost data are from various sources including health care claims data from the Truven Health MarketScan Research Databases, and cost of fatal cases from the WISQARS (Web-based Injury Statistics Query and Reporting System) cost module. Criminal justice costs were derived from the Justice Expenditure and Employment Extracts published by the Department of Justice. Estimates of lost productivity were based on a previously published study. EXPOSURE:Calendar year 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Monetized burden of fatal overdose and abuse and dependence of prescription opioids. RESULTS:The total economic burden is estimated to be $78.5 billion. Over one third of this amount is due to increased health care and substance abuse treatment costs ($28.9 billion). Approximately one quarter of the cost is borne by the public sector in health care, substance abuse treatment, and criminal justice costs. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:These estimates can assist decision makers in understanding the magnitude of adverse health outcomes associated with prescription opioid use such as overdose, abuse, and dependence.

Significant national discourse has focused on the idea of structural inequalities and structural racism within a variety of societal sectors, including healthcare. This perspective provides an understanding of the historic and pervasive nature of structural inequalities and structural racism; uses well-known frameworks in health equity research for conceptualizing structural inequality and structural racism; offers a summary of the consequences of structural inequalities and structural racism on modern-day health outcomes; and concludes with strategies and suggestions for a way forward. Recommended strategies across different sectors of influence include (a) employment and economic empowerment sector : creating capacity for individuals to earn livable wages; (b) education sector : developing new funding structures to ensure equal opportunities are offered to all; (c) healthcare sector : prioritizing universal access to high-quality health care, including mental health treatment; (d) housing sector : improving access to affordable, safe housing through public–private partnerships; (e) criminal justice sector : focusing reform on restorative justice that is people-centric instead of punitive; and (f) environmental sector : creating sustainable systems that alleviate downstream consequences of climate change. The recommended strategies account for the mutually reinforcing and pervasive nature of structural inequalities/structural racism and target key sectors of influence to enhance overall health outcomes and achieve equity regardless of race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status.