How international transracial adoptees and immigrants cope with discrimination? The moderating role of ethnic identity in the relation between perceived discrimination and psychological well‐being

Research has consistently shown that discrimination based on ethnic group membership affects the psychological well‐being of ethnic minorities. Recent studies revealed that discrimination is also a relevant experience for international transracial adoptees, who have experienced a unique migration process. Yet, there is still a paucity of studies focused on similarities and differences between how immigrants and international transracial adoptees perceive discrimination and on how perceived discrimination impacts psychological well‐being, also depending on ethnic identity. Our study aimed to fill these gaps by investigating the moderating role of ethnic identity affirmation in the association between perceived discrimination and psychological well‐being, measured in terms of self‐esteem. A comparison between international transracial adoptees and immigrants was carried out in the Italian context. Participants were 119 international transracial adoptees and 90 immigrants, aged between 15 and 24, all categorizing themselves as Latinos. Findings revealed that immigrants perceived more discrimination and showed higher levels of ethnic identity affirmation than did adoptees, but no difference emerged with respect to self‐esteem. Ethnic identity affirmation buffered the detrimental effects of perceived discrimination on self‐esteem among international transracial adoptees but not among immigrants. Results are discussed in relation to practical implications for preventive interventions.     

国际合作中知情同意面临的难题及思考

目前在医学研究的国际合作中,知情同意原则在实施中出现了许多争议和难题.结合一些典型案例,对知情同意的跨文化研究、知情同意表格的误解以及保护受试者与自由研究之间的权衡等问题进行了深入地分析.指出:加强交流、相互尊重、求同存异是解决跨文化研究的必由之路;严格审查、加强监管是避免知情同意流于形式的重要手段;鼓励与防范并举才能达到双赢的局面.     

Toward an International Rule of Law: Distinguishing International Law-Breakers from Would-Be Law-Makers

An interesting fact about customary international law is that the only way you can propose an amendment to it is by breaking it. How can that be differentiated from plain law-breaking? What moral standards might apply to that sort of international conduct? I propose we use ones analogous to the ordinary standards for distinguishing civil disobedients from ordinary law-breakers: would-be law-makers, like civil disobedients, must break the law openly; they must accept the legal consequences of doing so; and they must be prepared to have the same rules applied to them as everyone else.     

Genomic Databases as Global Public Goods?

Recent discussions of genomics and international justice have adopted the concept of 'global public goods' to support both the view of genomics as a benefit and the sharing of genomics knowledge across nations. Such discussion relies on a particular interpretation of the global public goods argument, facilitated by the ambiguity of the concept itself. Our aim in this article is to demonstrate this by a close examination of the concept of global public goods with particular reference to its use in the context of genomic databases. We content that the argument for construing genomics as a global public good depends on seeing it as a natural good by focusing on features intrinsic to genomics knowledge. We shall argue that social and political arrangements are relevant and that recognising this opens the door to construing the use of global public goods language as a strategic one.     

Immigration

It is not a fundamental human right to live wherever one would most like to be. We have to ask when a state should admit people not its citizens wishing to enter and settle within its territory. To exclude someone from entry to a country where he wishes to settle infringes his liberty. When anybody's liberty is infringed or curtailed the onus of proof lies upon those who claim a right to infringe or curtail it, other things being equal. This paper argues that there are two reasonable grounds for refusing entry to would-be immigrants. First, in order to avoid genuine overpopulation; and second, to protect vulnerable cultures being submerged by large numbers of people of a more robust culture. Neither of these restrictions applies in the case of Britain and the paper concludes by demanding an immediate liberalisation of immigration laws and immediate public recognition by government of the benefits of immigration and determined discouragement of xenophobic propaganda against it. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Environmental Refugees: What Rights? Which Duties?

It is estimated that there could be 200 million‘environmental refugees’ by the middle of this century. One major environmental cause of population displacement is likely to be global climate change. As the situation is likely to become more pressing, it is vital to consider now the rights of environmental refugees and the duties of the rest of the world. However, this is not an issue that has been addressed in mainstream theories of global justice. This paper considers the potential of two leading liberal theories of international justice to address the particular issues raised by the plight of potential and actual environmental refugees. I argue that neither John Rawls’s ‘Law of Peoples’ approach nor Charles Beitz’s `cosmopolitanism' is capable of providing an adequate account of justice in this context. Beitz’s theory does have some advantages over Rawls’s approach but it fails to take proper account of the attachment that some people have to their own ‘home’. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

Genocidalism

This is an attempt to develop a more complete understanding of ``genocidalism of commission,' or the genocidal use of ``genocide,' defined stipulatively as ``the energetic attributions of ``genocide' in less than clear cases without considering available and convincing opposing evidence and argumentation.' Genocidalism is a widespread phenomenon regarding the discourse on international affairs in the advanced, liberal societies of the West, embedding a ``normative divide' between the ways of attending to domestic (national) concerns and ways of attending to international issues. I argue that genocidalism is morally wrong, explore its likely causes, and suggest possible ways of getting rid of this hateful practice. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

巴西医疗保障体系

从巴西医疗保障体系的建立、资金筹集和使用等方面介绍巴西医疗保障体系,重点关注巴西全民统一医疗制度。鉴于巴西与我国在卫生系统绩效和医疗保障制度改革中所面临的相似挑战,试图通过对巴西医疗保障体系比较详细地介绍及与我国进行简单的对比,总结成功经验、吸取教训为我国建立全民覆盖的医疗保障体系提供借鉴和参考。     

A Just Global Economy: In Defense of Rawls

In The Law of Peoples, John Rawls does not discuss justice and the global economy at great length or in great detail. What he does say has not been well-received. The prevailing view seems to be that what Rawls says in The Law of Peoples regarding global economic justice is both inconsistent with and a betrayal of his own liberal egalitarian commitments, an unexpected and unacceptable defense of the status quo. This view is, I think, mistaken. Rawls’s position on global or international economic justice is richer, more nuanced, and generally more compelling than his critics have been willing to acknowledge. My aim in this essay is to sympathetically set out, and then defend against two common families of objection to, Rawls’s position on global or international economic justice. Objections of the first sort reject Rawls’s position as inadequately attentive to the material and economic interests of individual persons worldwide. Objections of the second sort reject it as inadequately attentive to the material and economic interests of well-ordered peoples. Throughout the paper I develop several arguments implicit in The Law of Peoples but not well-developed there as well as offer some additional arguments of my own consistent with the spirit of The Law of Peoples and Rawls’s work more generally. I conclude with some brief remarks expressing two worries I have about Rawls’s position – one concerning global public goods, the other concerning the formation of a morally adequate and effective political will within the international context under contemporary conditions. I wish to thank Alyssa Bernstein, Allen Buchanan, Samuel Freeman, John Hardwig, John Mandle, Rex Martin, Jim Nickel, Walter Riker, Kok-Chor Tan, and Leif Wenar for helpful comments or instructive conversation regarding earlier drafts of this paper.