Search

The ability of the current grading systems to predict optimal outcomes in stroke patients with favourable collaterals remains unexplored. We evaluated differences in the performance of grading systems between Careggi Collateral Score and ASITN/SIR collateral score to predict clinical and radiological outcomes in stroke patients with favourable collaterals who underwent thrombectomy. We included stroke patients receiving thrombectomy within 360 min after symptom onset with MCA occlusion and favourable collaterals (i.e., without poor collaterals) defined by ASITN/SIR collateral score between 2 and 4. Using ordinal regression, we estimated the association of each CCS and ASITN/SIR grade with mRS shift (0-6) at 3 months, NIHSS score (0-42) and ASPECT score (10-0) at baseline, TICI score (3-0), infarct growth, cerebral bleeding, and cerebral edema grading at 24 h by calculating the odds ratios (ORs) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals after adjustment for predefined variables. Using the best collateral grade (CCS = 4) as reference, ORs of the CCS grades were associated in the direction of unfavourable outcome on 3-month mRS shift (2.325 for CCS = 3; 5.092 for CCS = 2), in the direction of more severe baseline NIHSS score (5.434 for CCS = 3; 16.041 for CCS = 2), 24-h infarct growth (2.659 for CCS = 3; 8.288 for CCS = 4) and 24-h cerebral edema (1.057 for CCS = 3; 5.374 for CCS = 2) shift. ORs of the ASITN/SIR grades were associated in the direction of more severe baseline NIHSS score (4.332 for ASITN/SIR = 3; 16.960 for ASITN/SIR = 2) and 24-h infarct growth (2.138 for ASITN/SIR = 3; 7.490 for ASITN/SIR = 2) shift. The AUC ROC of CCS and ASITN/SIR for predicting 3-month mRS score 0-1 were 0.681 (95% CI: 0.562-0.799; p = 0.009) and 0.599 (95% CI: 0.466-0.73; p = 0.156), respectively. CCS = 4 and ASITN/SIR ≥ 3 were the optimal cut-offs to predict 3-month mRS score 0-1, respectively. CCS grading system performed better than the ASITN/SIR collateral score predicting 3-month mRS score and 24-h CED grading in stroke patients with favourable collaterals who received thrombectomy for MCA occlusion.

This paper focuses on one of the answers that have been given to the question: what type of change is to be pursued to limit human impact on the Earth while considering the needs of poor and disadvantaged communities? In particular it looks at a proposal that combines sustainable development approaches with market mechanisms and top- down technocratic responses: Payments for Ecosystem Services frameworks. They have been criticized by many points of view and this paper questions, in particular, their very reliance on the market, questioning their appropriateness for the regulation of conser- vation activities and their interaction with local communities.

Islandness is often considered to be a disadvantage. However, it has helped the residents of islands to delay, deter, and, in some cases, totally insulate themselves from COVID-19. While islanders have been quick to lock themselves down, this has had a tremendous impact on their connectivity and on tourism, which in many cases is their major economic sector. Yet, the association of islands with being safe, “COVID-19 free” zones has helped these spaces to be among the first destinations to restart the tourism economy once travel restrictions were lifted. After several weeks of lockdown, and with the COVID-19 threat still looming, social distancing remained the norm. Travellers were thus eager to immerse themselves in island environments while avoiding crowds and seeking small accommodation facilities in less densely populated rural areas to limit the risks of infection — a package offered by several islands in the central Mediterranean. With many travellers opting to travel close to home, islands benefited from domestic tourism — a key market segment for islands in this region. Islands have thus performed relatively well in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and in restarting their economies; but the pandemic has also exposed challenges including a dangerous overreliance on tourism.

The article introduces the reader to the theory of Earth Jurisprudence through an analysis of the writings of Thomas Berry, Cormac Cullinan and Peter Burdon. After looking at the main revisions that the scholars of Earth Jurisprudence propose to the theory of law, the article recognizes the fact that they all move in the direction of natural law theories and questions the opportunity to take this path in order to change the relationship between human law and the environment.

The Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance (SCELG) launched a survey on 22 March 2020 aiming to better understand how islands were coping with the COVID-19 crisis. Island Innovation shared similar questions to its wide island network. The survey has been closed on 01 June 2020 and the goal of this page is to collate the responses we have received in order to share information of island responses to Covid 19. This Final Report includeskey messages, an analysis of the responses to the survey questions and practical policy recommendations on how to move beyond COVID-19 in order to promote a more resilient and sustainable future for islands and their communities.

This special issue of the open access journal Diritto & Questioni Pubbliche contains the articles of legal theory and private law authors that have analysed the theory of Earth Jurisprudence and looked at the evolution and challenges of the recognition of rights to nature. The articles are authored by: Giulia Sajeva, Do we Need Earth Jurisprudence? Looking for Change in New Old Friends. - Sofia Ciuffoletti, Have trees got standing? A brief account of locus standi doctrines and case law in the environmental litigation on the basis of the principle of effectiveness of rights. - Matija Žgur, All the Earth’s legal children. Some sceptical comments about Nature’s legal personhood. - Giada Giacomini (former SCELG visiting researcher), The Interactive Dialogues of UN Harmony with Nature: for a paradigmatic shift to Earth-centred governance. - Rodrigo Míguez Núñez, Soggettività giuridica e natura. Spunti per una riflessione civilistica. - Livio Perra, L’antropomorfizzazione giuridica.

Chapter 5 explores the difficult and challenging questions that arise from the sui generis nature of biocultural rights: they carry certain characteristics that are typical of human rights discourse as well as others that are difficult to fit into its categories. A reflection is provided on the potential positive and negative implications biocultural rights entail from political and practical points of view, stressing the different status of indigenous peoples and local communities in international law, and pointing out how this influences the potential dangers and advantages of biocultural rights. In order to explore how biocultural rights could be valuable, albeit to be handled with care, the chapter provides the analysis of the case of the Khwe indigenous peoples of Bwabwata National Park, investigating their struggles and claims through the lens of biocultural rights.

This chapter provides a brief introduction to the current environmental crisis and presents the main Western ethical approaches towards the conservation of the environment. Starting from anthropocentric ethics and moving to cosmocentric and biocentric ethics, it explains some of their advantages and disadvantages as well as the centrality of the question: what has value per se and what instrumentally? As a first step in the convoluted journey towards the discovery of biocultural rights, the chapter looks for the environmental approaches most suitable to accommodate conservation efforts and, interestingly but not surprisingly, finds them in those theories that come closer to the world views of indigenous peoples.

The conservation of environment and the protection of human rights are two of the most compelling needs of our time. Unfortunately, they are not always easy to combine and too often result in mutual harm. This book analyses the idea of biocultural rights as a proposal for harmonizing the needs of environmental and human rights. These rights, considered as a basket of group rights, are those deemed necessary to protect the stewardship role that certain indigenous peoples and local communities have played towards the environment. With a view to understanding the value and merits, as well as the threats that biocultural rights entail, the book critically assesses their foundations, content, and implications, and develops new perspectives and ideas concerning their potential applicability for promoting the socio-economic interests of indigenous peoples and local communities. It further explores the controversial relationship of interdependence and conflict between conservation of environment and protection of human rights. Table of Contents: Introduction - 1. An Environmental Crisis 2. Understanding Rights, Human Rights, and Group Rights 3. Friends and Foes: Rights, the Environment, and People 4. Of Rights and Responsibilities 5. Biocultural Rights: Handle with Care 6: Past, Present, and Future: Beyond Biocultural Rights

Chapters 2 provides an introduction to the concept of rights, useful for understanding the sui generis nature of biocultural rights. It looks at the birth of human rights and group rights, the foundations of human rights, the relation between human rights and the general interest, and the hardship of balancing human rights with other interests and goals. The chapter also introduces a brief outline of indigenous peoples and local communities’ rights, with focus on their different status in international law. This allows for comparison of biocultural rights with other human rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and for elaboration on the significance and different challenges that biocultural rights may have for local communities and indigenous peoples.

Chapter 6 traces the path of the previous chapters trying to draw some conclusions on the pros and cons of the idea of biocultural rights as envisioned by Bavikatte. It also draws some conclusions on difficulties of human rights theory to face the new challenges of the Anthropocene, and elaborates on the future of biocultural rights. In the attempt to try to overcome biocultural rights potentially unfair implications, the chapter looks at their legacy and at their potential developments towards local communities, including non-traditional ones living in developing countries.

Chapter 4 analyses the idea of biocultural rights, starting off by quoting the words of Sanjay Kabir Bavikatte. The chapter explores some cases (in Kenya, India, and New Zealand) which may be interpreted from a biocultural rights perspectives, and looks at biocultural rights’ justifications and holders, and at the set of rights necessary to maintain environmental stewardship roles. Departing from the claim that the foundations of biocultural rights are two concurring ones, exploring biocultural rights’ ancestors—Darrel Posey’s Traditional Resource Rights—and dismissing the noble savage myth, biocultural rights are analysed to fully understand what they are and what they are not. The foundations of biocultural rights are then explored in detail, focusing on the problems arising from the fact that biocultural rights, besides conferring rights to their holders, also seem to confer a set of environmental duties.

Literature is rich on whether and how rights are limited by external considerations, such as other rights or particularly important general interests. This article concentrates on what could be a different type of limit of rights: internal limits stemming from the very foundations of a right. Its aim is to understand whether these hypothetically different internal limits actually collapse on the idea of internal limits of coherence theories; or whether they are equivalent, in terms of effects, to external limits to rights. In order to show the origin of the troubling with internal limits, the article begins with a brief introduction of biocultural rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and of the challenges they encountered, allegedly, because of the internal limits that rose from their foundations. It then concentrates on coherence theories and the internal limits they envisage, and continues with the analysis of two examples – freedom of expression and parental rights – in order to understand whether turning external limits into internal ones causes any change in the arising normative positions. Building on this thought experiment, it tries to explain which of the sui generis features of biocultural rights are, actually, due to their double foundation and which, instead, are generated by other, concealed operations. Finally, after recognizing the complexities of the idea of care and stewardship between two subjects/interests, it points out the more subtle implications of internal limits of rights, opening the way to considerations concerning the way legal concepts are used and interpreted.

The article introduces the reader to the theory of Earth Jurisprudence through an analysis of the writings of Thomas Berry, Cormac Cullinan and Peter Burdon. After looking at the main revisions that the scholars of Earth Jurisprudence propose to the theory of law, the article recognizes the fact that they all move in the direction of natural law theories and questions the opportunity to take this path in order to change the relationship between human law and the environment.

L’autrice del libro When Rights Embrace Responsibilities. Biocultural Rights and Conservation of the Environment risponde ad alcune delle questioni sollevate da Francesco Viola e Gianfrancesco Zanetti nelle loro recensioni, pubblicate in questo numero della rivista. L’autrice si sofferma inoltre su alcuni temi discussi nel libro che richiedono ulteriori approfondimenti e su possibili sviluppi del concetto di diritti bioculturali. The author of the book When Rights Embrace Responsibilities. Biocultural Rights and Conservation of the Environment replies to the comments raised by Francesco Viola and Gianfrancesco Zanetti in the present journal issue. She also dwells on some topics of her book which deserve further clarification and speculates on possible future developments of biocultural rights.

Introduction to the special issue on Earth Jurisprudence of the journal Diritto & question pubbliche

This user’s guide covers the widely traded cactus family and how it is regulated by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES). The guide explores the major groups of cacti in trade, their distribution, conservation status, use and levels of trade as well as the likelihood of illegal trade. All CITES Appendix I taxa and a wide selection of Appendix II taxa are covered in detail. Major exemptions from CITES regulations are also outlined, including cacti not covered by CITES. The guide includes a fully illustrated PowerPoint training presentation with comprehensive speaker notes on CD-ROM.