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 article concentrates on some aspects of the political ecology of a specific portion of marine resource users, holders, and guardians – small-scale and artisanal fisheries (SSFs) – with the aim of exploring some of the struggles they are currently facing and how they are positioned vis à vis some of the solutions proposed to improve marine resources and ecosystems management and conservation. In particular, the article looks at the expansion of states’ sovereignty and private property to reduce unsustainable catches and at the establishment of marine and coastal protected areas as instruments that often fall short of sufficiently considering and respecting the livelihoods, culture, and practices of SSFs, so being at risk of falling under the catchy name of ocean grabbing. It is an explorative study, aimed at underlining the importance of keeping a political perspective when looking at SSFs.

Introduction to the special section on "Owning lands, seas, and the internet of things. From the tragedies of the commons to the tragedies of the anti-commons"

Por lo general, cada derecho tiene como objetivo la protección de un interés (o un conjunto de intereses agrupados) de un solo sujeto. Sin embargo, es posible imaginar un derecho que se reconoce para proteger, al mismo tiempo, dos o más intereses distintos de dos o más sujetos distintos. Este capítulo se enfoca en los límites internos de los derechos que pueden derivar del conflicto que pueda suscitarse entre los dos o más intereses protegidos para de un derecho. Analizando tres derechos –los derechos parentales, el derecho a un medioambiente saludable y la libertad de expresión– el capítulo se pregunta si tales límites internos son una fachada cuyo comportamiento es equivalente al de los límites externos. En conclusión, el capítulo demuestra que la arquitectura de los derechos es relevante. No porque lleve a posiciones normativas diferentes, sino porque la forma en que los derechos son vistos, interpretados, tratados, percibidos, temidos y apreciados depende de consideraciones que pueden no ser del todo conscientes y explícitas para los intérpretes y que están influenciadas por la apariencia del derecho. Esta consideración nos recordará que los derechos son productos históricos humanos. Y ningún producto o acción humana puede ser completamente neutral e imparcial. Para comprender totalmente el ámbito de los derechos es, por tanto, necesario involucrarse más profundamente en cómo la gente real ve, percibe y trata con el mundo abstracto de los conceptos.

The emergence of the rights of nature is a clear response to the current environmental crisis. But such trend is not to walk alone: it is to be espoused to the many still remaining human rights issues, otherwise the power and credibility of both are at danger. This chapter focuses on one of the many possible points of encounter between the rights of nature and human rights. It explores how they may be combined within biocultural rights—the basket of rights of indigenous peoples and local communities necessary to maintain their role as ecosystem stewards—and triesto understand what the consequences of combining nature and human interests as their foundations may be. In particular, the chapter questions: can biocultural rights be considered a satisfying and self-standing merge of indigenous peoples and the rights of nature? Or do they come with a price to be paid for such a sui generis conflation of interests? In order to put in context such analysis, the chapter explores the Colombian Constitutional Court case on the Atrato river, the first case toexplicitlymention biocultural rights. It also looks at the future elaborations of environmentally-conditioned rights, exploring the idea of Rights for Ecosystem Services.

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.

The idea of biocultural rights strives to address the overall issues of indigenous peoples and local communities in relation to the environment and to conflate together the different rights needed to promote their self-government and conservation of cultural identity. Indeed, biocultural rights place themselves in the Anthropocene debate as powerful tools able to provide answers to both human rights and environmental issues. But their environmental focus might raise some issues. This chapter will explore the pros and cons of choosing the path of claiming biocultural rights for, separately, indigenous peoples and local communities. They appear, in fact, as different subjects in international law whose positions are legally diverse. While indigenous peoples hold indigenous rights, a powerful, yet still too often ignored, trump in their hands to be used against States, international organizations, and business corporations, local communities are still fighting to receive protection under international law as a special group and regardless of their contribution to environmental considerations. This difference places them in dissimilar positions vis-à-vis the decision as to whether, or not, to frame their claims as biocultural rights claims.

Final Report of theCOVID-19 Island Insights Series.

This chapter presents the case study of the Khwe indigenous peoples living in Bwabwata National Park, Namibia. It was chosen as a clear example of the interdependence between conservation of the environment and human rights and of the conflicts that can, at times, arise between the environment and the rights of indigenous peoples.

It is not known whether the current territorial organization for acute revascularization treatments in ischemic stroke patients guarantees similar time to treatment and functional outcomes among different levels of institutional stroke care. We aimed to assess the impact of time to treatment on functional outcomes in ischemic stroke patients who received intravenous thrombolysis (IVT) alone, bridging (IVT plus thrombectomy), or primary thrombectomy in level 1 and level 2 Stroke Units (SUs) in Triveneto, a geographical macroarea in Northeast of Italy. We conducted an analysis of data prospectively collected from 512 consecutive ischemic stroke patients who received IVT and/or mechanical thrombectomy in 25 SUs from September 17th to December 9th 2018. The favorable outcome measures were mRS score 0–1 and 0–2 at 3months. The unfavorable outcome measures were mRS score 3–5 and death at 3months. We estimated separately the possible association of each variable for time to treatment (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, onset-to-needle, door-to-groin puncture, needle-to-groin puncture, and onset-to-groin puncture) with 3-month outcome measures by calculating the odds ratios (ORs) with two-sided 95% confidence intervals (CI) after adjustment for pre-defined variables and variables with a probability value ≤ 0.10 in the univariate analysis for each outcome measure. Distribution of acute revascularization treatments was different between level 1 and level 2 SUs (p < 0.001). Among 182 patients admitted to level 1 SUs (n = 16), treatments were IVT alone in 164 (90.1%), bridging in 12 (6.6%), and primary thrombectomy in 6 (3.3%) patients. Among 330 patients admitted to level 2 SUs (n = 9), treatments were IVT alone in 219 (66.4%), bridging in 74 (22.4%), and primary thrombectomy in 37 (11.2%) patients. Rates of excellent outcome (51.4% vs 45.9%), favorable outcome (60.1% vs 58.7%), unfavorable outcome (33.3% vs 33.8%), and death (9.8% vs 11.3%) at 3months were similar between level 1 and 2 SUs. No significant association was found between time to IVT alone (onset-to-door, door-to-needle, and onset-to-needle) and functional outcomes. After adjustment, door-to-needle time ≤ 60min (OR 4.005, 95% CI 1.232–13.016), shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.983–0.999), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.986, 95% CI 0.975–0.997), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.994, 95% CI 0.988–1.000) were associated with mRS 0–1. Shorter door-to-groin time (OR 0.991, 95% CI 0.984–0.998), door-to-groin time ≤ 90min (OR 12.146, 95% CI 2.193–67.280), shorter needle-to-groin time (OR 0.983, 95% CI 0.972–0.995), and shorter onset-to-groin time (OR 0.993, 95% CI 0.987–0.999) were associated with mRS 0–2. Longer door-to-groin time (OR 1.007, 95% CI 1.001–1.014) and longer needle-to-groin time (OR 1.019, 95% CI 1.005–1.034) were associated with mRS 3–5, while door-to-groin time ≤ 90min (OR 0.229, 95% CI 0.065–0.808) was inversely associated with mRS 3–5. Longer onset-to-needle time (OR 1.025, 95% CI 1.002–1.048) was associated with death. Times to treatment influenced the 3-month outcomes in patients treated with thrombectomy (bridging or primary). A revision of the current territorial organization for acute stroke treatments in Triveneto is needed to reduce transfer time and to increase the proportion of patients transferred from a level 1 SU to a level 2 SU to perform thrombectomy.

A short commentary on the EU 2030Biodiversity Strategy and the Farm to Fork Strategy. The Covid-19 pandemic adds other similarly contradictory stances: it is an occasion to change the world for the better, but it also forces us to focus on the here and now to save lives and jobs. The Strategy, whose subtitle is Bringing nature back into our lives, seems to speak to people in lock-down, building on their sense of suffocation from strict indoor living and on the beautiful and nourishing memories of moments spent in nature. However, the Strategy also, and mostly, speaks to industries and entrepreneurs who are projected to the post-Covid time to bring business back into their lives. Regardless of their complexity, this policy brief draws a few considerationsabout the overarching and subterranean wires and themes of thethe EU 2030Biodiversity Strategy and the Farm to Fork Strategy.

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.

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.

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.

Kabir Bavikatte has recently argued that a new 'basket' of group rights is emerging from the interpretation of multilateral environmental agreements, domestic law and case law, and from shifts in the development discourse and the struggles of communities. He refers to this new set of rights as 'biocultural rights' and defines them as being all the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities required to secure their stewardship role over their lands and waters. Biocultural rights build on two foundations: the self-determination and cultural diversity of indigenous peoples and local communities, and the conservation of the environment. This article suggests that the second foundation is what makes biocultural rights potentially more appealing than other human rights but that it is also the reason for their sui generis potential. Unlike human rights generally, biocultural rights seem to be aimed at protecting not only the interests of their right-holders, indigenous peoples and local communities, but also seem to protect a general interest of humankind in the conservation of the environment through the impositions of stewardship duties on rights-holders. Therefore, it is suggested that while biocultural rights provide a promising instrument for the promotion and protection of the interests of indigenous peoples and local communities, they also require such peoples and communities to be conscious of the fact that they, as biocultural rights-holders, take on a potentially inequitable duty towards environmental sustainability that limits their self-determination interests. The article explores some of the conceptual tensions emerging from this possibility and from the fact that indigenous peoples and local communities are presented as co-referents for the same umbrella of rights.

BACKGROUND: Mild cognitive impairment (MCI) often represents the clinical manifestation of cognitive deterioration preceding Alzheimer's disease (AD). Currently, there are no reliable approaches for an objective evaluation of the risk of developing AD in MCI patients. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to verify whether the Framingham cardiovascular risk profile (FCRP) could be useful to identify patients at the highest risk of conversion from MCI to AD. METHODS: Patients with amnestic MCI (aMCI) were carefully investigated to assess their vascular risk profile. They were also submitted to a comprehensive neuropsychological evaluation. The FCRP was calculated for each patient and the apolipoprotein E (ApoE) genotype was determined from peripheral blood cells. The main outcome was defined as a conversion to AD within 24 months after inclusion. RESULTS: 385 consecutive aMCI subjects were included. Age, FCRP, and vascular age showed a fairly predictive value on conversion to AD. Selecting the subpopulation of ApoE ɛ4 carriers, we observed that FCRP had an increased performance in predicting the conversion. The rate of conversion increased from 12.5% in the FCRP low-risk group to 43.2% in the high-risk group (p

Il presente articolo analizza gli elementi giuridici e politico-strategici del famoso caso di biopirateria della Hoodia gordonii. Il caso è normalmente citato come esempio di successo della collaborazione tra case farmaceutiche e comunità indigene in merito all’utilizzo delle conoscenze tradizionali. Sulla base di ricerche bibliografiche e sul campo, il testo ne descrive lo svolgimento e ne svela alcuni dei non pochi e spesso tralasciati lati oscuri, domandandosi non solo se sia necessario metterne in dubbio il tanto professato successo, ma anche se l’attuale regime giuridico per la protezione delle conoscenze tradizionali sia adeguato ed efficace.

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.