Search

Scholarship on law of the sea has become increasingly critical in recent years, but such a critical perspective is not easily implemented in the teaching of the subject. Given that little to no scholarship has engaged with the teaching practice of law of the sea, it seems timely to consider more carefully the research-teaching nexus in this field of law, which I seek to do through this essay. Drawing on critical pedagogy, I explain how I seek to encourage dialogic learning, to de-emphasise presumably authoritative voices, and to decentre the law in my teaching of law of the sea. I also consider some of the challenges that I have encountered in my efforts to decentre the teacher and the law, which mainly relate to arguably inherent tensions within critical pedagogy and to the contemporary higher education environment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To compare construct stability of cement augmented sacroiliac screws using two different cementation sites in a biomechanical fragility fracture model of the pelvis. Methods: A fracture model with an incomplete fracture of the sacral ala and complete fracture of the anterior pelvic ring mimicking a FFP IIB fragility fracture of the pelvis was established in five fresh frozen human cadaveric pelvises. Sacral fracture stabilization was achieved with bilateral 7.3 mm fully threaded sacroiliac screws. Cement augmentation was performed at the tip of the screw (body of S1; Group A) on one side, and at the midshaft of the screw (sacral ala; Group B) on the contralateral side. Biomechanical testing was conducted separately on both sides comprising cyclic loading of axial forces transferred through the tested hemipelvis from L5 to the ipsilateral acetabulum. Combined angular displacement in flexion and internal rotation ("gap angle"), angular displacement of the ilium in relation to the screw ("screw tilt ilium"), and screw tip cutout were evaluated. Results: Relative interfragmentary movements were associated with significantly higher values in group A versus group B for "gap angle" (2.4° vs. 1.4°; p < 0.001), and for "screw tilt ilium" (3.3° vs. 1.4°; p < 0.001), respectively. No significant difference was indicated for screw tip cutout between the two groups (0.6 mm [Group A] vs. 0.8 mm [Group B]; p = 0.376). Conclusion: The present study demonstrated less fragment and screw displacements in a FFP IIB fracture model under physiologic cyclic loading by cement augmentation of sacroiliac screws at the level of the lateral mass compared to the center of vertebral body of S1. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

To biomechanically evaluate the stability of a diaphyseal anchored, cementless stem in presence of a proximal periprosthetic femoral medial wall defect compared to the stability of the same stem in an intact femur. Twenty‐two paired human cadaveric femora were pairwise assigned either to a fracture group, featuring a proximal medial wall defect involving 40% of the stems medial anchorage distance, or a control group with native specimens. The specimens were tested under a monotonically increasing cyclic axial loading protocol. Load, cycles, and multiples of the respective body weight at implant loosening was measured. Mean initial stiffness was 2243.9 ± 467.9 N/mm for the intact group and 2190.1 ± 474.8 N/mm for the fracture group. Mean load to loosening in the intact group was 3210.5 ± 1073.2 N and 2543.6 ± 576.4 N in the fracture group, with statistical significance. Mean cycles to loosening in the intact group were 27104.9 ± 10731.7 and 20431.5 ± 5763.7 in the fracture group, with statistical significance. Mean multiples of the resulting body weight at loosening in the intact group was 548.3 ± 158.5% and 441.4 ± 104% in the fracture group, with statistical significance. A medial wall defect involving 40% of the medial anchorage distance significantly decreases the axial stability of a diaphyseal anchored stem. However, mechanical failure occurred beyond physiological stress. At loosening rates of about 4 multiples of the body weight in the fracture group, a "safe zone" remains of a 0.5‐fold body weight for maximum loads and twofold body weights for average loads. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

International institutions, like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC), promote peace, democracy and justice. However, these intergovernmental institutions are typically governed through vertical structures and strict hierarchies, with little to no room for popular control and democratic participation of the wider society. The internal structures of these institutions are also revealing: individual high officials, from Secretary-Generals to Chief Prosecutors, play a crucial role, and great importance is attached to their personality and individual leadership skills. This article takes the recent and highly contested election process of the third ICC Prosecutor, Karim Khan, who was appointed for a period of nine years in 2021, as a case study to reconsider the well-known yet enduring problem of the democratic deficit of international institutions and their at times undemocratic, or even authoritarian-like, decision-making processes. It starts by demonstrating the great attention given to the Prosecutor as an individual, both in the statute of the ICC and in legal-political discourses more generally. This will lay the groundwork to develop the argument that this strong focus on certain individuals is highly problematic and does not contribute to increasing the legitimacy of the Court, whatever the reputation, skills and actual conduct of the official in question. As it will be argued, this disconnect can explain some of the deep-seated challenges and criticisms that the ICC, and in particular its Prosecutors, have encountered since its establishment in 2002. Finally, the article seeks inspiration from democracy theory, in particular relevant research that has engaged with international institutions, to suggest that the Office of the Prosecutor could be directed not by an almighty chief, but rather by a panel of prosecutors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Swiss Political Science Review is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)