Black and White South Africans (n = 181) and Nigerians (n = 135) completed a questionnaire concerning the estimations of their own and their relatives' (father, mother, sister, brother) multiple intelligences as well as beliefs about the IQ concept. In contrast to previous results (A. Furnham, 2001), there were few gender differences in self-estimates. In a comparison of Black and White South Africans, it was clear the Whites gave higher estimates for self, parents, and brothers. However, overall IQ estimates for self and all relatives hovered around the mean of 100. When Black South Africans and Nigerians were compared, there were both gender and nationality differences on the self-estimates with men giving higher self-estimates than women and Nigerians higher self-estimates than South Africans. There were also gender and nationality differences in the answers to questions about IQ. The authors discuss possible reasons for the relatively few gender differences in this study compared with other studies as well as possible reasons for the cross-cultural difference.
Abstract This article provides a holistic examination of the international legal frameworks which regulate targeted killings by drones. The article argues that for a particular drone strike to be lawful, it must satisfy the legal requirements under all applicable international legal regimes, namely: the law regulating the use of force (ius ad bellum); international humanitarian law and international human rights law. It is argued that the legality of a drone strike under the ius ad bellum does not preclude the wrongfulness of that strike under international humanitarian law or international human rights law, and that since those latter obligations are owed to individuals, one State cannot consent to their violation by another State. The article considers the important legal challenges that the use of armed drones poses under each of the three legal frameworks mentioned above. It considers the law relating to the use of force by States against non-State groups abroad. This part examines the principles of self-defence and consent, in so far as they may be relied upon to justify targeted killings abroad. The article then turns to some of the key controversies in the application of international humanitarian law to drone strikes. It examines the threshold for non-international armed conflicts, the possibility of a global non-international armed conflict and the question of who may be targeted in a non-international armed conflict. The final substantive section of the article considers the nature and application of the right to life in armed conflict, as well as the extraterritorial application of that right particularly in territory not controlled by the State conducting the strike.
Abstract While the relationship between the jus in bello and international human rights law has been the subject of considerable debate, less attention has been paid to the relationship between the jus ad bellum and human rights. The United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comment 36 on the right to life, adopted on 30 October 2018, brought these questions to the fore with the Committee’s pronouncement that ‘States parties engaged in acts of aggression as defined in international law, resulting in deprivation of life, violate ipso facto article 6 of the Covenant’. The contributions in this Symposium assess three ways of viewing the relationship between the protection of human rights and resort to force. First, the suggestion that resort to force in violation of the jus ad bellum will amount to a violation of the right to life is explored. Second, some contributions examine different arguments as to whether international law permits, justifies or excuses resort to force to protect human rights, and indeed whether it can change to permit such. Third, one contribution examines whether the crime of aggression, as defined in the ICC Statute, covers resort to force to protect human rights.
The end of the Cold War and the emergence of a one-superpower world have brought about what one may call the resurrection of the Security Council and a reactivation of Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations. Powers of a coercive nature vested by the Charter in the Security Council which for decades seemed like a dead letter have been rediscovered since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The Security Council, which until then had been deadlocked through the threat or use of the veto, has now come alive. Up to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in August 1990 the Security Council had passed 659 resolutions in its 45 years of existence. In the six years since then it has passed over 400 resolutions. What is more important, however, is that mandatory sanctions, which until 1990 had been ordered only twice—the comprehensive sanctions on Rhodesia and arms embargo on South Africa—have since been used by the Security Council in relation to at least eleven countries. This new and increased activity of the Security Council has provoked debate in recent years as to whether the Council is subject to any limitations when it is acting to maintain or restore international peace and security. The problem has shifted from one of trying to get the Council to work as it was intended, to one of trying to control the work of the Council. In particular there has been renewed interest in the question whether there is any room for judicial control, by the International Court of Justice, of decisions made by the political organs of the United Nations.
Abstract Corruption involves greed, money, and risky decision‐making. We explore the love of money, pay satisfaction, probability of risk, and dishonesty across cultures. Avaricious monetary aspiration breeds unethicality. Prospect theory frames decisions in the gains‐losses domain and high‐low probability. Pay dissatisfaction (in the losses domain) incites dishonesty in the name of justice at the individual level. The Corruption Perceptions Index, CPI, signals a high‐low probability of getting caught for dishonesty at the country level. We theorize that decision‐makers adopt avaricious love‐of‐money aspiration as a lens and frame dishonesty in the gains‐losses domain (pay satisfaction‐dissatisfaction, Level 1) and high‐low probability (CPI, Level 2) to maximize expected utility and ultimate serenity. We challenge the myth: Pay satisfaction mitigates dishonesty across nations consistently. Based on 6500 managers in 32 countries, our cross‐level three‐dimensional visualization offers the following discoveries. Under high aspiration conditions, pay dissatisfaction excites the highest‐ (third‐highest) avaricious justice‐seeking dishonesty in high (medium) CPI nations, supporting the certainty effect. However, pay satisfaction provokes the second‐highest avaricious opportunity‐seizing dishonesty in low CPI entities, sustaining the possibility effect—maximizing expected utility. Under low aspiration conditions, high pay satisfaction consistently leads to low dishonesty, demonstrating risk aversion—achieving ultimate serenity. We expand prospect theory from a micro and individual‐level theory to a cross‐level theory of monetary wisdom across 32 nations. We enhance the S‐shaped Curve to three 3‐D corruption surfaces across three levels of the global economic pyramid, providing novel insights into behavioral economics, business ethics, the environment, and responsibility.
Abstract Inter‐rater reliability of the Motivation Assessment Scale (MAS) with an African sample was assessed for independent ratings of 102 low‐functioning children with mental retardation. Correlations of item and subscale scores across raters were high. The internal consistency of subscales and total scores of the MAS was high. Comparisons of the profiles for the South African and British subjects showed essentially similar profile patterns. Indeed, the similarities across both samples were more striking than were the dissimilarities. The results are further discussed in terms of a suggestion for a refinement of MAS which lends itself to more extensive norming and programmatic replication. Limitations and directions for future research are discussed.
'%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0v30h60V0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='6' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='4' d='m0 0 60 30m0-30L0 30' clip-path='url(%23b)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='10' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23C8102E' stroke-width='6' d='M30 0v30M0 15h60'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3c/defs%3e%3cpath fill='%23012169' d='M0 0h10080v5040H0z'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='.6' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23b)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='.4' d='m0 0 6 3m0-3L0 3' clip-path='url(%23c)' transform='scale(840)'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23fff' stroke-width='840' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cpath stroke='%23e4002b' stroke-width='504' d='M2520 0v2520M0 1260h5040'/%3e%3cg fill='%23fff'%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23d' x='2520' y='3780'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='4200'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='6300' y='2205'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='7560' y='840'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' x='8680' y='1869'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23e' x='8064' y='2730'/%3e%3c/g%3e%3c/svg%3e)
'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(288.889 -214.211)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(108 342.749)'/%3e%3cuse xlink:href='%23a' transform='translate(469.189 342.749)'/%3e%3c/svg%3e)