OPTIONS FOR SUGAR TRADE IN THE UPCOMING WTO NEGOTIATIONS

International Relations/Trade,

Prospective Study of Violence Risk Reduction by a Mental Health Court

Although many mental health courts (MHCs) have been established to reduce criminal justice involvement of persons with mental disorders, research has not kept pace with the widespread implementation of these courts. Whereas early MHCs were restricted to persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors, many MHCs now accept persons with more serious charges for whom ameliorating risk of violence is a greater concern. This study evaluated the relationship between MHC participation and risk of violence by using a prospective design. It was hypothesized that MHC participation would decrease the risk of violence during a one year follow-up compared with a matched comparison group.The sample included 169 jail detainees with a mental disorder who either entered an MHC (N=88) or received treatment as usual (N=81). Seventy-two percent had been charged with felonies. Participants were interviewed at baseline and during a one-year follow up, and their arrest records were reviewed. Propensity-adjusted logistic regression evaluated the relationship between MHC participation and risk of violence, controlling for potential confounders such as history of violence, demographic characteristics, baseline treatment motivation, and time at risk in the community.MHC participation was associated with reduction in risk of violence (odds ratio=.39). During follow-up, 25% of the MHC group perpetrated violence, compared with 42% of the treatment-as-usual group.MHC participation can reduce the risk of violence among justice-involved persons with mental disorders. The findings support the conclusion that the MHC model can be extended beyond persons charged with nonviolent misdemeanors in a way that enhances public safety

The NAFTA Panel Decision on Canadian Tariff-Rate Quotas: Imagining a Tariffying Bargain

This Article critically examines the decision of the first dispute settlement panel established under the NAFTA. The panel ruled against the United States, holding that Canada\u27s rights under the GAIT allowed it to apply tariffs in excess of its NAFTA tariff commitments. It found, implicit in the NAFTA and GAIT negotiations, an agreement to allow tariffs resulting from GAIT tariffication of non-tariff barriers to exceed the limits established under the NAFTA. This Article argues that the decision is incorrect both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. First, it is factually inaccurate because the negotiators never reached such an agreement. Second, the panel erred in relying on this hypothetical bargain instead of applying the relevant legal principles to the dispute. Conducting its own textual analysis of the relevant GAIT and NAFTA provisions, the Article concludes that the GAIT provision that governs non-tariff bindings cannot be justified by the NAFTA provision incorporating a ll GAIT rights and obligations. The panel, by holding otherwise, failed to apply established law and violated the spirit of trade liberalization under which the agreements were negotiated