Is There Any Room for the Doctrine of Fundamental Rights of States in Today\u27s International Law Introduction

This article serves as a general substantive introduction to the special issue on the fundamental rights of states in international law. It introduces the concept in theoretical and doctrinal terms, and lays out the questions that will be addressed by the contributions to the special issue. These questions include: 1) What do attributes like \u27inherent, \u27inalienable\u27 and \u27permanent\u27 mean with regard to state rights?; 2) Do they lead to identifying a unitary distinct category of fundamental rights of states?; 3) If so, what is their source and legal character?; 4) What are their legal implications, eg, when they come into conflict with other obligations of the right holder or with the actions of other states and international organisations?; and ultimately, 5) Is there still room in today\u27s international law for a doctrine of \u27fundamental\u27 rights of states? The article reviews the fundamental rights of states in positive law sources and in international legal scholarship, and identifies the reasons for a renaissance of attention for this doctrine

Twelve Variants Polygenic Score for Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Distribution in a Large Cohort of Patients With Clinically Diagnosed Familial Hypercholesterolemia With or Without Causative Mutations

: Background A significant proportion of individuals clinically diagnosed with familial hypercholesterolemia (FH), but without any disease-causing mutation, are likely to have polygenic hypercholesterolemia. We evaluated the distribution of a polygenic risk score, consisting of 12 low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C)-raising variants (polygenic LDL-C risk score), in subjects with a clinical diagnosis of FH. Methods and Results Within the Lipid Transport Disorders Italian Genetic Network (LIPIGEN) study, 875 patients who were FH-mutation positive (women, 54.75%; mean age, 42.47±15.00 years) and 644 patients who were FH-mutation negative (women, 54.21%; mean age, 49.73±13.54 years) were evaluated. Patients who were FH-mutation negative had lower mean levels of pretreatment LDL-C than patients who were FH-mutation positive (217.14±55.49 versus 270.52±68.59 mg/dL, P<0.0001). The mean value (±SD) of the polygenic LDL-C risk score was 1.00 (±0.18) in patients who were FH-mutation negative and 0.94 (±0.20) in patients who were FH-mutation positive (P<0.0001). In the receiver operating characteristic analysis, the area under the curve for recognizing subjects characterized by polygenic hypercholesterolemia was 0.59 (95% CI, 0.56-0.62), with sensitivity and specificity being 78% and 36%, respectively, at 0.905 as a cutoff value. Higher mean polygenic LDL-C risk score levels were observed among patients who were FH-mutation negative having pretreatment LDL-C levels in the range of 150 to 350 mg/dL (150-249 mg/dL: 1.01 versus 0.91, P<0.0001; 250-349 mg/dL: 1.02 versus 0.95, P=0.0001). A positive correlation between polygenic LDL-C risk score and pretreatment LDL-C levels was observed among patients with FH independently of the presence of causative mutations. Conclusions This analysis confirms the role of polymorphisms in modulating LDL-C levels, even in patients with genetically confirmed FH. More data are needed to support the use of the polygenic score in routine clinical practice

International law and the principle of non-intervention ::history, theory, and interactions with other principles /

The principle of non-intervention in the domestic affairs of states is one of the most venerable principles of international law. Although not expressly mentioned in the Charter of the United Nations, at least as an inter-state prohibition, the principle currently appears in a plethora of treaties and UN General Assembly resolutions and has been invoked like a mantra by states of all geographical and political denominations. Despite this, the determination of its exact content has remained an enigma. This book solves this enigma by exploring what constitutes an 'intervention' in international law and when interventions are unlawful. These questions are approached from three different perspectives, which are reflected in the book's structure: historical, theoretical, and systematic

Establishing State Responsibility for Historical Injustices: The Armenian Case

The article aims to identify a legal structure for the determination of state responsibility for historical injustices by using the deportations and mass killings of the Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (1915-1916) as a case study. It first determines whether the conduct was unlawful at the time it was committed and concludes that the 1948 Genocide Convention cannot be applied retroactively to the events in question and that customary international law provided, at the time, that the treatment by a state of its subjects was within its domestic jurisdiction. The Ottoman Empire, however, breached a series of treaties that provided for the amelioration of the conditions and for the protection of Christian minorities in the empire. The article then discusses whether the conduct was attributable to the state under the law of state responsibility in force at the time of the commissi delicti and argues that while the conduct of the Ottoman ministers, local authorities, and the military can be attributed to the Ottoman Empire, the attribution of the actions of other entities and individuals involved in the killings is more problematic.</jats:p