Socialist Fraternalism or Socialist Realism?:State Survival Versus Ideological Goals as Motivating Factors Behind North Korean Diplomacy Toward Other Socialist States

Even when dealing with fellow socialist powers, North Korean diplomacy has never fit neatly into typical socialist bloc categories. The ideological and material underpinnings of this have taken on a complex and distinctly North Korean character. This study offers a theoretical deconstruction of the intersecting structural and normative influences on North Korean diplomacy in developing a typology of "socialist realism," situated within a realist-constructivist International Relations (IR) theory framework. This study relies on primary source material from various diplomatic archives, alongside theoretical works from leading North Korean figures and press coverage from within the DPRK. It does so to both contextualize the subject within the wider historical, ideological, and theoretical context and to draw upon an oft-neglected North Korean perspective in analyzing influences on North Korean diplomacy across various levels. North Korean diplomacy towards socialist states is found to be more adaptive than might be expected, shaped not by one definitive influence but instead positioned at the confluence of distinctive ideological goals and more conventional realist objectives of state survival. The realist-constructivist framework explored within this paper serves as both a defining constraint on North Korean foreign policy and a conceptual tool for scholars analyzing North Korean diplomacy in both a historical and contemporary context, offering a broad utility to scholars and students alike across fields of history, International Relations, and political science. This paper offers an original interpretation of influences on North Korean diplomacy by developing a new realist-constructivist perspective rooted in theoretical, historical, and ideological analysis. It is positioned at the intersection between history and IR theory whilst critically interpreting North Korean ideological, media, and institutional sources alike in seeking to understand the broad cultural and structural influences on North Korean diplomacy in greater depth

Comparative Genomic Analysis of Pathogenic and Probiotic Enterococcus faecalis Isolates, and Their Transcriptional Responses to Growth in Human Urine

Urinary tract infection (UTI) is the most common infection caused by enterococci, and Enterococcus faecalis accounts for the majority of enterococcal infections. Although a number of virulence related traits have been established, no comprehensive genomic or transcriptomic studies have been conducted to investigate how to distinguish pathogenic from non-pathogenic E. faecalis in their ability to cause UTI. In order to identify potential genetic traits or gene regulatory features that distinguish pathogenic from non-pathogenic E. faecalis with respect to UTI, we have performed comparative genomic analysis, and investigated growth capacity and transcriptome profiling in human urine in vitro. Six strains of different origins were cultivated and all grew readily in human urine. The three strains chosen for transcriptional analysis showed an overall similar response with respect to energy and nitrogen metabolism, stress mechanism, cell envelope modifications, and trace metal acquisition. Our results suggest that citrate and aspartate are significant for growth of E. faecalis in human urine, and manganese appear to be a limiting factor. The majority of virulence factors were either not differentially regulated or down-regulated. Notably, a significant up-regulation of genes involved in biofilm formation was observed. Strains from different origins have similar capacity to grow in human urine. The overall similar transcriptional responses between the two pathogenic and the probiotic strain suggest that the pathogenic potential of a certain E. faecalis strain may to a great extent be determined by presence of fitness and virulence factors, rather than the level of expression of such traits

The impact of injuries study. Multicentre study assessing physical, psychological, social and occupational functioning post injury - a protocol

Background: Large numbers of people are killed or severely injured following injuries each year and these injuries place a large burden on health care resources. The majority of the severely injured are not fully recovered 12-18 months later. Psychological disorders are common post injury and are associated with poorer functional and occupational outcomes. Much of this evidence comes from countries other than the UK, with differing health care and compensation systems. Early interventions can be effective in treating psychological morbidity, hence the scale and nature of the problem and its impact of functioning in the UK must be known before services can be designed to identify and manage psychological morbidity post injury. Methods/Design : A longitudinal multi-centre study of 680 injured patients admitted to hospital in four areas across the UK: Nottingham, Leicester/Loughborough, Bristol and Surrey. A stratified sample of injuries will ensure a range of common and less common injuries will be included. Participants will complete a baseline questionnaire about their injury and pre-injury quality of life, and follow-up questionnaires 1, 2, 4, and 12 months post injury. Measures will include health and social care utilisation, perceptions of recovery, physical, psychological, social and occupational functioning and health-related quality of life. A nested qualitative study will explore the experiences of a sample of participants, their carers and service providers to inform service design. Discussion: This study will quantify physical, psychological, social and occupational functioning and health and social care utilisation following a range of different types of injury and will assess the impact of psychological disorders on function and health service use. The findings will be used to guide the development of interventions to maximise recovery post injury

Business as usual?:Donald Trump and US hegemony through the lens of dollar diplomacy in Argentina

The Trump presidency was an unwavering source of controversy and attention for four years; it can now be evaluated for its legacy. This article assesses the Trumpian contribution to US foreign policy, turning to the case study of US policy toward Argentina. Situating it in the wider historical context of traditional US “dollar diplomacy,” it argues that, despite warnings from the US foreign policy elite, Trump has not weakened US hegemony in Latin America, but conversely, has acted as an indicator of its strength. We contextualize Trump's influence on US hegemony by suggesting that the occupant of the White House had less of an effect on transforming the broader contours of US foreign policy than the deep-rooted structural factors shaping it. By viewing US hegemony as a complex adaptive system, able to absorb changes such as the shift from Obama to Trump, it is possible to reconceptualize the way foreign policy is understood and evaluated in both the Latin American and the global context