The European Union (EU) has extended the application of the EU emissions trading scheme to international shipping and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), and various countries are working on implementing instruments that put a price on greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) from this sector. Due to these policy developments, GHG emissions from shipping may become subject to multiple pricing instruments in the coming years. In response, stakeholders have voiced concerns over the potential negative impacts that this could have on both the shipping industry and international trade, and called for double pricing to be avoided. Against this background, this article discusses the potential pros and cons of double pricing GHG emissions from shipping and identifies options to reduce its negative impacts. Overall, the article finds that the case to avoid double pricing rests on a balance of competing interests, contextual factors, and instrument design. If policymakers aim to avoid double pricing, regulatory cooperation between policymakers working on shipping decarbonisation and border carbon adjustment mechanisms can provide important lessons on how to do so.

This paper describes how the development of texts on regulatory deference by the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) addresses relevant recommendations of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and supports Member countries of CAC in their negotiation and implementation of equivalence agreements. We consider the role and function of CAC within a rules-based multilateral framework, particularly in relation to the development and implementation of equivalence concepts. We then consider whether, through use of equivalence agreements, trade facilitation outcomes have been realised. Our hypothesis is that international standards on regulatory deference promote fair but aspirational standards and support fair practices in the trade of safe food – both vital outcomes for global food security and the achievement of many of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. We test this hypothesis against the framework provided by decisions of the WTO Sanitary and Phytosanitary Committee. We argue that the equivalence concepts and guidelines developed by CAC are appropriate but underutilised tools available for Member countries to strike a balance between their right to regulate to protect human, animal or plant life and health and to fulfil legitimate objectives whilst meeting their WTO obligations to avoid measures that constitute unnecessary barriers to trade.

One of the most significant recent trends in global trade governance has been the increasing use of regulatory “reliance” arrangements as a significant element of trade alliances. Against this backdrop, an important set of questions are raised about how existing institutions of global trade governance – especially the World Trade Organization and international regulatory standards organisations – should respond. To what extent, and how, should such institutions facilitate reliance arrangements? And what role can they usefully play in overseeing and guiding their use? This paper begins to answer these questions through a focused case study of regulatory reliance in the agrifood sector. Four challenges are identified regarding the implementation of such arrangements: the high costs of establishment and maintenance; the lack of agreed and reliable assessment methodologies; the potential for arbitrary discrimination between trade partners; and the difficulties of dealing with regulatory change over time. In light of these challenges, the paper assesses the work of existing international organisations in governing reliance arrangements in the agrifood sector. The paper concludes with a number of preliminary suggestions as to how this architecture of global governance might be supplemented or harnessed to address some of the challenges posed by reliance arrangements.

This article refines a foundational tenet of rational choice theory known as the principle of description invariance. Attempts to apply this principle to human agents with imperfect knowledge have paid insufficient attention to two aspects: first, agents’ epistemic situations, i.e. whether and when they recognize alternative descriptions of an object to be equivalent; and second, the individuation of objects of description, i.e. whether and when objects count as the same or different. An important consequence is that many apparent ‘framing effects’ may not violate the principle of description invariance, and the subjects of these effects may not be irrational.

The short version of the Oxford-Liverpool Inventory of Feelings and Experiences (sO-LIFE) is a widely used measure assessing schizotypy. There is limited information, however, on how sO-LIFE scores compare across different countries. The main goal of the present study is to test the measurement invariance of the sO-LIFE scores in a large sample of non-clinical adolescents and young adults from four European countries (UK, Switzerland, Italy, and Spain). The scores were obtained from validated versions of the sO-LIFE in their respective languages. The sample comprised 4190 participants (M = 20.87 years; SD = 3.71 years). The study of the internal structure, using confirmatory factor analysis, revealed that both three (i.e., positive schizotypy, cognitive disorganisation, and introvertive anhedonia) and four-factor (i.e., positive schizotypy, cognitive disorganisation, introvertive anhedonia, and impulsive nonconformity) models fitted the data moderately well. Multi-group confirmatory factor analysis showed that the three-factor model had partial strong measurement invariance across countries. Eight items were non-invariant across samples. Significant statistical differences in the mean scores of the s-OLIFE were found by country. Reliability scores, estimated with Ordinal alpha ranged from 0.75 to 0.87. Using the Item Response Theory framework, the sO-LIFE provides more accuracy information at the medium and high end of the latent trait. The current results show further evidence in support of the psychometric proprieties of the sO-LIFE, provide new information about the cross-cultural equivalence of schizotypy and support the use of this measure to screen for psychotic-like features and liability to psychosis in general population samples from different European countries.

In the American moral governmental theory of the atonement, the idea of equivalence is best understood in terms of a countervailing, or the achieving of a moral equilibrium. According to Jonathan Edwards’ disciples, Christ's atonement was not quantifiably equivalent to the penalty of the law, but morally and meaningfully equivalent. In other words, Christ's physical and psychological sufferings were not equal in amount or degree to a sinner's damnation. Rather, Christ's substitution for divine punishment exhibited sufficient displeasure against sin to effectively communicate his character and to offset the evil effects of sin. At stake was not the moral quantity of his crucifixion, but the moral quality. In this moral governmental scheme, Christ's was not a commutative atonement, but a countervailing atonement.

The Univalence axiom, due to Vladimir Voevodsky, is often taken to be one of the most important discoveries arising from the Homotopy Type Theory (HoTT) research programme. It is said by Steve Awodey that Univalence embodies mathematical structuralism, and that Univalence may be regarded as ‘expanding the notion of identity to that of equivalence’. This article explores the conceptual, foundational and philosophical status of Univalence in Homotopy Type Theory. It extends our Types-as-Concepts interpretation of HoTT to Universes, and offers an account of the Univalence axiom in such terms. We consider Awodey’s informal argument that Univalence is motivated by the principle that reasoning should be invariant under isomorphism, and we examine whether an autonomous and rigorous justification along these lines can be given. We consider two problems facing such a justification. First, there is a difference between equivalence and isomorphism and Univalence must be formulated in terms of the former. Second, the argument as presented cannot establish Univalence itself but only a weaker version of it, and must be supplemented by an additional principle. The article argues that the prospects for an autonomous justification of Univalence are promising.

hex-programs are an extension of answer set programs (ASP) with external sources. To this end, external atoms provide a bidirectional interface between the program and an external source. The traditional evaluation algorithm for hex-programs is based on guessing truth values of external atoms and verifying them by explicit calls of the external source. The approach was optimized by techniques that reduce the number of necessary verification calls or speed them up, but the remaining external calls are still expensive. In this paper, we present an alternative evaluation approach based on inlining of external atoms, motivated by existing but less general approaches for specialized formalisms such as DL-programs. External atoms are then compiled away such that no verification calls are necessary. The approach is implemented in the dlvhex reasoner. Experiments show a significant performance gain. Besides performance improvements, we further exploit inlining for extending previous (semantic) characterizations of program equivalence from ASP to hex-programs, including those of strong equivalence, uniform equivalence, and $\langle\mathcal{H},\mathcal{B}\rangle$- equivalence. Finally, based on these equivalence criteria, we characterize also inconsistency of programs w.r.t. extensions. Since well-known ASP extensions (such as constraint ASP) are special cases of hex, the results are interesting beyond the particular formalism.

The aim of this study was to demonstrate the use of testing for equivalence in combination with the Bland and Altman method when assessing agreement between two dietary methods. A sample data set, with eighty subjects simulated from previously published studies, was used to compare a FFQ with three 24 h recalls (24HR) for assessing dietary I intake. The mean I intake using the FFQ was 126·51 (sd 54·06) µg and using the three 24HR was 124·23 (sd 48·62) µg. The bias was −2·28 (sd 43·93) µg with a 90 % CI 10·46, 5·89 µg. The limits of agreement (LOA) were −88·38, 83·82 µg. Four equivalence regions were compared. Using the conventional 10 % equivalence range, the methods are shown to be equivalent both by using the CI (−12·4, 12·4 µg) and the two one-sided tests approach (lower t=−2·99 (79 df), P=0·002; upper t=2·06 (79 df), P=0·021). However, we make a case that clinical decision making should be used to set the equivalence limits, and for nutrients where there are potential issues with deficiency or toxicity stricter criteria may be needed. If the equivalence region is lowered to ±5 µg, or ±10 µg, these methods are no longer equivalent, and if a wider limit of ±15 µg is accepted they are again equivalent. Using equivalence testing, acceptable agreement must be assessed a priori and justified; this makes the process of defining agreement more transparent and results easier to interpret than relying on the LOA alone.