In ten studies (N = 9187), I systematically investigated the direction and sizeof seven helping effects (the identifiable-victim effect, proportion dominanceeffect, ingroup effect, existence effect, innocence effect, age effect andgender effect). All effects were tested in three decision modes (separateevaluation, joint evaluation and forced choice), and in their weak form (equalefficiency), or strong form (unequal efficiency). Participants read about one,or two, medical help projects and rated the attractiveness of and allocatedresources to the project/projects, or choose which project to implement. Theresults show that the included help-situation attributes vary in their: (1)Evaluability – e.g., rescue proportion is the easiest to evaluate inseparate evaluation. (2) Justifiability – e.g., people prefer to savefewer lives now rather than more lives in the future, but not fewer identifiedlives rather than more statistical lives. (3) Prominence – e.g., peopleexpress a preference to help females, but only when forced to choose.

Two experiments examined the impact on the decoy effect of making salient thepossibility of post-decision regret, a manipulation that has been shown inseveral earlier studies to stimulate critical examination and improvement ofdecision process. Experiment 1 (N = 62) showed that making regret salienteliminated the decoy effect in a personal preference task. Experiment 2 (N =242) replicated this finding for a different personal preference task and for aprediction task. It also replicated previous findings that externalaccountability demands do not reduce, and may exacerbate, the decoy effect. Weinterpret both effects in terms of decision justification, with differentjustification standards operating for different audiences. The decoy effect, inthis account, turns on accepting a weak justification, which may be seen asadequate for an external audience or one’s own inattentive self butinadequate under the more critical review triggered by making regretpossibilities salient. Seeking justification to others (responding toaccountability demands) thus maintains or exacerbates the decoy effect; seekingjustification to oneself (responding to regret salience) reduces or eliminatesit. The proposed mechanism provides a theoretical account both of the decoyeffect itself and of how regret priming provides an effective debiasingprocedure for it.

While the “essence” of EU fundamental rights has received much attention following the CJEU’s Schrems decision, the concept of “essence” remains much less examined in international human rights law. Nonetheless, a concept of “essence” for human rights can also be found in international law. This Article discusses different aspects of the “essence” concept in international human rights law, namely non-derogability, non-restrictability, and minimum core, in three steps. First, the Article looks at civil political rights and socioeconomic rights separately and identifies two different approaches to the concept of essence for each of the two categories: While for civil and political rights the concept of essence is mainly linked to the notions of non-derogability and non-restrictability, for socioeconomic rights, the concept refers mainly to the states’ obligation to guarantee an essential level of protection independent of their resource limitations. Second, the Article continues by reading the two approaches together and identifies certain elements of an overarching “essence” concept. Finally, the Article discusses the relationship between the CJEU’s “essence” jurisprudence and the related concepts in international law and concludes with two theses: First, international law deserves more attention when reflecting on the EU’s concept of essence. It equally employs concepts of “essence” and also informs the development and interpretation of EU law. Second, when engaging with the question of whether the EU law should draw lessons from its international counterpart on the notion of “essence,” one must contemplate drawbacks for EU law that the concept has presented for international law.

Aboriginal perspectives are often not viewed as persuasive or reasonable in contemporary political and legal discourses, and Aboriginal people are compelled to articulate their claims in the normative vocabulary of the majority. Many see this as an injustice. Part I of this essay argues that some incarnations of the idea of public justifiability, a cornerstone of political theory, provide a normative justification for that injustice. Part II argues that the idea is at work in the Canadian courts, even as judges attempt to create space for Aboriginal views. The ambivalent stance of the courts is explored through a case study.