The book argues that the research program of modern Generative Grammar (GG) has been a resounding success. More particularly, it argues that the most current stage of this more general enterprise, the Minimalist Program (MP), has provided profound insights into the structure of the faculty of language (FL). The book outlines the central Minimalist thesis (the Merge Hypothesis) and suggests ways of extending its explanatory reach.

Building upon the analysis of the previous chapter, this final critical chapter examines theories of state creation focused upon the protection of human rights and the provision of representative government. Both approaches are examined through the lens of governmental legitimacy, and both are finally dismissed as implausible reconstructions of the relevant legal practice. In the course of this argument, significant attention is given to whether the protection of human rights and the provision of representative government are sufficient to render contemporary governments legitimate, to which a negative answer is ultimately given. In particular, neither the egalitarian credentials of representative government nor its facilitation of popular accountability are as normatively conclusive as many 'democratic statehood' theorists suggest.

This chapter considers the first of two additional reconstructions of state creation under international law, both of which present alternatives to statehood as political community. I call this first alternative 'the stability thesis', given its core claim that the law of state creation is primarily explicable and provisionally justifiable, not in terms of international peace and friendly relations, rather than political community. Two versions of this rational reconstruction are considered. Under the first, stability is secured by seeking to eliminate controversy: on this 'modus vivendi' approach, only those standards that meet broad international consensus should be considered legally relevant to the creation of states. Under the second, which prioritises substance over consensus, international practice is reconstructed so as to prioritise legal standards that are maximally conducive to stability in and of themselves. Ultimately, I argue that we should reject both versions of the stability thesis. Although international peace is morally important, both within state creation and otherwise, it cannot function as the primary normative foundation for this area of law.

Although equality lies at the heart of his political theory, Rousseau also argues that physical and natural inequalities are inescapable and significant. How can people who are naturally unequal become political equals? This chapter considers three possible mechanisms by which political equality could “substitute” for inequality – through education, by convention, and via deliberate opacity – and supports the third. Drawing on the account of a range property made famous by John Rawls, the opacity mechanism enables political equality among those with sufficient judgment to serve as citizens (relegating others to the status of subjects) but does not peer closely into disparities among them. However, unlike other social-contract accounts, the justification for opacity in Rousseau’s thought rests on his distinctive concern for the destructive potential of amour-propre.

In some ways the position of international organizations in international law is reminiscent of the status of women in national law. It is accepted — with varying degrees of enthusiasm — that they are subjects of the law with a claim to rights and obligations equivalent to those of States, where a need for different treatment is not inherent in their nature. At the same time, there is controversy as to the “inherent” differences and their implications. The imagination to define the needs that are different from those of States and to provide appropriate solutions is signally lacking. Inertia, far more than active resistance, is an obstacle to adaptation of the law even where particular needs are identified.

Webb and Powis (2005) commented that ‘One of the most distinctive features of the teaching undertaken by information professionals is that we most often work with strangers, running one-off and impromptu sessions.’

School librarians rarely achieve the continuity with classes that our teaching colleagues enjoy, which makes it more difficult for us to work productively in teams with students. In this chapter we will explore some practical ways to overcome the barriers we face in engaging with students. It is useful to consider other differences between teachers and librarians as this gives an understanding of our ways of communicating. As we discovered in chapters 3 and 4, our style of interaction with others can influence the response we receive from others. While both school librarians and classroom teacher communicate with students, our approaches, format and emphasis may differ depending on our role and responsibilities. Librarians explain library services to students in whole classes, small groups or at an individual level in lessons and leisure time. We focus on explaining how to find resources for reading for pleasure or information and teach them research skills. Hence, we impart knowledge that tends to be informational and advisory. In contrast a class teacher works with a specific set of students, and in secondary schools on the content of a particular subject in the curriculum. So, a teacher's communication style is more directive and evaluative than that of a school librarian.

Although school librarians play an important role in supporting student learning, we may face some unique challenges in communicating with students owing to the nature of our role and the library environment. These might include:

• ■ limited time with individual students, as we need to serve large numbers of library users and at the same time manage the library's resources and services

• ■ communicating with a diverse student body with many different backgrounds, abilities and learning styles

• ■ limited subject expertise in comparison with a classroom teacher, making it more difficult to provide information and support on specific curriculum topics

• ■ limited control over the learning environment as the space is more fluid than a classroom and used in leisure time, which can make it more difficult to maintain discipline and manage disruptive behaviour

When Wollstonecraft’s Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) was first published, it was categorised in Joseph Johnson’s Analytical Review as a work of political economy. The introduction asks what this term meant for Wollstonecraft and her contemporaries, and argues that it was used to understand the nature and operation of modern commercial society, as well as the potential for its reformation. Wollstonecraft’s relation to this project is explored, both through a survey of her engagement with Adam Smith and through her lived experience as an unmarried, often indebted woman in a society organised around possession of property. Wollstonecraft is presented as a writer engaging throughout her career as a critic of the connected material, economic, moral, psychological, and social conditions of modern commercial contemporaneity, and as anticipating the opposition to political economy of later Romantic writers.