This chapter presents the conflict structure at the EU level. International conflicts prevailed, and they were mainly of three types – vertical conflicts between the EU and its member states, transnational conflicts between member states, and externalization conflicts between the EU/member states and third countries. Other types of conflicts were secondary. The emerging conflict structure, which was consolidated only in the long period after the conclusion of the EU–Turkey agreement, is characterized by the antagonistic relationship between three camps – the EU core coalition (including destination and frontline states in addition to EU actors); the coalition of transit and bystander states; and the coalition of civil society actors, international organizations, and domestic opposition parties. The two-dimensional conflict space is structured by a dimension that opposes the pragmatic, ”realist” EU and its allies to its principled adversaries and a dimension that distinguishes its humanitarian from its nationalist adversaries.

Sensing is a key requirement for any but the simplest mobile behavior. In order for Robot to be able to warn the crew of Lost in Space that there is danger ahead, it must be able to sense and reason about its sensor responses. Sensing is a critical component of the fundamental tasks of pose estimation – determining where the robot is in its environment; pose maintenance – maintaining an ongoing estimate of the robot’s pose; and map construction – building a representation of the robot’s environment.

On October 13, 1438 at the University of St. Andrews, what should have been a routine faculty meeting to approve textbooks for the coming year instead (as faculty meetings are sometimes wont to do) became a sharp disagreement over the choice of logic textbook and of correct procedure.1 The disagreement was over whether the views of Albert the Great and Peter of Spain should be allowed to be taught, or only those of John Buridan. In practice, this should have been a routine discussion, as this amounted to little more than a reaffirmation of a previous decision (indeed one with the same wording) adopted in February 1418. The majority of the masters favored teaching Buridan’s views, and, by extension, a nominalist perspective, while a minority of the masters sought to allow the teaching of the logical views of Albert and Peter. One of them, John de Camera, asked that a public record of the majority decision be made (perhaps as a safeguard against future objections from the minority), which in turn led to John Aylmer (or Athilmer) appealing to the university as well as a second official record being taken. Finally, John de Camera asked for a public record of this appeal, claiming that it violated the 1424 assertion of Faculty self-determination.2 This in turn was eventually elevated to chancellor (and founder) of the University of St. Andrews, Bishop Henry Wardlaw, who in turn dispatched the Bishop of Orkney to help settle the issues raised. It was eventually decided that “the doctrines of Albert or of any other philosopher who was orthodox and free from error should for the time being be free.”3

Existing research on the rise of precarious forms of employment has paid little attention to gender and diversity challenges. Yet precarious work has damaging effects for vulnerable demographics, with women, ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities more considerably affected. This volume unpacks this research and offers insights into the role of organisations in fostering inclusive change.

This chapter sets the stage for the studies. It presents the outlines of the general framework, gives a brief account of the argument, introduces the gist of the empirical approach, and provides an overview of the volume.

A single-state budget directs billions of taxpayer dollars to carry out various political and policy goals. Governors as chief executives have the fiscal responsibility to construct budgets, the political desire to create public policy, and the institutional means to achieve these goals. They seek out opportunities to make substantial changes in public policy provided to them by interest groups. Different interest group environments across policy issues thereby motivate gubernatorial intervention with distinct short- and long-term rewards. Nearly three decades of data from all American states substantiates these claims and shows real consequences: Policy issues and their corresponding budgets that experience short-term shocks grow more slowly over time. American governors change the fiscal landscape of a state when they are motivated to intervene in a policy domain and are enticed by interest groups to use their institutional powers.

The Introduction presents the main questions and aims of the book. I argue that Roman thinkers used the metaphor of the body politic to articulate competing visions of the res publica between the Catilinarian Conspiracy and Year of the Four Emperors. I frame my discussion in relation to the Cambridge School of intellectual history, which has catalyzed the revival of interest in classical republicanism. In contrast to its focus on questions of liberty and popular sovereignty, my book turns towards problems of statesmanship and constitutional transformation. It asks how a foundational metaphor of civic organization evolved in response to the establishment of autocracy. It foregrounds the importance of metaphor as an avenue of political thought.

Tracy C. Davis outlines facets of tradecraft in theatre and performance studies (TaPS). Performances based on dramatic texts or social interactions can take into account distinctions between an aesthetic focus, case studies of performance history, and extrinsic cultural factors; each kind of research prioritizes particular kinds of information and has predominant methodologies for analysis. Additionally, Davis explicates the incompleteness and unrecoverability of performances in relation to different methodologies, and the salience of theory to different methodological traditions. Ultimately, combinations are likely in order to address the complexity of TaPS research.

Chapter 5 demonstrates that Empedocles’ concept of rebirth can be reconciled within his physical system. In this regard I first show that, by drawing on the imaginary of metamorphosis tales, Empedocles conceptualizes rebirths as changes of forms that are analogous to those transformations the elements undergo when mixed in mortal bodies. Second, Empedocles’ concept of rebirth entails personal survival upon the death of the body and, indeed, upon several deaths. Third, although claims to personal survival are thought not to fit with Empedocles’ considerations on psychological and mental functions, and for this reason scholars generally do not consider rebirth as a positive, physical doctrine, here I suggest a different explanation. My argument is that the way in which Empedocles conceived of rebirth as a change of forms led him to marginalize the soul; that is, to fail a reflection on the relationship between personal survival and the self, and the role of the soul in it. Yet he had a traditional, Homeric concept of soul that can not only sustain the idea of disembodied existence, as it stands for personal survival upon death; it can also be adapted to the principles of his physics.

● Darwin thought that (a) similarities (“matches”) are evidence for common ancestry, but that (b) adaptive similarities provide only weak evidence while neutral or deleterious similarities provide evidence that is stronger. These two ideas about evidence are assessed by using the Law of Likelihood, which is explained and defended. ● Standard assumptions about the evolutionary process suffice to provide a justification for (a). ● Models of different types of evolution process are considered that allow conclusions to be drawn about Darwin’s (b); an example is described in which an adaptive similarity provides stronger evidence for common ancestry than a neutral similarity provides. ● The Law of Likelihood has a symmetry property: if matches favor common ancestry over separate, then “mismatches” must have the opposite evidential significance. This raises the question of how similarities and differences can simultaneously be taken into account. ● An answer is developed by using the concept of correlation, once Reichenbach’s principle of the common cause is shown to be too strong.