There are an exceptional number of publications on the transition from elementary (primary) school to middle school, also known as secondary school, junior high school or lower-middle school. The major reason is that the transition to middle school is an event that has multiple and harmful implications. Several reasons contribute to the difficulty of secondary school adjustment, including misleading advertisement of the schools, a significant change in the teachers’ behavior and academic demands, and, especially, the developmental transitions to adolescence and the associated difficulties in managing parent-adolescent relationships. Relying on the P–E Fit Model, it is commonly agreed that the characteristics and demands that secondary schools impose on newcomers do not fit the needs of adolescents. In line with their developmental needs, secondary school are more oriented to their peers’ expectations than to those of their teachers and parents, and are more engaged in matters related to their self-esteem and social life, rather than learning “boring materials” or staying at school while their out-of-school life seems to be more exciting. Interventions to foster adjustment to secondary school are presented and discussed.

This chapter considers the various means and methods for the peaceful settlement of international disputes as envisaged under the UN Charter and associated mechanisms. The key provisions of the UN Charter are considered, followed by an assessment of various methods of dispute settlement: negotiation, enquiry, mediation and conciliation, arbitration and adjudication. Given its significance to international law, particular attention is given to the ICJ and its jurisdiction in contentious cases and to deliver advisory opinions. The relationship between the ICJ and the Security Council is assessed, as are trends in dispute settlement.

This chapter examines the War Department’s role in the formation of US policy toward the European war and the growing crisis in the Pacific between the Fall of France in June 1940 and the Pearl Harbor attacks in December 1941. This chapter argues that the War Department played a pivotal role in shaping American policy and actions in both the Atlantic and the Pacific, but in different ways. In the Atlantic, the War Department was a primary impetus within the Roosevelt administration for increasingly interventionist policies. It consistently pushed President Roosevelt to act and influenced the politics of his decision-making at several crucial junctures. The War Department provided the crucial nexus between the executive branch, Congress, and outside pressure groups as the US moved toward war. In the Pacific, the War Department pressed for a firm stand against Japan but helped muddle Far Eastern policy by working to undermine the State Department’s more cautious stance. This bureaucratic warfare made it difficult to foster consensus around US deterrence actions and contributed to worsening relations between Washington and Tokyo, setting the stage for the Pacific War.

This chapter examines the crucial seven-year period between Stimson’s resignation as secretary of state in March 1933 and his return to the War Department in June 1940. Although Stimson did not anticipate he would ever return to Washington to serve in the federal government, some of his most important public service occurred when he was a private citizen in this period. Particularly, this chapter advances two critical arguments. The first is that Stimson had both a much wider definition of national security than most of his contemporaries did and came to those conclusions before nearly any other American leader or opinion maker. The second argument is that attempting to neatly define Stimson’s internationalism is difficult. Stimson borrowed ideas from the legalistic, moralistic, and New Deal-style categories of internationalism and repackaged them into his own fusion that called for US leadership to manage the world.

This chapter examines the history of international law in the Americas at the time of the League of Nations. It focuses on the pioneering role of the Americas in international organisation through the Pan American Union and the pan-Americanisation of the Monroe Doctrine, the golden years of the US-led tradition of American international law associated with the American Institute of International Law (AIIL) and its codification projects in the 1920s. It also explores the debates over intervention provoked by the codification projects advanced by the AIIL and the tensions that emerged between the continental tradition of American international law linked to the AIIL and a regional and anti-interventionist one associated with the notion of Latin American international law. This latter tradition gained wider popularity in the 1920s and began to adopt a more radical and anti-imperialist posture. These two hemispheric and regional approaches to international law declined in the 1940s and 1950s across the Americas right at the time when the United States adopted a geopolitical and globalist strategy, departing from continentalist approaches to international law.

This chapter provides a theory of the ethics of revolution and the ethics of interventions in revolutions. It sets the stage for the ethical discussion by using the descriptive-explanatory theory of revolution laid out in Chapter 3 to identify the special ethical problems revolutionaries face and the consequences for intervention of the ways in which revolutionaries will typically address those problems. The chapter states and criticizes two widely accepted principles that are supposed to provide guidance to potential interveners in revolutions. The first is the principle that no intervention should be undertaken without the consent of the people in the country that is the target of the intervention. The second is the principle, advocated by John Stuart Mill, that widespread participation in a movement to overthrow the existing regime, understood as an indication of a pervading commitment to revolution, is a necessary condition for justified intervention. This chapter argues that neither principle provides useful guidance as to intervention because both ignore certain features of real-world revolutions. This conclusion confirms an important thesis of the book, namely, that normative inquiries about social change, including investigations to articulate the ethics of revolution and intervention in revolution, must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the morally relevant facts about the phenomena in question. This chapter also extends and deepens the discussions of the explanatory power of the concept of ideology first developed in Chapters 2 and 3, arguing that ideologies can serve to rationalize the use of coercion and violence that otherwise would be regarded as morally prohibited. Finally, this chapter explains how the choice is not between morality and self-interest as drives of social change but is rather a matter of understanding how self-interest can be served by the strategic employment of moral concepts and principles.

Mental illness continues to be a leading cause of illness in Australia and Aotearoa New Zealand. The effects of reduced mental health have significant consequences for individuals, families and the community. Prevention and early intervention are crucial to improve health outcomes. Much of the support and care for individuals and families experiencing mental health illness occurs within the community, and nurses are major providers of that care. This chapter focuses on the role of community mental health nurses in providing recovery-orientated care for individuals living with mental illness and their families.

An introduction to attachment theory while completing an undergraduate degree in South Africa opened an opportunity to study at Johns Hopkins University with the recognized mother of attachment theory, Mary Ainsworth. My tenure with her was intensive but short, as she decided to leave Hopkins for Virginia, leading me to head further north to Yale, though not until Ainsworth had introduced me to both Melvin Konner (a distinguished anthropologist) and Urie Bronfenbrenner, a doyen of developmental psychology then determined to radically transform stuffy developmental psychology into a contextually sensitive sub-discipline. With Ainsworth and Bronfenbrenner as off-site mentors, William Kessen introduced sophisticated developmental theory while Edward Zigler expounded the importance of using research to inform social policy in pursuit of a better world for children.

Chapter 3 presents localized peace enforcement theory. It first discusses the challenges facing individuals involved in a communal dispute. Reflecting on these obstacles to peaceful dispute resolution, the chapter outlines a formal micro-level theory of dispute escalation between two individuals from different social groups who live in the same community. It explains how international intervention shapes escalation dynamics. The chapter then shifts the focus to local perceptions of intervener impartiality, which the theory posits are a key determinant of whether a UN intervention succeeds in preventing the onset of violence. The identifies the importance of multilateralism, diversity, and the nonuse of force as critical factors shaping local perceptions and, as a result, UN peacekeeping effectiveness. Critically, the theory does not suggest that UN peacekeepers will always succeed, or that all kinds of UN peacekeepers will succeed. Indeed, perceptions of UN peacekeepers vary depending on the troop-contributing country and the identity of the civilians involved in the dispute. The chapter closes with a discussion of the most important hypotheses derived from the theory.

A primary goal of prejudice and stereotyping research is to reduce intergroup disparities arising from various forms of bias. For the last thirty years, much, perhaps most, of this research has focused on implicit bias as the crucial construct of interest. There has been, however, considerable confusion and debate about what this construct is, how to measure it, whether it predicts behavior, how much it contributes to intergroup disparities, and what would signify successful intervention against it. We argue that this confusion arises in part because much work in this area has focused narrowly on the automatic processes of implicit bias without sufficient attention to other relevant psychological constructs and processes, such as people’s values, goals, knowledge, and self-regulation (Devine, 1989). We believe that basic research on implicit bias itself is important and can contribute to reducing intergroup disparities, but those potential contributions diminish if and when the research disregards controlled processes and the personal dilemma faced by sincerely nonprejudiced people who express bias unintentionally. We advocate a renewed focus on this personal dilemma as an important avenue for progress.