The goal of this chapter is to examine the rules that relate syntactic and semantic representations to each other in adverbial (adjoined) clauses. The following types of adverbial clause relations are discussed, using evidence from English, Spanish, Yaqui and other languages: concessive, conditional, reason, temporal, purpose, manner and means. The chapter sheds light on the complexities of adverbial relations between clauses and how such complexities can be captured in Role and Reference Grammar.

Hegel intends to prove two different claims about purposive connections in his Logic: (1) that teleology is the truth of mechanism and (2) that inner purposiveness is the truth of the external reference-to-an-end. I devote this chapter to the analysis of the first of these arguments. To this end, I introduce Hegel’s concept of ‘mechanism’, whose main ingredient is the idea that mechanisms are determined as causes merely from without. This feature disqualifies mechanisms as self-sufficient explainers. I compare Hegel’s understanding of this shortcoming with Hume’s and Kant’s misgivings about the cognition of causal relations. For Hegel, mechanical causes are in themselves apparent and the relations they maintain with other causes are in themselves contingent. It is this essential contingency of the ‘necessary’ that makes Hegel judge mechanical relations to be untrue. Mechanical objects with indeterminate causal powers appear essentially as means and, hence, hypothetically subordinated to self-determining causes.

People tend to want to know the explicit details of crimes, including descriptions of violence and carnage. The author discusses her team’s research, and the research of others when possible, on the places where female serial killers (FSKs) commit their crimes, which typically includes a suburb, and the primary means FSKs use to commit murder, the most common of which is poison. The author presents information on the victims of FSKs, including the average number deceased, and victim age, vulnerability, familiarity, relatedness. Startlingly, more than half of FSKs killed children, more than three-quarters of FSKs killed someone vulnerable and in their care, more than 90% killed at least one person they knew, and more than 60% were related to at least one victim by blood or marriage. The cases of FSKs Tammy Corbett, Genene Jones, and Nanny Doss are presented to illustrate chapter concepts.

This chapter outlines the remaining constitutive elements of the ecological security discourse, noting what means it encourages in responding to the threat climate change poses to ecosystem resilience and developing an account of which actors have responsibility for the preservation or advancement of security in this discourse. On the question of means, the chapter argues that an ecological security discourse encourages a focus on significant mitigation action, while also noting a potential role for adaptation to inevitable effects and even controversial practices associated with geoengineering. It notes in the process what sets of principles should inform how we approach such practices, emphasizing the importance of dialogue, reflexivity and humility in ensuring that practices carried out in the name of ecological security serve to minimize harm to the most vulnerable. The chapter then defines responsibility for addressing ecological security in terms of capacity, noting a potential role for a wide range of actors – from states to intergovernmental organizations, private corporations to individuals – in advancing ecological security in practice.

This chapter provides a definition and a conceptual presentation of eight elements of military necessity, hereunder its link to the 'object of war' and its different functions under LOAC.

All wars are fought under constraints. Wars for limited aims generally suffer from more numerous and intent constraints because the value of the political objective sought tends to be lower, and thus states will often do less and pay less for a shorter time. The most important constraints are the value of the enemy’s political objective, time, internal public opinion, the international political environment (which usually means third-party nations with an interest in your war), geography, and the military means (which includes nuclear weapons). Military and political leaders need to understand how these constraints affect their ability to fight and win the war, and they must also determine whether the constraints are actual or self-imposed, and, if they are self-imposed, whether or not they are wise. The constraints are examined via examples from the Korean, Vietnam, and Iraq Wars.