We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
“Genocide” became an option to codify the Martens Clause when Axis Rule was published in late 1944. But “war crimes,” “crimes against humanity,” and “crimes against peace” were the favored options among Allied authorities in the first half of the 1940s. Genocide’s breakthrough as a politically viable legal concept was dependent less on Lemkin’s well-known energetic advocacy than on its repositioning in a field of conceptual options over which he had no control. Lemkin’s achievement was not to invent a “new word … to denote an old practice in its modern development” but to contrive a conceptual artifice that enabled a new coalition of small states and civil society groups like the WJC to create a new reality by combining the “crippling” and “extermination” of nations after the disappointing outcome of the Nuremberg Trials in 1946. In doing so, he introduced definitional instability into the concept. Genocide’s redefinition in the UN Convention negotiated between 1947 and 1948 made the Holocaust the archetype of genocide.
Although the military is considered to be a stressful occupation, there are remarkably few studies that compare the prevalence of common mental disorder (CMD) between the military and the general population. This study examined the prevalence of probable CMD in a serving UK military sample compared to a general population sample of employed individuals.
Method
Data for the general population was from the 2003 and 2008 collections for the Health Survey for England (HSE) and for the serving military from phases 1 (2004–2006) and 2 (2007–2009) of the King's Centre for Military Health Research (KCMHR) cohort study. Probable CMD was assessed by the General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12). The datasets were appended to calculate the odds of CMD in the military compared to the general population.
Results
The odds of probable CMD was approximately double in the military, when comparing phase 1 of the military study to the 2003 HSE [odds ratio (OR) 2.4, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.1–2.7], and phase 2 to the 2008 HSE (OR 2.3, 95% CI 2.0–2.6) after adjustment for sex, age, social class, education and marital status.
Conclusions
Serving military personnel are more likely to endorse symptoms of CMD compared to those selected from a general population study as employed in other occupations, even after accounting for demographic characteristics. This difference may be partly explained by the context of the military study, with evidence from previous research for higher reports of symptoms from the GHQ in occupational compared to population studies, in addition to the role of predisposing characteristics.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.