Abstract
Background and Aims
Many jurisdictions are experiencing opioid epidemics. Opioid use disorder (OUD) often co-occurs with other psychiatric disorders including behavioral addictions like gambling disorder. However, little is known regarding the frequency and correlates of problematic pornography use (PPU) among people seeking treatment for OUD. Here we aimed to investigate PPU and its correlates in people seeking OUD treatment.
Method
From October 2018 to March 2020, 1,272 individuals seeking OUD treatment were screened for PPU by completing the Brief Pornography Screen (BPS), a 5-item instrument validated for assessing PPU. Self-reported data were used.
Results
Among the sample there were 707 (60%) males and 565 (40%) females. The mean age of participants was 37.9 ± 10.5 years (range 18–73), there were 707 (60%) males and 565 (40%) females, 14.4% (n = 183) exhibited low positive BPS scores (1 ≤ score ≤4), and 4.5% of the sample (n = 57) screened positive for PPU (BPS score ≥4). Individuals screening positive for PPU versus negative were mostly male (77%), scored higher on measures of impulsivity in the domains of positive urgency, negative urgency, and sensation-seeking and demonstrated more psychopathology on measures of substance use, psychotic symptoms, emotional lability, depression/functioning and self-harm.
Discussion and Conclusion
A minority of individuals seeking treatment for OUD screened positive for PPU. Among individuals with OUD, those screening positive (versus negative) for PPU were more impulsive and experienced more psychiatric symptoms, suggesting the need for additional investigation and screening for and addressing PPU in people with OUD.
Abstract
Disinformation and propaganda directed at foreign countries is an important tool in Russia's geopolitical power ambitions, including its war against Ukraine. The European Union and individual nation states, both inside and outside the Union, have developed complex responses to this multifaceted phenomenon. This article focuses on just one of them: the EU embargo on the RT television channel. It will review media analyses of RT, some of the legal action taken against it, and analyse the background and rationale behind the EU's blocking regulation. It points out that, while international media law literature has examined the issue from the perspective of freedom of expression, the European Union has treated the channel as a political weapon. The article argues that democracies need to take decisive action to defend their structures, and that this may require unconventional measures in times of disruption to the international order.
Főszerkesztői előszó
Editor-in-Chief's greetings
Myelomás beteg 11 éves remissziót ért el másodvonalban adott lenalidomiddal – esetismertetés
Myeloma patient achieved 11 years of remission with second line lenalidomide
A myeloma multiplex egy rosszindulatú vérképzőszervi daganatos betegség, melynek kórlefolyását remissziók és relapszusok jellemzik. Egy betegünk kórtörténetét mutatjuk be, aki 5 évig kapott – klinikai vizsgálatban – másodvonalban lenalidomide + dexamethason kezelést és összesen 11 évig remisszióban volt. A beteg egy – szövettanilag nem verifikált – tüdődaganatban hunyt el, melynek kialakulásában inkább az erős dohányzás, kevésbé a tartós lenalidomide-kezelés játszhatott szerepet.
Abstract
In 2022, for the first time in some while, the public around the world was confronted with an armed conflict between states, which directly involved a nuclear facility, specifically a nuclear power plant in operation. Unfortunately, the situation following Russia's armed attack on Ukraine on 24 February 2022 and the acts of war around the Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant once again draw attention to the need to protect nuclear facilities during armed conflicts. Therefore, this paper reviews the relevant rules of public international law and scrutinizes the norms that have been established through international legislation and soft law mechanisms to protect and guarantee the nuclear safety and security of nuclear installations.
Abstract
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) has long served as an effective remedy for disputes between foreign investors and host states. In the context of the Russian–Ukrainian conflict, ISDS has gained particular prominence as a potential tool for advancing the legal claims of private persons even in wartime or otherwise hostile situations. In particular, we had a slew of ISDS cases between Ukrainian investors and Russia, especially in relation to Crimea. This has also raised a number of questions regarding territory and annexation within the context of international law, which the arbitration tribunals had to address. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the utility of ISDS for enforcing private claims in wartime, and to assess the judgments of the arbitration tribunals, with the addition of Russian ISDS cases against Ukraine as well, to serve as a contrast.
Abstract
The outbreak of the Russian–Ukrainian war fundamentally shook the international legal order. Consequently, possibilities of holding the aggressor state and potential perpetrators of international crimes accountable became a central topic. Options for establishing state responsibility for violating international law are limited. Possible individual criminal prosecution mechanisms are available at both national and international levels. At the national level, several jurisdictional bases can be found for prosecuting the most serious international crimes.
In addition to the procedures at the national level, the International Criminal Court has jurisdiction at the international level in terms of holding persons accountable; however, this also faces challenges. In connection with the current conflict, the International Criminal Court cannot conduct proceedings in relation to all categories of crimes, so the international community seeks to rely on alternative mechanisms that support prosecution efforts. Furthermore, there is an increasing political demand for the creation of new mechanisms which, however, for the time being, are based on shaky international legal grounds.
Abstract
One year of full-fledged conventional war fought on the European continent between two large countries, including a nuclear power, is obviously a historical watershed for NATO and the whole Euro-Atlantic area. The conflict has already caused many casualties, destroyed infrastructure and degraded the relationship between the West and Russia. The lecture summarizes the most important elements of the crisis from security and military perspectives.
Abstract
The aggression and the ‘special military operation’ against Ukraine by the Russian Federation have, since their outset, implied not only the violation of fundamental customary and treaty norms of international law, but, at the same time also undermine the foundations of the contemporary international legal order. The ‘special military operation’ violates several universal international conventions in the elaboration of which the predecessor state of contemporary Russia, the Soviet Union had a definitive role; furthermore, it expressly breaches Russian undertakings concerning respect for the independence and sovereignty of Ukraine. Since in this case the aggressor state is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, thus, instead of the Council, the emergency special session of the UN General Assembly proceeds on the basis of the Uniting for Peace resolution and makes recommendations for collective measures to the Member States. The present study discusses the most important international norms breached with the aggression and during the war, the resolutions of the emergency special sessions of the UN General Assembly, the post-war situation, as well as the issue of remedy and reparation due to Ukraine.
