Search results

This study is a follow-up of inpatients diagnosed with severe depression/melancholia between 1956 and 1969. During this period, all inpatients at the Department of Psychiatry, University Hospital, Lund, were rated on a multidimensional diagnostic schedule on discharge. There were 471 patients born from 1920 onward. In the present follow-up, 2006 to 2010, 169 survivors could be traced. They were asked to participate in the study involving a telephone interview, in which a structured life chart was used. Of the patients contacted, 16 were ill or confused and 3 did not remember ever being depressed, leaving 150 who could participate. Seventy-five of these agreed to participate in the study. Long-term course of depression was evaluated by cluster analysis and compared to background variables, such as heredity for depression, perceived parental rearing behaviour, and treatment of index depressive episode. Using a cluster analysis the patients could be separated into six clusters describing the course: i) single or few episodes followed by long-lasting remission; ii) single or few episodes followed by long-lasting remission, although shorter; iii) single or few episodes followed by late recurrence; iv) single or few episodes, but more frequently ill, followed by late recurrence; v) several episodes followed by lasting remission; vi) chronic course of episodes. Remission or recurrence could therefore occur even after more than a decade. In summary, there was a short-term course with or without recurrence or a chronic course with or without late remission. Heredity for depression was significantly related to a chronic course with or without late remission.

This paper aims to discuss the positioning of international organisations (IOs) in the realm of international law. It proposes a more robust approach, arguing IOs have legal obligations akin to states to the extent which could be fulfilled by them. This paper suggests making IOs parties to international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Geneva Convention 1949 to codify their international responsibilities. In addition, it proposes amending multilateral treaties to grant IOs membership and create binding legal obligations for them, thereby enhancing the overall legal framework for IOs.

The paper opted for qualitative analytical approach of research by referring to international treaties and scholarly papers.

The authors have evaluated the bindingness of international law on IOs. The authors argue that jus cogens and customary international law are equally binding on IOs. However, treaties could only be binding on IOs to the extent of their consent. The authors have assessed prior violations of IOs. The authors argue that, to prevent such violations by IOs, creating obligations is the first step. Second, amendments are required in the existing international treaties that reflect the foundations of international humanitarian and international human rights law like the Geneva Convention 1949, ICCPR, and ICESCR, to permit IOs to join these treaties, resulting in binding international legal obligations.

The most prominent assertion of this paper is that IOs as subjects of international law are bound by the principles of international law, including treaty law with consent, customary international laws, general principles of law and peremptory norms. To fulfil these obligations, a regime needs to be introduced wherein amendment is made in treaties to make IOs parties to them and structuring the law on responsibility for IOs. Considering the multifaceted nature of IO, the role it performs in contemporary times requires them to be bound by rules of international law just like states. There is a need to settle their position in global governance and give them more teeth to understand and fulfil their duties to ensure smooth functioning in the long run.

The paper fulfils an identified gap in the positioning of IOs under the international law.