The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that: • a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
The authors tested whether self-efficacy, coping styles, family cohesion, and meaning in life predicted family satisfaction among 64 mothers of children with disabilities. They also examined whether meaning in life mediated the relationship between cohesion and family satisfaction or served as a resource whose effects on family satisfaction were mediated by coping and cohesion. Stress, meaning in life, emotion-oriented coping, and family cohesion predicted 31% of the variance in family satisfaction. Family cohesion fully mediated the relationships between stress, meaning in life, and emotion-oriented coping on one hand and family satisfaction on the other. Mothers with lower stress exhibited higher meaning; those utilizing less emotion-oriented coping had higher family cohesion. Mothers with higher family cohesion had higher family satisfaction.
(2010) 'The exclusion of (failed) asylum seekers from housing and home : towards an oppositional discourse.', Journal of law and society., 37 (2). pp. 285-314. Further information on publisher's website:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 1467-6478.2010.00505.x Publisher's copyright statement:The denitive version is available at www.interscience.wiley.com Additional information: Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details. Abstract:The reality of human experience is that ‗housing' -which usually connotes the practical provision of a roof over one's head -is experienced by users as ‗home' -broadly described as housing plus the experiential elements of dwelling. Conversely, the condition of being without housing, commonly described as ‗homelessness', is experienced not only as an absence of shelter but in the philosophical sense of ‗ontological homelessness' and alienation from the conditions for well-being: the practical and psychological benefits that flow from having an opportunity to establish a home. For asylum seekers, these experiences are deliberately and explicitly excluded from official law and policy discourses. This article demonstrates how, in the case of asylum seekers, law and policy is propelled by an ‗official discourse' based on the denial of housing and the avoidance of ‗home' attachments, which effectively keeps the asylum seeker in a state of ontological homelessness and alienation. We reflect on how considerations of housing and home are excluded from policy debates and even legal analyses concerning asylum seekers, and consider how a new ‗oppositional discourse' of housing and home -which allowed these considerations to be taken into account -might impact on the balancing exercise inherent to laws and policies concerning asylum seekers.Durham Law School, 50 North Bailey, Durham, England, DH1 3ET; lorna.fox@durham.ac.uk; j.a.sweeney@durham.ac.uk. We are grateful to the Institute of Advanced Study at Durham University, whose generous support facilitated the research project on which this article is based, and to David O'Mahony who provided helpful comments on an earlier draft.
Use policyThe full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-pro t purposes provided that:• a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source • a link is made to the metadata record in DRO • the full-text is not changed in any way The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.Please consult the full DRO policy for further details.
This article undertakes a comparative legal analysis of the scope of an emerging legal duty to find the truth about historical human rights abuses after periods of political transition. There is substantial inconsistency between human rights regimes on how they establish temporal jurisdiction in their transitional jurisprudence, which has not yet been systematically investigated. This contribution fills the gap in the literature by identifying and critiquing the way in which the right to truth in times of transition is both expressly and implicitly vindicated in the decisions of the Human Rights Committee, and the regional jurisprudence of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights (the conclusion also addresses the less voluminous African regional jurisprudence). It is argued that the ‘underlying values’ of human rights treaties can provide a foundation for a powerful but finite right to truth.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.