It is relatively well known that Buridan’s nominalist semantics changed “the rules of the game” in practically all fields of philosophy and science. For instance, in his semantics, the traditional distinction between essential and accidental predicates is mapped onto the Ockhamist distinction between absolute and connotative terms and concepts. It is, however, still not quite well understood what impact these “new rules” had in particular philosophical disciplines. This essay offers a case study of the late-medieval paradigm change brought about by nominalist “semantical innovations.” In particular, it contrasts Aquinas’ “semantics-driven mereology” with Buridan’s, set against the background of Buridan’s new, nominalist semantics, arguing that the two authors’ differences in their mereological considerations are rooted in the differences between their diverse semantic intuitions. The conclusion of the essay will provide a brief logical and historical evaluation of the paradigmatic changes brought about by these diverse intuitions.

Recent trends suggest that international economic law may be witnessing a renaissance of convergence – both parallel and intersectional. The adjudicative process also reveals signs of convergence. These diverse claims of convergence are of legal, empirical and normative interest. Yet, convergence discourse also warrants scepticism. This volume therefore aims to contribute to both the general debate on the fragmentation of international law and the discourse concerning the interplay between international trade and investment, with a particular focus on dispute settlement. It especially seeks to move beyond broad observations or singular case studies to provide an informed and wide-reaching assessment by investigating multiple standards, processes, mechanisms and behaviours. Methodologically, a normative stance is largely eschewed in favour of a range of ‘doctrinal,’ quantitative and qualitative methods that are used to address the research questions. Furthermore, in determining the extent of convergence, it is important to recognize that there is no bright line or clear yardstick for determining its nature or degree.

Oral bowel preparation was once commonly prescribed before elective colorectal surgery, but is now only required for a subset of procedures, as its use has been associated with harm. Therefore, caution must be exercised when prescribing; readers are informed of general rules when giving bowel preparation, absolute and relative contraindications, and provided with information on the most commonly used formulations.