Classic serotonergic psychedelics are experiencing a clinical revival, which has also revived ethical debates about psychedelic-assisted therapy. A particular issue here is how to prepare and protect patients from the vulnerability that the psychedelic state creates. This article first examines how this vulnerability manifests itself, revealing that it results from an impairment of autonomy: psychedelics diminish decision-making capacity, reduce controllability, and limit resistance to external influences. It then analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of five safety measures proposed in the literature, what aspect of the patient’s vulnerability they seek to reduce, and how they can be optimized. The analysis shows that while preparatory sessions, advance directives, and specific training and oversight are useful, starting with a lower dosage and no therapy is less so. Finally, the article presents a safety measure that has been overlooked in the literature but could be highly effective and feasible: bringing a close person to the psychedelic session.

This state-of-the-art paper begins to unpack the concept of a housing crisis. Whilst it may be a useful starting point in recognising the presence of problems within UK housing provision and allocation, its generic and umbrella coverage papers over the diversity of experiences. Similarly, as a concept it neither suggests the causes of the crisis nor possible solutions. With this in mind, this paper explores commodification within housing and uses this to recognise that our relationship to housing and our relationship to the crisis, can be shaped by our relationship to capital. However, the paper takes this further by arguing that the presence of vulnerability should also be borne in mind when considering commodification, where vulnerability includes experiences of discrimination, mental health, and legal status.

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has moved attention within International Security back to Great Power Politics and interstate war, and away from phenomena like ‘foreign terrorist fighters’ and lone actor terrorism. Is the War on Terror paradigm receding? This paper argues that counter-radicalisation imaginaries and counter-extremism programming will all remain stubbornly present despite the shift back to interstate war. The resilience of domestic War on Terror policies will stem from their integration within local municipality activity and social policy during the second decade of the 21st century. These policy areas and levels are detached from the international security community, meaning that shifts in attention at the global level will have little effect upon localised national security practices. The paper then interrogates how counterterrorism agendas have so successfully entered the world of social policy and local public administration, using genealogical methods to trace how social security and crime prevention were historically prefaced upon defence. The paper traces the policy paradigm of ‘social defence’ which dominated mid-20th century international organisations, targeting non-criminal juveniles with pre-emptive interventions to prevent ‘dangerous persons’ imperilling society. Effectively, this untold history of crime prevention in Europe demonstrates the profound interlocking of national security, social policy and defence across the 20th century, with implications for the resilience of this triad.

The COVID-19 pandemic destabilised the political, social, and economic life of countries as it spread around the world. It posed multiple threats to individuals, societies, and across different domains of life, highlighting their intersectionality and uneven impacts. The paper focuses on the UK and South Korea, countries which took very different paths in framing and addressing the crisis. It draws on secondary data and an integrated critical human security and state capacity approach to compare how state responses, institutional capacity, and the mobilisation of policy instruments themselves construct constellations of insecurity which intersect with human security and vulnerability. It will demonstrate the structural constraints that have continued to shape vulnerability and the dynamics of human security and insecurity in turbulent times.

In 2020, the Israeli Supreme Court held section 4 of the Law on Prevention of Infiltration and Ensuring the Departure of Infiltrators from Israel, also known as the Deposit Law, to be unconstitutional. Among other provisions, that law required 36 per cent of the wages of foreign workers to be paid into a dedicated account and returned when the person left the country. For years the Deposit Law had a negative impact on the lives of asylum seekers because of its racialised, gendered, ethnonational and religious impact. Its intersectional impact illustrates cultural, structural and systematic violence, which has been particularly punitive for asylum-seeking women, who are more exposed to sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV).

In this context, this interdisciplinary qualitative and empirical research article draws from empirical fieldwork conducted in Israel to understand the intersectional impact of the law. It therefore conducts a theoretical examination of the literature and connects that to the empirical study. Thus, the article empirically and theoretically investigates (i) the extent to which state-created categories foster unlawful multilayered and multilevel forms of vulnerability and discrimination; (ii) the intersectional impact of the Deposit Law and how it is related to SGBV; and (iii) how state-created intersecting vulnerabilities can be diagnosed. The overall goal of the article is to indicate the intertwined nature and interconnection between state-created categories and the inevitability of state-created vulnerabilities.

This article proposes ethical — and legal — accountability for lawyers representing clients such as private equity (PE) firms who create ownership structures for nursing home systems. Using PE ownership as a case study, I will show that nursing home residents are often harmed and Medicaid costs inflated. I propose private law provides tools to compel such accountability, through (1) aiding and abetting doctrines and (2) fiduciary doctrines that require that the fiduciary be responsible for its vulnerable beneficiaries, not just ethically but for damages and equitable relief. I further propose that the teaching of Professional Responsibility needs to be changed to force law students to consider the effect of legal practice on third parties in situations like health care financing.

The present study aims to analyze the existence of different profiles in family caregivers of people with dementia according to psychosocial and resource variables. In addition, it aims to study whether there is a greater representation of each kinship group in each of the profiles and if there are differences in emotional distress among such profiles considering the kinship with the care-recipient. Participants were 288 family dementia caregivers, divided into four kinship groups (wives, husbands, sons and daughters). Psychosocial (familism, dysfunctional thoughts and experiential avoidance), resource (leisure activities and social support) and outcomes (depressive, anxious and guilt symptomatology) variables were collected. A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward’s method, an exploratory factor analysis of two fixed factors and contingency tables were performed. Five clusters were obtained: Low psychosocial vulnerability-High resources, Low psychosocial vulnerability-Low resources, Mixed, High psychosocial vulnerability-High resources, and High psychosocial vulnerability-Low resources. Results suggested that clusters associated with lower distress were the Low psychosocial vulnerability-High resources and the High psychosocial vulnerability-High resources. Clusters associated with higher distress were the Low psychosocial vulnerability-Low resources and Mixed. High levels of dysfunctional thoughts, familism and experiential avoidance do not always have a maladaptive function. This could depend on sociocultural and resource variables such as the kinship with the caregiver or perceived social support. The identification of profiles of family caregivers potentially needing protection and vulnerable to psychological distress could help to increase the effectiveness of interventions aimed at this population.

This study explores vulnerability narratives used in relation to older adults and others during the COVID-19 pandemic. A mixed-method content analysis was conducted of 391 articles published in two major newspapers in Canada and the USA during the first wave of the pandemic. The findings indicated that during the early months of the pandemic, limited attention was directed towards its impact on older adults or other ‘vulnerable’ subpopulations in both countries. Where evident, intrinsic (individual-level) risk factors were most consistently used to frame the vulnerability of older adults. In contrast, vulnerability was more likely to be framed as structural with regard to other subpopulations (e.g., ethno-racial minorities). These narratives also differed somewhat in Canadian and US newspapers. The framing of older adults as intrinsically vulnerable reflects ageist stereotypes and promotes downstream policy interventions. Greater attention is needed to the role of structural factors in influencing pandemic-related outcomes among older adults.

This article examines the underlying structural elements contributing to the vulnerability experienced by asylum seekers and undocumented migrants across two critical domains: refugee eligibility examination and accessibility of essential social services, particularly healthcare. By drawing insights from fieldwork conducted in Toronto between 2020 and 2022, this article investigates how migrants navigate and perceive vulnerability encountered both at the front-end of the refugee status determination and while trying to access social services. It discusses the perspectives of key stakeholders, including lawyers, representatives of immigrant-focused non-profit organizations, and municipal officials, shedding light on their experiences and insights regarding the challenges faced by migrants. Furthermore, this article critically evaluates Canada’s adherence to the principles articulated in the 2018 United Nations Global Compacts on Migration and Refugees concerning the mitigation of vulnerability among migrant populations.

The fact that migration cases seldom raise any questions under Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is neither inevitable nor justified. This article reaffirms the equality provision as a useful and indeed necessary mechanism for the European Court of Human Rights to deal with such applications. More concretely, we build on our previous work, which identified a legal tool suitable for achieving this reorientation in judicial practice: the principle that we call ‘migratory vulnerability’, once recalibrated away from a group-based approach to a notion of vulnerability as situational and socially induced. In this article, we explain how the principle of migratory vulnerability, even if it does not represent an inherently suspect ground of differentiation, enables us to identify instances of discrimination defined as a measurable disadvantage that is disproportionate or arbitrary and cannot, therefore, be reasonably justified on the basis of the Convention. This presupposes a move away from nationality as a privileged ground in migration-related cases and from the ‘comparator’ test to determine Article 14 ECHR violations, to also encompass situational experiences. We end with two examples that show that this reconceptualization is both workable in practice and of added value, enabling the Court to find violations that presently go undetected.

It is now over ten years since the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or Court) first established that asylum seekers are inherently and particularly vulnerable on account of their very situation as asylum seekers. This occurred in its Grand Chamber judgment in the case of M.S.S. v Belgium and Greece. This article critically examines the Court’s subsequent asylum jurisprudence through the lens of vulnerability. The analysis reveals that the Court has engaged in ‘vulnerability backsliding’. Specifically, it traces the ways in which the Court has surreptitiously reversed the very principle of asylum vulnerability it itself established in M.S.S. The consequence of this backsliding is not only that the judicially recognised concept of asylum vulnerability is undermined, but that some of the most vulnerable applicants that come before the Court suffer renewed marginalisation, and, in some circumstances, exclusion from the ‘special protection’ to which they were previously afforded courtesy of M.S.S.