In 1965 the International Union of the History and Philosophy of Science founded the Nicolas Copernicus Committee whose main task was to explore the means by th which different nations could co-operate in celebrating the 5 centenary of the great scholar's birth. The committee initiated the publication of a collection of studies dealing with the effect that Copernicus' theory has had on scientific developments in centres of learning all over the world. An Editorial Board, consisting of J. Dobrzycki (Warsaw), J. R. Ravetz (Leeds), H. Sandblad (Goteborg) and B. Sticker (Hamburg), was nominated. We found that our initiative aroused a lively interest among Copernicus scholars; the present volume, with 11 articles by authors from nine American, Asian and European countries, contains the result of their research. It appears in the series 'Studia Coper nicana' by agreement with the Polish Academy of Science, and we hope to publish a number of other contributions in a subsequent volume. We are happy to say that our efforts have been fruitful and that this volume presents not only several in-depth studies, but also a more general survey of the rules governing the evolution of science, rules set within the framework of Copernicus' theory as it developed among various nations and in various scientific institutions over the centuries. It has been shown once again that, 500 years after his birth, the work of Copernicus remains a source of scientific interest and continues to stimulate fresh study and research.

This book provides a detailed historical and legal examination of presidential power and the theory of the unitary executive.

This book celebrates the work and career of the internationally renowned art historian, David Bindman, on the occasion of his 75th birthday, and is above all a tribute to him from his former students and colleagues. With essays on sculpture, drawings, watercolours and prints, the volume reflects the extraordinary range of Bindman's knowledge of works of art and his impact through his teaching and research on the understanding of British and European artistic developments from the eighteenth to the twentieth century. The essays cast light on questions of technique and stylistic change, patronage, collecting and iconography, and engage with issues such as the representation of race, gender, sexuality, political violence and propaganda, exile, and notions of the canon. The artists discussed here include Hogarth, Blake, Roubiliac, Thorvaldsen and Canova, all subjects of books by David Bindman, as well as Morland, Rowlandson, Gillray, Millais, Munch, Nevinson, and Heartfield.

Despite over two hundred years of experience with constitutional government, much remains unclear about the power of the political branches to curtail or re-define the judicial power of the United States. Uncertainty persists about the basis on which state courts and federal agencies may hear federal claims and the degree to which federal courts must review their decisions. Scholars approach these questions from a range of vantage points and have arrived at widely varying conclusions about the relationship between congressional and judicial power. Deploying familiar forms of legal analysis, and relying upon a new account of the Court's supremacy in relation to lower courts and tribunals, James Pfander advances a departmental conception of the judiciary. He argues that Congress can enlist the state courts, lower federal courts, and administrative agencies to hear federal claims in the first instance, but all of these tribunals must operate within a hierarchical framework over which the "one supreme Court" identified in the Constitution exercises ultimate supervisory authority. In offering the first general account of the Court as department head, Pfander takes up such important debates in the federal courts' literature as Congress's power to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to review state court decisions, its authority to assign decision-making authority to state courts and non-Article III tribunals, its control over the doctrine of vertical stare decisis, and its ability to craft rules of practice for the federal system.

71% of French school children “regularly suffer from irritability.” 63% are nervous. One in four has stomach or headaches once a week or more. 40% complain of frequent insomnia. Why is France the only nation in the world that discourages its children for what they aren’t, rather than encouraging them to be who they are?