RISULTATI RICERCA

1. Lo Stato di diritto

2. I giudici nell’Italia prerepubblicana

3. Il pubblico ministero

4. Le proposte di riforma

5. I giudici nella Costituzione

6. L’imparzialità

7. L’indipendenza

8. La precostituzione per legge

9. La preferenza per la giurisdizione ordinaria

10. La magistratura ordinaria

11. L’obbligatorietà dell’azione penale

12. L’indipendenza del pubblico ministero

13. L’irrivedibilità costituzionale.

L’espressione "Stato di diritto" esprime un’esigenza di fondo: instaurare un collegamento stretto, costitutivo, fra lo Stato e il diritto. Da un lato, il sovrano, il detentore del potere, investito della suprema autorità di comando; dall’altro lato, il diritto. La formula "Stato di diritto" suggerisce che fra il comando del sovrano e la norma sussista, o meglio debba sussistere, uno stretto rapporto. Che tipo di rapporto? Se vogliamo dare all’espressione "Stato di diritto" un significato forte conviene pensare a un rapporto impegnativo fra il diritto e il sovrano: un rapporto in conseguenza del quale la volontà sovrana trova nel diritto vincoli non solo formali ma anche sostanziali. Lo Stato di diritto è uno Stato sottoposto al diritto: una potestas sub lege; e la lex, il diritto, non è una forma vuota di contenuti, ma condensa in se stessa valori, aspettative, visioni socialmente condivise in un determinato contesto storico. È di uno Stato di diritto così inteso che tenterò di delineare sommariamente una storia.

Typologies have been central to the comparative turn in public policy and this paper contributes to the debate by assessing the capacity of typologies of health systems to capture the institutional context of health care and to contribute to explaining health policies across countries. Using a recent comparative study of health policy and focusing on the concept of the health care state the paper suggests three things. First, the concept of the health care state holds as a set of ideal types. Second, as such the concept of the health care state provides a useful springboard for analyzing health policy, but one which needs to be complemented by more specific institutional explanations. Third, the concept of the health care state is less applicable to increasingly important, non-medical areas of health policy. Instead, different aspects of institutional context come into play and they can be combined as part of a looser ‘‘organizing framework’’.

Comparative studies on health systems in Europe show growing convergence in terms of general characteristics, while insufficient attention is paid to the overall range of varying welfare policies within which the health systems operate. By developing the theoretical model of health systems, this work puts forward the construction of an analytical approach able to contextualise health policies within the relative welfare systems. It proposes health regimes as an analytical category, defined on the basis of the different roles played by the actors called on to respond to health needs: the state, the market, the services sector and the family. Through a comparative study of a number of indicators, it outlines the four main ideal types of health regime in Europe. The attention on the contexts in which health systems operate makes it possible to recognise and valorise the contribution that the various actors make in responding to health needs, thus promoting a more complete vision for the analysis of health policies in Europe.

As the methodology of population surveys establishes itself in a growing number of countries, multinational comparative surveys are becoming the primary mode of comparative research. This paper presents to the reader the ISSP which is an ongoing international collaboration currently encompassing institutions from 46 countries, all committed to comparative survey research. The ISSP collaboration is rather unique in adopting a very democratic and participatory model for its development of survey topics and questionnaire design. Following a description of the ISSP and its model of operation the advantages as well as shortcomings of this model and discussed. The second part of the paper illustrates the working of the ISSP while focusing on a module on health and health policy which will be fielded by the ISSP for the first time in 2011. The development of the module is used as illustration of ISSP procedures and introduces the potential user to ISSP data that will be made public in a couple of years.

The present article represents the first attempt to collect all health-related ESS articles for a systematic review. Although the European Social Survey (ESS) is not primarily a health survey, we have seen an increasing use of data from the ESS in comparative health research in the last few years, and the number is increasing year by year. The present article mainly aims at describing the findings from these studies and to highlight the main methodological differences between these studies. Although a synchronisation of methodological approaches would increase the comparability between ESS studies, the varying approaches are one of the main features that increase the interest in the ESS: both because it improves the robustness of the results, but also because it reflects the flexibility that the ESS offers as a data source. Twenty-one studies using the ESS for health-comparative analyses could be found and the number of studies is increasing year by year. A key result from these studies is that fundamental inequalities continue to exist according to many socio-economic indicators in the Nordic countries despite high living standards and egalitarian policies.

In this paper it is considered how data from different origins and of different qualities can be combined in order to arrive at a more complete picture of phenomena considered in empirical research. It is shown how qualitative and quantitative data can be compared in meaningful ways, and how they can be analyzed together in statistical analyses. In addition to respondent-based information registry data may be used. This makes it possible to add information that are unaffected from memory distortions, non-response problems and from social desirability bias, but registry information have their particular weaknesses that need to be taken into account. Finally aggregate-level data may be used. Although they are only second best if standing alone, aggregated data may act as contextual information that may be used for performing multi-level analyses. Finally a study on the role of social factors in the course of breast cancer as an example is described where data from different sources are combined in order to tackle complex health-related research questions.

Although quantitative and qualitative approaches are sometimes presented as being in opposition to each other, it is argued that they can, more usefully, be viewed as complementary. Qualitative work can make an important contribution both to pan-European and country-specific comparative research. Most studies have capitalized on qualitative methods at the outset of projects (principally for their ability to develop survey instruments) and, perhaps, less frequently, in order to enhance cultural sensitivity of such tools. However, more imaginative sequencing of methods can pay enormous dividends. Qualitative methods can also furnish hypotheses for investigation in quantitative phases of research studies, and can also be employed in order to better understand the mechanisms linking variables as identified by quantitative work. In particular, qualitative methods can be used to advantage in exploring surprising or anomalous findings. Stand-alone qualitative studies are also valuable, and can address comparison, since they can be harnessed to study change over time or, even, cross-country comparisons. If we are to realize the full potential of qualitative studies in comparative research, however, we need to pay attention to research design issues, seeking to be more imaginative in our sequencing of methods and appreciating the potential of purposive sampling to illuminate comparisons.

In no more than a decade, the multilevel model has spread throughout social sciences, becoming one of the basic techniques in the discipline. The focus of this article lies on the use of multilevel analysis in the domain of international comparative studies. The article shows a broad picture of potential pitfalls in using multilevel analysis for the comparative researcher. The increasing popularity of the technique does entail some potential dangers researchers are not always aware of. Five of them are dealt with in the article: definitions of multilevel comparative research, the correct use of units and levels in comparative analyses, the comparability of instruments, the availability of data and indicators and stepwise multilevel analysis strategies. The conclusions places the potential pitfalls back in a broad perspective and sketches potential directions and promises of multilevel comparative research.

This paper starts by characterizing conventional notions of quantitative ‘versus’ qualitative research and considers their potential displacement by ‘mixed-methods’ research. The claim that mixed-methods research is necessarily an advance on its predecessors is critiqued. Using a critical realist approach favouring retroductive and abductive rather than inductive and deductive research strategies, it is suggested that the theoretical dimension implicit in all research is too often neglected. It is further contended that ‘making a case’ empirically amounts to much the same things as ‘making a case’ theoretically. More ‘metareflection’ is commended. Brief references is made to the literature on health inequalities to add some flesh to the bones of the argument.

In quest’epoca in cui sono le neuroscienze a tenere il passo alla psichiatria, ciò che ci ha spinto a formulare le domande di questa intervista è il pensiero che il cervello, organo della mente, non sia il solo ed unico terreno da esplorare alla ricerca della legittimità e della ragion d’essere di ogni manifestazione umana. Per quanto distorta possa essere ogni esperienza umana in ogni sua forma, nella patologia o nella cosiddetta normalità, non può ridursi, a nostro avviso, a semplice espressione cerebrale. Come Gross e Huber [1], quasi vent’anni fa, abbiamo incominciato col chiederci: "La psichiatria ha ancora bisogno della psicopatologia?" e abbiamo rivolto lo stesso ed altri importanti interrogativi al Professor Eugenio Borgna che, con le sue riflessioni, ha delineato evoluzioni ed involuzioni della psichiatria post-Basagliana illustrandone prospettive ed aspettative.

L'adolescenza è il periodo d’esordio potenziale dei principali disturbi psichiatrici dell’età adulta. Ma l’adolescenza è anche un periodo di profonde trasformazioni dell’identità che si traducono in manifestazioni sintomatiche più meno acute non direttamente correlate con la gravità del processo patologico implicato. A questa età la prognosi è spesso una scommessa terapeutica che si propone di incidere sulla traiettoria naturale del disturbo. La profonda embricatura tra divenire clinico e dispositivi di presa in carico dei disturbi psichiatrici dell’adolescenza possiede una forte valenza etica. L’obiettivo di questo articolo è quello di descrivere i dispositivi terapeutici sviluppati in Francia negli ultimi anni per la presa in carico degli adolescenti con disturbi psichiatrici severi. Un’attenzione particolare sarà rivolta ai dispositivi di presa in carico in urgenza e a tempo pieno e al problema complesso dell’articolazione e della temporalità degli interventi. Per concludere, verranno proposte alcune ri_ essioni sul lavoro istituzionale con gli adolescenti con disturbi psichiatrici severi, sul lavoro in rete e sulla necessità di mantenere una prospettiva meta-osservativa della psicopatologia dell’adolescente.