Search results

The European Union (EU) and Norway have assessed the release of genetically modified organisms as commercial products quite differently. Of twenty-four notifications approved by the EU, Norway has approved four, rejected ten, and has ten pending. We analyse whether these differences could be explained by different value judgments. Three aspects of the formulation and implementation of the regulations are discussed: the effects to be prevented and encouraged, response to uncertainty and ignorance, and the burden of proof necessary. Norwegian rejections are found to be explicable by the combination of no real benefit to society, lack of scientific knowledge, and involved risks. EU approvals are based upon seeing no reason to believe that there will be any adverse effects on health and the environment. We conclude that problems arise when value conflicts are understood and treated solely as technical issues, as normal in the EU.

At the end of 2019, the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction was monitoring around 790 new psychoactive substances, more than twice the total number of controlled substances under the United Nations Conventions. These substances, which are not subject to international drug controls, include a wide range of molecules, including the assortment of drugs such as synthetic cannabinoids, stimulants, opiates, and benzodiazepines. Most of them are sold as "legal" substitutes for illicit drugs, while others are intended for small groups willing to experiment with them in order to know their possible new effects. At the national level, various measures have been taken to control new substances and many European countries have responded with specific legislation in favor of consumer safety and by extending or adapting existing drug laws to incorporate the new psychoactive substances. Moreover, since 1997, an early warning system has been created in Europe for identifying and responding quickly to the risks of new psychoactive substances. In order to establish a quicker and more effective system to address the criminal activities associated with new dangerous psychoactive substances, the European legal framework has considerably changed over the years.

Introduction: Coalitions of supporters of comprehensive tobacco control policy have been crucial in achieving policy success nationally and internationally, but the dynamics of such alliances are not well understood. Methods: Qualitative semi-structured, narrative interviews with 35 stakeholders involved in developing the European Council Recommendation on smoke-free environments. These were thematically analyzed to examine the dynamics of coalition-building, collaboration and leadership in the alliance of organizations which successfully called for the development of comprehensive European Union (EU) smoke-free policy. Results: An alliance of tobacco control and public health advocacy organizations, scientific institutions, professional bodies, pharmaceutical companies, and other actors shared the goal of fighting the harms caused by second-hand smoke. Alliance members jointly called for comprehensive EU smoke-free policy and the protection of the political debates from tobacco industry interference. The alliance's success was enabled by a core group of national and European actors with long-standing experience in tobacco control, who facilitated consensus-building, mobilized allies and synchronized the actions of policy supporters. Representatives of Brussels-based organizations emerged as crucial strategic leaders. Conclusions: The insights gained and identification of key enablers of successful tobacco control advocacy highlight the strategic importance of investing into tobacco control at European level. Those interested in effective health policy can apply lessons learned from EU smoke-free policy to build effective alliances in tobacco control and other areas of public health.

This essay will arguethat the intrusion of the EU into the state's elements has resulted in political and social turmoil. As it is being played out in the context of Brexit, it has become clear thatthe desire to restore state sovereignty, goes hand in hand with expressions of nationalism, Euroscepticism and xenophobia. This paper is of high significance as it presents a novel approach to analysing the European crisis and Brexit from the perspective of linking the desire to restore sovereignty and the impact of supranational organisations on the defining elements of a state, in particular, borders and population.

Introduction : now or never? / Marie Söderberg, Axel Berkofsky, Christopher W. Hughes and Paul Midford -- The strategic partnership agreement : new and better or more the same EU-Japan security cooperation? / Axel Berkofsky -- Abe's pro-active pacifism, values diplomacy, China, and EU-Japan political and security cooperation / Paul Midford -- Ordinary/civilian, not normative/post-modern : lessons from the EU for Japanese security policy / Paul Bacon and Hidetoshi Nakamura -- Japan and EU defence production cooperation : a strategically important but nascent relationship / Christopher W. Hughes -- EU-Japan relations in the age of competitive economic governance in Asia / Maaike Okano-Heijmans and Terada Takashi -- Taking the lead in current and future trade relationships / Patricia A. Nelson -- Negative interest rate policy by the Bank of Japan from the perspective of monetary policy in Europe / Markus Heckel -- EU and Japanese aid and trade : legitimising "Chinese democrary" in ASEAN / André Asplund -- Japan and the EU : SDGs and changing patterns of development cooperation / Marie Söderberg -- The evolution of America's implicit support of EU-Japan security relations / Jeffrey W. Hornung -- From "wider west" to "strategic alliance" : an assessment of China's influence in EU-Japan relations / Lilei Song and Liang Gai -- Conclusions : the way forward