Search results

Abstract. The a priori voting powers of member countries in the council of ministers of the European Union have been discussed in the literature mainly from the view–point of Banzhaf and Shapley–Shubik indices. This paper discusses — in the light of these and other more recent (Colomer's, Holler's as well as Deegan and Packel's) power indices — the interaction of the council ministers and the European Parliament (EP) under the assumption that the consent of both bodies is needed to carry a motion or piece of union–wide legislation. Moreover, the double–majority principle is discussed from the view–point of voting power distribution. Finally we consider the voting power distribution in a three–chamber system consisting of Commission, Council and EP.

Abstract Background Although there is rapid progress in vaccine research regarding influenza pandemic vaccines it is expected that pandemic influenza vaccine production can only start once the pandemic virus has been recognized. Therefore, pandemic vaccine capacity will be limited at least during the first phase of an influenza pandemic, requiring vaccine prioritization strategies. WHO recommends developing preliminary priorities for pandemic vaccine use. The goal of this review is to provide a thorough overview of pandemic vaccine prioritization concepts in the 27 European Union (EU) member states and the four non-EU countries of the Global Health Security Action Group. Methods Between September and December 2006 data was collected for each country through two data sources: (i) the national influenza pandemic plan; (ii) contacting key persons involved in pandemic planning by email and/or phone and/or fax Results Twenty-six (84%) countries had established at least one vaccine priority group. Most common reported vaccine priority groups were health care workers (HCW) (100%), essential service providers (ESP) (92%) and high risk individuals (HRI) (92%). Ranking of at least one vaccine priority group was done by 17 (65%) of 26 countries. Fifteen (88%) of these 17 countries including a ranking strategy, decided that HCW with close contact to influenza patients should be vaccinated first; in most countries followed and/or ranked equally by ESP and subsequently HRI. Rationales for prioritization were provided by 22 (85%) of 26 countries that established vaccine priority groups. There was large variation in the phrasing and level of detailed specification of rationales. Seven (32%) of 22 countries providing rationales clearly associated each vaccine priority group with the specific rationale. Ten (32% of the 31 countries studied) countries have consulted and involved ethical experts to guide decisions related to vaccine prioritization. Conclusion In the majority of the countries the establishment of vaccine priority groups, ranking and underlying rationales are in line with WHO recommendations. In most public plans the criteria by which prioritized groups are identified are not easily recognizable. Clarity however, may be necessary to assure public acceptability of the prioritization. Ethical experts, results of modelling exercises could play an increasing role in the future decision making process.

Following the landmark Paris agreement, policy makers are under pressure to adopt policies that rapidly deliver deep, society-wide decarbonisation. Deep decarbonisation requires more durable policies, but not enough is known about if and how they actually emerge. This book provides the first systematic analysis of the determinants of policy durability in three high-profile areas: biofuel production, car transport, and industrial emissions. It breaks new ground by exploring how key European Union climate policies have shaped their own durability and their ability to stimulate supportive political dynamics in society. It combines state-of-the-art policy theories with empirical accounts of landmark political events such as 'Dieselgate' and the campaign against 'dirty' biofuels, to offer a fresh understanding of how and why policy makers set about packaging together different elements of policy. By shining new light on an important area of contemporary policy making, it reveals a rich agenda for academic researchers and policy makers.

This timely publication offers a fresh scholarly assessment of political advertising across the EU, as well as an insight into differing political and regulatory systems related to political advertising in the individual member states. With a detailed focus on the images and communication styles that characterised the 2014 European Parliament election campaign, this edited collection evaluates political advertising across the EU using empirical data to compare and contrast styles and approaches in different members. This work allows the authors to offer an important evaluation of the similarities and differences in the posters and broadcasts used to win public support in the 2014 campaign at the time of the great European recession and financial crisis, specifically looking at the place of posters and video commercials. This book will appeal to researchers and students of political communication, political science, history, European studies as well as candidates and campaign workers who want a more comprehensive understanding of the representation of Europe in political adverts at the 2014 elections.

Publicat a: Media and information literacy and intercultural dialogue. MILID Yearbook 2013 ; The recognition of media literacy in the European Audiovisual Services Directive (Art. 37) and the consequent development of the media literacy indicators -applied to all people, even youths and children (is a result of a long process in which organizations such as UNESCO1 and the European Commission (EC) have played an important role, and not only in the development of the public dimension of media literacy but also in the acceptance of the importance of media education in the political agenda. This article briefly describes the long road that has been needed for Media iteracy to be addressed within the European Union's Public Policy. To do this we draw on the documents by the European Union and UNESCO related to Media Literacy, Media Education and, recently, Media and Information Literacy. These play a key role in understanding the process.

Sea level rise (SLR) is projected to have severe consequences for people and assets in European coastal areas. Planning for SLR is a critical step to ensure timely and adequate responses. Despite our rapidly increasing understanding of SLR impacts and the need to adapt, few studies have looked at how countries are planning for SLR. We surveyed experts from the 32 European countries with a coastline about how their country is planning for SLR. Our online survey focused on four areas: (1) whether SLR planning exists and at what level of government; (2) which climate information and scenarios are used in planning; (3) what planning horizons and corresponding levels of SLR are used; and (4) how uncertainty in handled and whether high-end sea level rise is being considered in planning. Additionally, we asked experts to assess the status of sea level rise planning in their country. Our results indicate that most coastal countries in Europe are planning for SLR, but 25% still do not. We find that the planning horizon 2100 is most common and many countries are considering around 1m (adjusted for local conditions) of SLR at that point in time. However, there are significant differences between countries, which may lead to unequal impacts, over time. We also find that RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 are the most widely used climate change scenarios, suggesting that countries are considering high-end climate change in planning, although this does not mean they consider high amounts of SLR. Important questions remain about how planning is realized into levels of protection or preparedness and whether the amounts of SLR and planning horizons currently in use will lead countries to act in time.

The aim of this article is to present a general forecast of the development of processes of legal integration in the European Union in the coming years. The European Union is in 'multi-crisis', which may force the member states to adopt an organizational development scenario based on differentiation. The selectivity of this differentiation is understood both in terms of the heterogeneity of integration in some areas and the reduction in the number of states fully participating in integration. An analysis of the current trends and solutions proposed and taken by EU decision-makers shows that the EU legal system is not subject to federalization, but in fact the tendency to deepen integration does not conflict with intergovernmentalism. The multiplicity of problems resulting from the multi-crisis will most likely require the deepening of the current differentiation mechanisms and the emergence of new ones. ; The aim of this article is to present a general forecast of the development of processes of legal integration in the European Union in the coming years. The European Union is in 'multi-crisis', which may force the member states to adopt an organizational development scenario based on differentiation. The selectivity of this differentiation is understood both in terms of the heterogeneity of integration in some areas and the reduction in the number of states fully participating in integration. An analysis of the current trends and solutions proposed and taken by EU decision-makers shows that the EU legal system is not subject to federalization, but in fact the tendency to deepen integration does not conflict with intergovernmentalism. The multiplicity of problems resulting from the multi-crisis will most likely require the deepening of the current differentiation mechanisms and the emergence of new ones.