Suchergebnisse

La presión internacional, que ha llevado a reconocer el derecho de los adolescentes a desarrollar su currículo formativo en una escuela sana y segura, ha hecho que, en los últimos treinta años, los centros escolares hayan tenido que implementar planes antiacoso. El artículo presenta una revisión sistemática y actualizada de los principales métodos y técnicas antiacoso que se aplican en el mundo, estableciendo sus pros y sus contras. Básicamente, los métodos se clasifican en tres grupos: métodos integrales reactivos, para reprimir al acosador de diferentes maneras; métodos integrales proactivos, para utilizar estrategias basadas en la prevención y la solución amistosa de problemas; y métodos híbridos, no integrales o parciales, que abordan solo una parte de la intervención sin reconocer el problema en su conjunto. Se analizan los 39 métodos más importantes que se utilizan en países democráticos sobre la base de su influencia, su impronta histórica y su firmeza metodológica. ; Over the last thirty years, schools have found it necessary to implement anti- bullying policies, as a result of strong international pressure to recognize the right of adolescents to receive their education in a healthy and safe envi-ronment. This article presents a systematic and updated review of the main anti-bullying methods which have been developed worldwide, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. Broadly speaking, the methods can be categorized into those that involve comprehensive reactive strategies to repress the bullies in different ways, comprehensive proactive strategies based on the prevention and resolution of problems through mediation and negotiation, and hybrid methods, which are non- comprehensive or partial and tackle only one part of the intervention without considering the problem as a whole. The 39 most important methods developed in democratic countries on the basis of their influence, their historical significance and their methodological solidity are analyzed.

Vulnerability came to be a cardinal term for the humanitarian politics of life. On the one hand, it is naturalised as a shared condition and, at the same time, as it is linked to the recognition of specific needs, it becomes a condition for accessing certain rights. As a concept vulnerability tries to conjugate a theoretical aporia: all human beings are vulnerable, but certain subjects or groups are more so. This dilemma becomes particularly relevant in the field of international protection, where obtaining the label of vulnerable constitutes a crucial stake in accessing the right to stay. Through fieldwork research in eastern Sicily, the article moves from the recognition of certain discontinuities in this field. On the one hand, the margins for declaring vulnerable all actors involved in the field of reception, including so-called natives, have been extended. On the other hand, the possibilities have been reduced, through an attempt to improve the efficiency and quality of assessment procedures, which should include a transcultural sensitivity. The article, therefore, engages in an analysis of vulnerability policies within contemporary asylum governance, considering both those deployed by public service providers and by migrants themselves. Showing that the institutional allocation of the status of "vulnerable" is the result of complex and ambivalent practices, involving different actors, logics and discourses, the article explores the institutional will to both relativise and absolutise its work. Also illuminating the dimensions of political economy and structural vulnerability, the text attempts to articulate three levels that are implicated in the use of the category of vulnerability in immigration policies. The article concludes by offering some considerations regarding the controversial opportunity to continue to involve anthropology within this field of study. ; La vulnerabilità diventata un vocabolo chiave della politica umanitaria sulla vita. Da un lato viene naturalizzata come una condizione condivisa e, al contempo, in quanto connessa al riconoscimento di bisogni specifici, diventa condizione per accedere alla titolarità di alcuni diritti. Alla base del concetto si trova un'aporia concettuale: tutte le persone sono vulnerabili, ma alcuni soggetti o gruppi lo sono di più. Questo dilemma diventa particolarmente rilevante nel campo della protezione internazionale, dove l'ottenimento dell'etichetta di vulnerabile costitutisce una posta in gioco determinante nell'aver accesso al diritto di restare. Attraverso una ricerca di campo in Sicilia orientale, l'articolo si muove dal riconoscimento di alcune discontinuità in questo ambito. Da un lato si sono estesi i margini per dichiarare vulnerabili tutti gli attori coinvolti nel campo dell'accoglienza, anche i cosidetti autoctoni. Dall'altro, le maglie si sono ridotte, attraverso un tentativo di affinamento delle procedure di valutazione, che dovrebbero includere una sensibilità transculturale. L'articolo si dedica quindi all'analisi delle politiche sulla vulnerabilità all'interno della governance dell'asilo, considerando sia quelle dispiegate dagli operatori dei servizi pubblici che dalle stesse persone migranti. Mostrando che l'allocazione istituzionale dello status di "vulnerabile" è il risultato di pratiche complesse e ambivalenti, che coinvolgono attori, logiche e discorsi differenti, l'articolo esplora la volontà istituzionale di relativizzare e al contempo assolutizzare il proprio lavoro. Illuminando anche le dimensioni legate all'economia politica e alla vulnerabilità strutturale, l'analisi cerca di articolare tre livelli che sono implicati nell'utilizzo della categoria della vulnerabilità nelle politiche immigratorie. L'articolo si chiude, infine, proponendo alcune considerazioni riguardo alla controversa opportunità di continuare a implicare l'antropologia all'interno di questo campo di studio.

The European Union (EU) and Faroe Islands, a small self-governing archipelago under the sovereignty of Denmark, both belong to the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Commission (NEAFC). NEAFC is a regional fisheries management organisation (RFMO) which is responsible for the management of, inter alia, Atlanto-Scandian herring. NEAFC parties have a long-term management plan in place for Atlanto-Scandian herring. Based on recommendations from the International Council for the Exploration of Seas (ICES) the parties set a total allowable catch (TAC) for the herring and divide this among the contracting parties each year. At the 2012 consultations between the NEAFC parties the Faroe Islands requested a larger share of the TAC. The Faroe Islands left the consultations after the other parties repeatedly refused this request. It was granted a share of the TAC by the other four states in its absence. It then set its own catch quota far above this allocated share. In response the EU put in place port state measures to prevent Atlanto-Scandian herring from entering the EU. This included an import ban and a ban on the use of EU ports by Faroese vessels. The EU took this action under Council Regulation (EC) No. 1026/2012 (Shared Stocks Regulation) which allows measures to be imposed against third countries that allow non-sustainable fishing of common or straddling stocks. This includes measures taken against RFMO partners for non-compliance with RMFO laws, as RFMOs are generally set up to conserve straddling fish stocks. This Regulation was promulgated in line with a number of multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) such as UNCLOS and the United Nations Fish Stocks Agreement (UNFSA). The Faroe Islands challenged the Shared Stocks Regulation and the specific Implementing Regulation imposing the port state measures in both the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and a Tribunal constituted under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However the matter was settled before either of these tribunals could hear the case. The dissertation interrogates whether the EU Regulations are consistent with WTO law, specifically the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), using the facts of the Atlanto-Scandian herring dispute. Chapter I sets out the background to the dispute, and explains the concepts of illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing, and port state measures. Chapters II and III of the dissertation consider the consistency of the EU Regulations with the GATT. Chapter II finds that the EU Regulations contravene one or more of Articles I, V and XI of the GATT (the substantive provisions). Chapter III considers whether these measures, having contravened one of the GATT substantive provisions, may be justified under Article XX of the GATT (the exceptions provision). Chapter III concludes that, although well-crafted, the EU Regulations may still not be justifiable under the Article XX Chapeau in the particular circumstances of the herring dispute, based on principles in previous WTO cases. Chapter IV considers the relationship between multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) relevant to IUU fishing and WTO agreements, to determine whether the EU Regulations could be considered GATT-consistent by reference to these MEAs or whether the MEAs could override WTO law. Chapter V concludes.

Das entscheidende Thema der russischen Fachzeitschriften ist auch im Jahr 2000 die Frage nach dem Platz Rußlands in der Welt, nach seinem Verhältnis zur Staatengemeinschaft, insbesondere zu den Staaten, in denen, wie in Rußland formuliert wird, die "goldene Milliarde" lebt, also zu den entwickelten Industriedemokratien, zum "Westen", zu Europa. Welchen Weg kann, welchen Weg soll Rußland gehen? Und vor allem: mit wem? Und womit, mit welchen Mitteln kann es sich seinen "Platz an der Sonne" sichern? Gleichzeitig rückt das Thema "Sicherheit" mit all seinen Aspekten immer mehr in den Vordergrund. Dabei geht es insbesondere um die amerikanischen Pläne zur Errichtung eines Systems zur Abwehr strategischer Raketen (NMD) und die russische Reaktion darauf. Darüber hinaus sind in den Fachzeitschriften zunehmend gewichtige Stimmen zu vernehmen, welche die generelle Haltung der politischen Klasse Rußlands kritisieren und ihr Regression in überholtes Denken vorwerfen. (Autorenreferat)

"B-164031 (2)." ; Cover title. ; "ID-77-15." ; Publication date stamped on cover. ; Mode of access: Internet.

Mitte Juni 2001 fand das sechste Gipfeltreffen der "Shanghaier Fünf" (S-5) - mit den Mitgliedstaaten China und Russische Föderation sowie den direkt an China angrenzenden ehemaligen Sowjetrepubliken Kasachstan, Kirgistan und Tadschikistan - statt. Auf diesem Gipfel nahmen die S-5 mit Usbekistan nicht nur ein weiteres Mitglied auf, sondern konstituierten sich gleichzeitig neu als "Shanghaier Organisation für Zusammenarbeit" (SOZ). Das S-5-Gipfeltreffen wurde in den westlichen Medien überwiegend als Versuch interpretiert, ein Gegengewicht oder einen Gegenpol zum Westen und den USA aufzubauen. Als möglicher Ansatz für ein Sicherheits- und Kooperationsarrangement in der Region und als Modell für den weiteren asiatisch-pazifischen Raum wurde die Gruppierung hingegen bislang praktisch nicht beachtet. Vom Westen weitgehend unbemerkt, ist mit den S-5 bzw. nun der SOZ im Laufe des letzten Jahrzehnts eine - zumindest dem eigenen Anspruch nach - multilaterale Organisation regionaler Kooperation entstanden, die ihren Ausgangspunkt in einer konkreten Problemstellung hatte, nämlich dem ungeklärten und umstrittenen Grenzverlauf zwischen China und der ehemaligen Sowjetunion. Die beteiligten Staaten selbst präsentieren die SOZ als Beitrag zur Multipolarisierung der Welt und als regionale Antwort auf die ökonomische und informationstechnologische Globalisierung präsentiert wird. Kernanliegen aber ist regionale Sicherheit. Die Studie bietet eine erste systematische Bestandsaufnahme der Entwicklung der S-5/SOZ, um Probleme, Perspektiven und Erfolgsaussichten zu bewerten. Dabei stehen folgende Fragen im Vordergrund: Welche konkrete Problemlage und gemeinsamen Interessen liegen dem S-5-Prozeß zugrunde? Wie hat sich das Forum entwickelt und welche Ergebnisse und Übereinkünfte wurden bislang erzielt? Können die S-5 tatsächlich als ein multilaterales Forum bezeichnet werden, an dem alle Mitglieder gleichberechtigt partizipieren? Oder entpuppt es sich letztlich als bilaterale Plattform, mit Hilfe derer Rußland und China ihre Interessen und Ansprüche in Zentralasien ausbalancieren? Wie sind die Perspektiven der neu gegründeten SOZ für die verschiedenen Bereiche der angestrebten Kooperation - Wirtschaft, regionale Sicherheitspolitik, "Weltpolitik" - einzuschätzen? Kann dem sicherheitspolitischen Arrangement der S-5 Vorbild- und Modellfunktion für den ost- und südostasiatischen Raum insgesamt zugesprochen werden?