Suchergebnisse

Historically and conceptually, EU law originates in the idea that member States have approved restrictions of national sovereignty in the interests of establishing a common market. In accordance with this idea, significant elaboration or extension of these restrictions must also be approved by the member States or at least by a majority of their representatives in the Council of the Union. The implication is not only that the development of the rules of the common market is dependent on the will of the member States. The further implication is that the rules of the common market and the rules of Union decision-making are separable, in the sense that the latter rules are not affected by the former rules. While such implications are ill-adapted to the pluralist tendencies of integration processes, particularly the participation of third States (that is, non-member States) in these processes, they are confirmed by the formal structure of the EC Treaty.

Three approaches to the development of European Union (EU) citizenship are compared: market ideology, statist ideology, & fundamental rights. Market ideology is simply too limited a basis for the development of EU citizenship. Statist ideology may be compatible with the development of EU citizenship, but the established character of European integration processes & the variety of recent political-economic developments render this solution inadequate as well. The treatment of citizenship rights as fundamental rights, on the other hand, is a solution that does not exceed the capacity of the EU legal system, that can be adapted to fit the needs of integration processes, & that is not constrained by statist models of nationality & citizenship. M. Maguire

Between 1914 and 1918, German anthropologists conducted their work in the midst of full-scale war. The discipline was relatively new in German academia when World War I broke out, and, as Andrew D. Evans reveals in this illuminating book, its development was profoundly altered by the conflict. As the war shaped the institutional, ideological, and physical environment for anthropological work, the discipline turned its back on its liberal roots and became a nationalist endeavor primarily concerned with scientific studies of race. Combining intellectual and cultural history with the history of science, Anthropology at War examines both the origins and consequences of this shift. Evans locates its roots in the decision to allow scientists access to prisoner-of-war camps, which prompted them to focus their research on racial studies of the captives. Caught up in wartime nationalism, a new generation of anthropologists began to portray the country's political enemies as racially different. After the war ended, the importance placed on racial conceptions and categories persisted, paving the way for the politicization of scientific inquiry in the years of the ascendancy of National Socialism.

SUMMARY:
В своей статье Эндрю Эванс предлагает ревизию историографии германоязычной антропологической традиции, выделяя труды, в которых обращалось внимание на присущие ей "либеральные" черты. Он противопоставляет этот корпус литературы работам историков антропологии, которые считают данную дисциплину изначально антилиберальной и склонны видеть в работах германских антропологов рубежа XIX – XX вв. предтечи расистских исследований более позднего периода. Эванс констатирует проблему отсутствия комплексной рефлексии о сути и характеристиках либеральной антропологической парадигмы, часто механически отождествляемой с идеологией либерализма (которая, в свою очередь, не является константой даже в контексте истории Германии). Исходя из сказанного, автор предпринимает новаторскую попытку заполнить теоретический пробел в истории антропологии. Статья посвящена развернутому анализу составляющих либеральной антропологической парадигмы в германском научном и политическом контексте. Эванс показывает, что "либерализм" в антропологии следует искать не в наборе неких политических идей, а в общих представлениях о человеке, его происхождении, о прогрессе и рациональности. Либеральная концепция универсализма человеческого происхождения и развития лежала в основе мышления таких антропологов, как Рудольф Вирхов, Юлиус Коллман, Йоханес Ранке и др. Они настаивали на единстве происхождения рас (моногенизм), на необходимости разведения таких категорий, как "раса", "народ" и "культура", а также на том, что "биология" не детерминирует способности к культурному и психическому развитию. Рассматривая научные и идеологические взгляды отдельных антропологов, Эванс не только реконструирует основания либеральной антропологической парадигмы в Германии, но также выявляет ее противоречия и ограничения. В заключительной части статьи он рассматривает причины, по которым либеральная антропология практически перестала существовать в годы Первой мировой войны.

This article uses game theory to explore the situation of bus operators when there is competition on stage-carriage, or local, bus services, as is proposed in the recent British White Paper 'Buses' (Department of Transport, 1984), and as exists in the Hereford area at the time of writing. The Hereford area is one of three so-called 'trial areas' set up under the Transport Act 1980 where the provision of bus services is unregulated, although operators still have to meet the usual safety requirements.
Our model is very simple and could be developed further. Nevertheless it provides some insights into the position of operators under competition, and an interpretation of some of their actions. It also suggests one rationale for regulation. Regulation can be seen as a device to avoid the worst possible outcome for the public that might arise under competition at the cost of giving up the best possible outcome.
Game theory is concerned with the logic of decision-making in situations where outcomes depend on the decisions of two or more autonomous agents, and each agent therefore has only partial control of the outcomes.