Suchergebnisse

This paper analyzes how the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety, a global regime governing trade in genetically modified organisms (GMOs), is influencing agricultural biotechnology policy choices in developing countries/emerging economies. Through empirical analysis of Mexico, China and South Africa, we examine whether discursive and/or institutional change has followed the negotiation and implementation of the Cartagena Protocol in these countries. We find that, although trade and market competitiveness concerns are driving biotechnology policy choices in all three cases, a precautionary biosafety discourse has gained greater legitimacy as a result of the Cartagena Protocol, empowering those domestically who voice such concerns. Related to that, debates and/or decisionmaking processes in this controversial area have become more inclusive in all three countries—an important influence of the Cartagena Protocol.We also find persisting regulatory diversity rather than harmonization of biosafety regulatory frameworks in our three countries, with international trade linkages and domestic politics playing an important mediating role in determining Protocol influence.

The Paris Agreement's aspirational 1.5 degree temperature target has given further impetus to efforts to imagine (and seek to govern) transformative and uncertain climate futures. This brings to the fore multiple challenges in the search for anticipatory governance and the role herein for climate foresight. Foresight entails processes to envision challenging futures and question limiting assumptions about what futures are possible, but these processes also impact upon present-day politics. While foresight-related activities are proliferating in sustainability research and planning, critical social science scrutiny of such processes remains minimal. Two key gaps in understanding are: (a) the link between foresight, planning and policy change; and (b) the very prospects of relying on foresight in the present to steer largely unknowable futures. In addressing these gaps, we review the field of climate foresight research here, situating it within a broader interdisciplinary body of literature relating to anticipation and anticipatory governance. In doing so, we identify a conceptual lens through which to analyze the political implications of foresight processes, and apply it to the case of two ongoing foresight initiatives. We conclude with noting the urgent need for further research on the role of foresight within anticipatory climate governance in a post-Paris era.

AbstractThis article analyzes the interplay between transparency and accountability in multilateral climate politics. The 2015 Paris Agreement calls for a "pledge‐and‐review" approach to collective climate action with an "enhanced transparency framework" as a key pillar of the Agreement. By making visible who is doing what, transparency is widely assumed to be vital to holding countries to account and building trust. We explore whether transparency is generating such effects in this context, by developing and applying an analytical framework to examine the link between transparency and accountability. We find that the scope and practices of climate transparency reflect (rather than necessarily reduce) broader conflicts over who should be held to account to whom and about what, with regard to responsibility and burden sharing for ambitious climate action. We conclude that the relationship between transparency and accountability is less straightforward than assumed, and that the transformative promise of transparency needs to be reconsidered in this light.

AbstractEnvironmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

Environmental justice issues have been incrementally but consistently covered within this journal in the last two decades. This article reviews theoretical and empirical approaches to justice in INEA scholarship in order to identify trends and draw lessons for the interpretation and implementation of the 2030 Agenda and for living within environmental limits. Our review traces how justice considerations were initially covered within new institutionalist scholarship on collective action and social practices, to conceptualizing justice as 'access and allocation', to newer notions of planetary justice. We link these trends to scholarship on diverse epistemologies and typologies of justice, including conservative, corrective, distributive and procedural justice, and examine their operationalization within the empirical domains of climate, water and sustainable development. In concluding, we draw out implications for the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda. We argue that a just approach is essential to living within environmental limits, with greater synergies needed between collective action and social practice approaches. While justice can be unpacked for practical and political reasons into access and allocation, we find that (procedural) access considerations are more politically palatable in practice than a concern with allocation (distributive justice), which remains much more contested. As such, dominant approaches promote 'conservative' or thin market-based notions of justice. We conclude by noting that just allocation is a precondition to just access. A failure to prioritize and achieve more corrective and distributive forms of justice will, without doubt, contribute to exacerbating global ecological degradation.

Intro -- Preface -- Contents -- Contributors -- Part I: Ethical Aspects of Geriatric Psychiatry -- Chapter 1: Aging: Balancing Autonomy and Beneficence -- Introduction -- Ethical Frameworks in Medicine and Research: Integration of Autonomy and Beneficence -- Physiologic Changes of Aging that Can Impact Autonomy -- Autonomy in the Clinical Encounter -- Beneficence in Clinical Practice -- Situations Where Autonomy and Beneficence May Conflict in Older Adults -- Case #1 -- Case #2 -- Case #3 -- Case #4 -- Discussion -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 2: The Capacity to Make Medical Decisions -- Introduction -- Components of a Capacity Assessment -- Making a Determination of Lack of Capacity -- Performing a Capacity Assessment -- Clinician Confidence in Performing Capacity Assessments -- Medical Decision-Making and the Elderly -- Medical Decision-Making and Dementia -- The Role of Standardized Cognitive Assessments and Capacity Assessment Tools -- Conclusions -- References -- Chapter 3: The Capacity to Live Independently -- Introduction -- Risks and Benefits of Institutionalization -- Assessment of Capacity to Live Independently -- Decisional Capacity -- Executive Capacity -- Cognitive Assessment -- Functional Assessment -- Framework of Evaluation -- Implications of Incapacity to Decide to Live at Home -- Conclusion -- References -- Chapter 4: The Capacity to Manage Finances -- Case Example -- Introduction -- Financial and Testamentary Capacity -- Financial Capacity -- Testamentary Capacity -- Neuroanatomy and Imaging -- Relevant Assessment Methods -- Discussion -- References -- Chapter 5: Capacity to Manage Critical Domains of Living: Driving, Voting, and Sexual Expression -- Driving -- Regulating Safety -- Clinician Advice -- Capacity Evaluation -- Legal Obligations -- Voting -- Gatekeepers -- Voting Facilitation -- Capacity Evaluation.