Suchergebnisse

This report concerns the Directive on combating the sexual abuse and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography (SAD). It assesses the room for flexible implementation it provides and the way in which EU Member States have made use of this. The sample of Member States includes Czech Republic, Germany, Ireland and the Netherlands. The Directive includes various ways to allow for flexible implementation. The directive establishes thresholds for the maximum terms of imprisonment that the Member States should include in their laws (minimum harmonization). The directive equally contains provisions with elaboration discretion for the Member States, allowing them to further flesh out the content of these provisions in national law. This is especially the case with regard to the provisions on prevention and protection of victims. The directive further contains open-worded and non-defined terms which also allow for differentiated implementation. Our analysis demonstrates that implementation legislation varies quite substantially across the Member States. Frequently, the national implementation strategy has been informed by the wish not to unnecessarily change existing laws. From an input legitimacy perspective this may be criticised, but also be understood from the particular nature of criminal law and legislation. This report has not identified major implementation problems, but especially the open worded provisions may create legal uncertainties.

The concept of transparency can be applied to nearly every domain of human activity. In each of these diverse domains transparency is thought to provide the public with information in order to make reasoned judgements: be it information about who to vote for, who to employ, which medications to take, or which Non Governmental Organization to support. If people are sufficiently informed, the argument goes, they are able to hold political officials accountable, find more competent staff, and even punish mismanagement and corruption. As Bessire (2005) puts it, "transparency is strongly related to information – and information is power" (p. 429). This line of reasoning ignores the fact that the availability of information is not the only aspect of accountability. If the public does not know what is happening behind closed doors, it naturally has no incentive – and indeed no chance – to hold somebody accountable necessary. As well as having access to relevant information, people must have measures at their disposal to punish responsible actors.

If you search for ´transparency´ on an internet search engine, it will provide more than 87 million hits to choose from. By clicking through the results, a diverse variety of types of transparency can be found, ranging from governmental or state transparency to transparency in the financial sector to transparency in sports. While some hits provide state or corporate policies on transparency, others refer to organizations that push for increased openness of organizations. Transparency is a concept that can be applied to a broad variety of different situations and domains in our social, political and economic world, often making it difficult to grasp clearly defined conditions. Since transparency seemingly illustrates a concept with unparalleled possibilities of application, it was referred to as a ´buzzword´ throughout this volume. The contributions of this volume sought, however, to give more substance to the 'buzzword'. In which fields of social life do matters of transparency come up? What specific role does it play? Do we understand it in an instrumental or consequential way? Who or what is at the focal point of transparency – individuals, public persons, institutions or professions? The answers to these questions, which seek to define the characteristics and criteria of transparency, and the expectations attached to the concept will differ from case to case. What is needed, therefore, is further refinement of what is actually meant when speaking about transparency. Such refinement is inevitably context-based. This is exactly what this volume aimed to do: it analyzes the concept of transparency within specific cases and attempts to show what implications it can have for individuals, politics, social media, international development aid and the pharmaceutical industry. In this regard, the approaches of our authors followed the rationale that transparency is not to be understood as a value in itself, but as instrumental in achieving specific objectives.

What are the consequences of EU politicization for the EU and European societies? This book shifts the analytical focus from EU politicization processes to their empirical and normative research on the effects of politicization on public opinion, public discourses, policymaking and European integration.