Suchergebnisse

"The paper critically addresses some of the existing theoretical gaps within constructivist norm research and proposes an analytical framework for capturing and analysing non-linear variation in states' normative positioning. The study then examines the various stances Russia has been selectively adopting in the process of its internalisation, contestation and revision of the international election observation norm throughout 2000-2012. The analysis reveals that until recently Russia had been primarily adopting a 'reformist' rather than 'revolutionary' stance, - only episodically questioning the norm's legitimacy and avoiding open violations -, and stresses the importance of non-material constraints on normative revisionism." (author's abstract)

Normen und Standards sind integraler Bestandteil der digitalen Transformation. Unternehmen und Anwender finden jedoch eine immer komplexere Standardisierungs- und Normungslandschaft vor. Das Buch leistet einen wichtigen Beitrag, um diese Komplexität besser zu durchdringen. Im ersten Teil "Normen und Standards anwenden" werden Recherche- und Analysetools vorgestellt, die Bedeutung von Normen für die Verbreitung neuer Technologien diskutiert und Referenzarchitekturmodelle detailliert erklärt. Im zweiten Teil "Normen und Standards erstellen" werden innovative Methoden zur Konsensfindung, die unternehmerische Entscheidung in Bezug auf Normung, Patentierung, Offenlegung und Lizenzierung, die Rolle der Open-Source-Communities in der Normung sowie das Thema Cybersicherheit in den Blick genommen. Die Autoren aus Wissenschaft und Praxis liefern Unternehmern, Normungsorganisationen sowie politischen Entscheidungsträgern konkrete Entscheidungshilfen und Anregungen für die Anwendung und Erstellung von Normen und Standards.

There are growing connections between the IR constructivist focus on norms and norm contestation and Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA). FPA has long had a focus on agency within the state, particularly individual and group-based decision-making. Early constructivist work, by contrast, tended to prioritize agency outside of the state – focusing on norm entrepreneurs and transnational advocacy– and then the state itself in the norm institutionalization process. This led to critiques from FPA scholars that it dismissed human agency. Norms research, however, has evolved. It has moved away from an ontologisation of norms – which focused on structural effects rather than on their socially constructed quality – to examine the importance of norm contestations, practices whereby a diversity of societal agents working across the international/domestic divide seek to contest norm meaning. This leads to a focus on how norms are implemented at the domestic level and creates a closer engagement between constructivism and FPA.

The objective of this article is to analyze and evaluate the modifications that were made in the National Regulation of Environmental Quality Standard (ECA) for Air, which had as its beginning, the approval of Supreme Decree N ° 044-98-PCM, in which creates the National Regulation for the Approval of Environmental Quality Standards and Maximum Permissible Limits and over the years was modified and updated, currently is in effect Supreme Decree 003-2017-MINAM, where standards are approved of Environmental Quality (ECA) for the Air; This involves the principles of legal security, non-retroactivity of the rules and progressivity or gradualism. For this purpose, a recount of the national environmental legislation from the Environment and Natural Resources Code will be carried out, as well as concepts and research related to environmental quality will be developed.

Social scientists have argued about the role of political beliefs in highly charged policy debates among scientific experts. In debates about environmental hazards, the focus of contention is likely to rest on the appropriate scientific assumptions to inform safety standards. When scientific communities are polarized, one would expect to find systematic differences among combatants in the choice of appropriate assumptions, and variation in the application of "precaution" in standard setting. We test this proposition using an experiment applied in a mail survey format to groups of scientists from opposing sides of the nuclear policy debate. Questions were asked about the role of political, social, and epistemological beliefs in reaching scientific and policy judgments about the relationship between radiation dose and cancer incidence in human populations. We find that the precautionary tendency is pervasive regardless of whether the scientist is associated with a putatively pro‐ or anti‐nuclear group. Using a multinomial logit model, we explain a modest percentage of the variation in the choice of preferred judgments about safety standards, but find that distinct sets of political and social values are significantly associated with policy positions among scientists. Implications for scientific advice to policymakers are discussed.

Over the last decade, philosophers of science have extensively criticized the epistemic superiority of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for testing safety and effectiveness of new drugs, defending instead various forms of evidential pluralism. We argue that scientific methods in regulatory decision-making cannot be assessed in epistemic terms only: there are costs involved. Drawing on the legal distinction between rules and standards, we show that drug regulation based on evidential pluralism has much higher costs than our current RCT-based system. We analyze these costs and advocate for evaluating any scheme for drug regulatory tests in terms of concrete empirical benchmarks, like the error rates of regulatory decisions.

AbstractThe paper defends an account of the context-sensitivity of norms that draws on the resources of counterfactual conditionals. The account combines two assumptions: the assumption that permission is rule-abiding performance in some contextually relevant situations; and the assumption that the contextually relevant situations are picked out by the mechanism that selects the possible worlds relevant for the evaluation of counterfactual conditionals. The account explains the non-monotonicity of permissions and solves a puzzle, raised by Timothy Williamson, about the seeming failure of permissions to distribute over conjunction. In the domain of epistemic norms, the account solves an analogous puzzle and deals successfully with so-called blindspot propositions.